U.S. SEES GROWTH OF AIDS-PUNITIVE LAWS

Puerto Rico, North Dakota, and Alaska are setting an unwelcome pace for a growing rash of regulations and penalties that affect people with AIDS as well as those suspected of being HIV-positive, in their relation to state or territorial laws. Not since the mid-1980's has there been such a worrisome crop of potentially punitive measures.

Reports from San Juan monitored by GayToday, indicated at first that the Puerto Rico Health Department had decided to scrap its controversial HIV rules, including a requirement that HIV-positive individuals turn over lists of their sex partners to the state. Nationally acclaimed activist, Ann Northrop, representing ACT UP in New York, says that such is not the case.

"That the controversial rules had been eliminated," says Northrop, "is a rumor that had been planted by the government in the San Juan Star. It then has been repeated several times in various venues. The fact is, there is a commission appointed by the government supposedly represented with eight government representatives and eight community representatives--although no one has any confidence that the community is really represented--and the commission has basically been meeting in secret and not in public hearings and is due to report-- on Wednesday, May 7--their deadline for issuing a report--on whether or not these regulations should go into effect."

Among other provisions that characterize the Puerto Rican Health Department's worrisome canon is one that would allow officials to force any patient suspected of being HIV positive to submit to blood tests. A requirement that doctors must report their patients' names, addresses, phone and pager numbers has also caused havoc in San Juan. AIDS activists have long contended that such rulings frighten many individuals away from testing sites, fearing personal/ social exposures.

North Dakota's Governor has signed a bill which becomes law on July 1 and which will allow that state to confine people suspected of having HIV for up to five days with no criminal charges filed. During this period prison doctors may examine those under suspicion. This law, according to the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, makes North Dakota the first state to legalize the confinement of people suspected of having HIV.

"This is one of the most chilling and dangerous laws enacted this year," says Kerry Lobel, the NGLTF executive director. Lawmakers with even minimal knowledge of AIDS issues that has reflected in more enlightened legislation elsewhere, are aware that HIV tests of others does not determine one's own HIV status and that the North Dakota statute is an unwarranted violation of personal privacy, as well as an unconstitutional breach of individual rights. Keith Elson of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is involved in opposing this directive. He can be reached at (701) 255-4727.

On April 25, the Alaska Senate, meeting in Juneau, passed a bill, now law in 27 other states, which punishes people who intentionally expose others to the virus. Anyone who fails to tell a prospective sexual partner that he or she is HIV-positive could be imprisoned, under this bill, for up to 10 years and receive fines of $50,000.

Persons who intentionally spread the virus, according to Senator Johnny Ellis, (D. Anchorage), could be prosecuted under existing criminal laws for assault, reckless endangerment and murder. Ellis pointed out that it is "inappropriate" and "ineffective," to use a separate criminal law to control a communicable disease.

Other critics say that the bill discriminates because it focuses on HIV-infected people but not on people with other potentially fatal diseases, like hepatitis, which can also be sexually transmitted. Worse, as in Puerto Rico, such a law frightens people who may be HIV-positive and who therefore decide against being tested. Tested persons, if they were indeed dianosed as HIV- positive, would get counseling on how to live with their status without being a danger to others.

Theda Pittman, interim executive of the Alaska Civil Liberties Union says of the senators who supported the bill, "I wouldn't want to call them homophobic, but if you're passing a law you really have no need for, then one has to wonder why this is considered a pressing problem."