Opinions
Should we punish the sick?
The wrong approach to infectious disease control
Would you consider calling the police if a coworker showed up at work one day with the flu? As absurd as that may sound, recent developments suggest that the notion of punishing people who are ill is becoming more entrenched and pervasive in American society.
Although new laws have cropped up in several states targeting diseases as diverse as meningitis and hepatitis, no disease is more widely criminalized than HIV. This year, on World AIDS Day (observed annually on Dec. 1), many advocates and public health organizations will be celebrating the dramatic advances in decreasing the number of new infections made possible by successful treatment and prevention.
In major urban cities around the globe — including London, Sydney and San Francisco — health departments are implementing powerful new tools to stop HIV transmission that are working. These include pre-exposure prophylaxis, or PrEP, which can greatly reduce the risk of infection when taken daily. In addition, it has come to light that treating HIV with antiretroviral medications help prevent its spread by rendering people living with HIV virtually noninfectious.
But while these advances are certainly promising, they do not tell the whole story.
The problem is that laws written in response to the AIDS epidemic remain stuck in 1985. HIV-specific criminal laws passed in the 1980s and 1990s at the height of America’s AIDS scare remain on the books. Law enforcement and prosecutors continue to vigorously enforce them, despite their lack of medical knowledge and sometimes without any legal justification. These moves are simply reactionary, based on stigmatizing views of HIV that unfairly punish innocent individuals.
Many HIV-related statutes make it a crime for people living with HIV to engage in a wide range of behaviors without first disclosing their HIV status—regardless of whether HIV could have been plausibly transmitted through their actions. Sometimes mistakenly referred to as “HIV transmission laws,” they make no mention of transmitting the disease or even putting a partner at risk of infection. For example, in Michigan, the law criminalizes any “sexual penetration” without disclosing one’s status—an overly broad formulation that includes many behaviors that cannot transmit HIV. Most HIV-specific state laws are felonies with harsh penalties, ranging from several years to life in prison.
Some states have laws so broadly written that they can be also used to punish a range of harmless nonsexual behaviors. In Tennessee, for example prosecutors regularly charge people living with HIV who spit at or bite police officers.
To that point, a recent report coauthored by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the Department of Justice found that 25 states criminalize one or more behaviors that pose a low or negligible risk for HIV transmission, such as biting or spitting.
Michigan’s law is so badly written that one creative prosecutor used it to convict a woman for giving a lap dance in 2009. A detective explained the incident to the court with a graphic depiction of the woman’s genitals touching the man’s nose. That no one has ever contracted HIV via nasal contact mattered little under Michigan’s questionable (to say the least) law.
In a dozen cases reviewed during research for my book, “Punishing Disease,” accusers falsely claimed that it would take many years to know if a defendant had infected them. But most conventional HIV tests have only a three-to-six month “window” after exposure before patients can receive definitive test results. Court testimony in many cases almost invariably came long after that time period had elapsed.
These inaccurate suppositions directly impact sentencing. In a 2004 case in Davidson County, Tenn., the accuser claimed she wouldn’t know whether the defendant infected her for 10 years. The judge accepted her ignorant claim, ordering the defendant to serve 10 years’ probation and to pay for the woman to be tested for HIV for the next 10 years.
While HIV was originally the singular target of such laws, legislators seeking to “modernize” these laws have begun broadening their scope to include additional diseases such as meningitis and hepatitis – suggesting that the criminalization of sickness is contagious.
Punishment is the wrong approach to infectious disease control. The war on drug’s failure to contain drug addiction should warn us to the pitfalls of punitive approaches to controlling medical problems. Blame and shame are not the tools to protect us from disease; they are instead the fuel that drives epidemics.
Trevor Hoppe, Ph.D. is the author of ‘Punishing Disease: HIV and the Criminalization of Sickness’ and co-editor of ‘The War on Sex.’ He is currently assistant professor of sociology at University at Albany (SUNY).
A right does not need to be banned to be restricted. Sometimes it only needs to be made uncertain.
That is what emerges from a closer examination of adoption access for same-sex couples across different countries. There is no broad legal rollback. What appears instead is a more subtle pattern: rights that remain on paper but become fragile, conditional, and uneven in practice.
Italy provides a clear example.
Since 2023, under the government of Giorgia Meloni, administrative decisions have limited the automatic recognition of both mothers in female same-sex couples, particularly in cases involving assisted reproduction abroad. In practice, many families have been forced into additional legal proceedings to validate relationships already established.
At the same time, Italy has intensified its opposition to surrogacy, extending penalties even to those who pursue it outside the country. Human rights organizations have warned that these measures disproportionately affect LGBTQ families, particularly male couples.
The judiciary, however, has pushed back.
In 2025, the Constitutional Court ruled that a non-biological mother cannot be excluded from legal recognition when there is a shared parental project. It also removed a long-standing restriction that prevented single individuals from accessing international adoption.
Italy has not eliminated these rights. But it has made them unstable.
When a right depends on litigation, judicial timelines, or shifting interpretations, it is no longer fully guaranteed.
In the United States, the structure differs, but the outcome converges.
At the federal level, same-sex couples can adopt. Yet the system varies widely across states.
Data from the Movement Advancement Project show that while some states explicitly prohibit discrimination in adoption, others provide no clear protections. In several states, licensed agencies can refuse to work with same-sex couples based on religious objections.
Access, therefore, is shaped not only by law, but by geography, institutions, and applied standards.
Research from the Williams Institute further complicates the narrative. Same-sex couples adopt and foster children at higher rates than different-sex couples.
The contradiction is clear.
Child welfare is invoked, yet the pool of available families is reduced. Faith is cited, yet it is used as a filter within publicly funded systems.
The consequences are tangible
children remain longer in care
processes become more complex
families face unequal scrutiny
What is happening in Italy and the United States is not isolated. Across parts of Europe, conservative governments have advanced legal frameworks that reinforce traditional definitions of family while limiting recognition of diverse ones.
Adoption is not always addressed directly. But the impact accumulates.
Options are restricted while the language of protection is used to justify it.
There is no need to soften it.
This is not only a debate about family models. It is a decision about who is recognized as family and who must continue asking for permission.
That is not neutral.
It is political.
And when a right depends on where you live, who evaluates you, or how hard you are willing to fight for it, that right is already being weakened.
Opinions
ROSENSTEIN: Chavous for Democratic D.C. Council-at-Large
Committed to fighting for statehood for our 700,000 residents
Kevin Chavous said, “I’m running for D.C. Council At-Large because Washingtonians deserve leadership focused on improving their everyday quality of life. Throughout my career, I’ve worked on the practical business of city government, and public policy, focused on solving real problems, and making government work better for the people it serves.”
Kevin’s experience spans safer streets, affordable housing, early education and school readiness, workforce and economic opportunity, support for seniors, and the day-to-day operations of city government. The knowledge he brings to the office is grounded in experience, clear-eyed oversight, and a commitment to delivering results. His platform outlines his priorities and approach, but as he has said, “it’s not the end of the conversation. I believe the best solutions come from listening and working together.”
Kevin believes safe streets are the foundation of strong neighborhoods. He is committed to having Washingtonians feel secure in their neighborhoods, and working to ensure all public safety efforts are smart, fair, and effective. To Kevin that means an approach focusing on enforcement that works, prevention that matters, and a range of services to stop crime before it happens. Kevin supports smart, effective policing, with a focus on violent crime, and getting repeat offenders off the streets. To do this he will work to strengthen community policing with the aim of rebuilding trust in every community, which will improve neighborhood-level safety. He will introduce legislation to expand targeted mental health and crisis-response services. The goal again, to prevent violence before it occurs. He will work to see government coordinates youth diversion, workforce, and support programs, which can intervene early, and reduce recidivism.
Kevin understands housing stability is essential for families, seniors, and workers, to stay and thrive in D.C. His housing priorities focus on increasing the supply of affordable housing, helping people build long-term stability in the neighborhoods they call home. He will work to increase the affordable housing supply through zoning updates, ADUs, and adaptive reuse of vacant properties. He will submit legislation to strengthen programs that help first-time, and longtime homeowners, buy and then stay in their homes. He will work to expand permanent supportive housing and targeted rental assistance for vulnerable residents, and protect tenants ensuring housing laws are enforced clearly, and consistently.
Kevin believes “every child should enter school ready to learn, with the support needed to succeed from day one. Early investment pays lifelong dividends – for families and for the District.” He will work on the Council to expand early childhood education, and school-readiness programs, citywide. He supports quality and affordable childcare for all children, birth to three, including seeing students begin the school year healthy, by supporting access to medical and dental screenings for all children.
Kevin knows economic opportunity allows families and communities to thrive. He will fight to see D.C.’s growth creates real pathways to good jobs, strong local businesses, and long-term stability for residents in every ward. His approach connects workforce training, worker protections, and neighborhood investment, so that growth benefits the people who live here. He will work to expand job training, apprenticeships, and career pipelines tied to high-demand fields, including construction, healthcare, and infrastructure. He will fight to strengthen First Source and local hiring requirements, so D.C. residents benefit directly from major development projects such as the new RFK site. He will demand the government protect workers by enforcing wage, safety, and labor standards, and holding bad actors accountable. He will introduce legislation to invest more in neighborhood-based economic development, including small businesses, BIDs, and commercial-to-residential revitalization.
Kevin has spoken out for the seniors in our city saying, “seniors built this city – and D.C. must ensure they can age with dignity, security, and independence.” Kevin will work to expand property tax relief and housing supports, so seniors can age in place. He will work with the AG to strengthen protections against fraud, exploitation, and predatory practices targeting seniors. He will support and work to expand nutrition, transportation, and community-based programs, that reduce the isolation many seniors face.
Kevin’s experience working for the Council, in the oversight role he had, gives him a practical understanding of what works, what doesn’t, and how to fix it – without delay. He will use that experience as he works to strengthen agency oversight to ensure laws are implemented as intended, and to improve service delivery by fixing bottlenecks, and outdated processes. Ensuring clear standards and accountability in inspections, enforcement, and permitting. Kevin will demand government use technology responsibly to improve efficiency, while protecting residents from fraud and abuse.
For all these reasons and more, I support Kevin Chavous. The more includes the fact Kevin has spoken out clearly, about the need to fight the antisemitism, Islamophobia, racism, sexism and homophobia, all once again rearing their ugly heads in our society. He will fight to keep ICE out of our city, and to keep immigrants safe. He is committed to fighting for statehood for the 700,000 residents of the District of Columbia, while fighting for budget and legislative autonomy as we work toward statehood.
Again, I urge the voters of D.C. to cast their ballot for Kevin Chavous for DC Council-at-Large.
Peter Rosenstein is a longtime LGBTQ rights and Democratic Party activist.
The state of Tennessee has a long history of political discrimination against its 225,000 LGBTQ citizens. In 2019, a district attorney remarked that gay people should not receive domestic violence protections, and in 2023, for five months in Murfreesboro, homosexual acts in public were illegal, prompting a federal judge to have the ordinance removed.
In 2022, I briefly lived in Tennessee and played rugby with the LGBTQ-inclusive Nashville Grizzlies, who welcomed me with open arms as an ally, teaching me that rugby isn’t always about winning or losing – it’s about creating a safe, inclusive, and joyful space for people looking to feel welcome.
In Tennessee, where 87% of the LGBTQ community has experienced workplace discrimination, and where, each year, countless bills that target their identities are introduced, it can be difficult to feel welcome. The Nashville Grizzlies played rugby with the exuberance of newly liberated people who were finally able to be their authentic selves. I was inspired by their brotherhood.
When I read about the Charlie Kirk Act being passed last week, I felt a visceral need to write about it.
While the bill is presented as legislation that strengthens free speech and encourages greater public discourse on campuses, it would effectively allow a school to expel a student who felt compelled to walk out on a speaker with hateful views, forcing marginalized groups to sit through existentially harmful rhetoric.
And ironically, it doesn’t seem like free speech goes both ways — a Tennessee University administrator lost their job last year for sharing negative views on Charlie Kirk, and countless LGBTQ books have been banned not only in schools, but even in adult libraries.
We like to think that as time moves forward, progress is inevitable, but this isn’t always the case. In a 2023 study, 27% of LGBTQ Tennesseans and 43% of transgender people in the state have considered relocating, forcing them to reckon with leaving home in pursuit of a better life. Nashville Grizzlies Captain Ethan Thatcher told me, “I’ve thought about leaving Tennessee. Hard not to when the government does not want you here. What has kept me here is the Grizzlies community, and the thought that existence is resistance.”
Everybody in our country deserves to feel safe. I thought that was a core value of the American ethos, but apparently, in some states, certain groups are welcome while others are ostracized.
Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee should reject the Charlie Kirk Act.
Tyler Kania is a 2025 IAN Book of the Year nominated author and civil rights activist from Columbia, Conn.
Adoption under suspicion
Second trans member announces plans to resign from Capital Pride board
State Department implements anti-trans bathroom policy
I’m telling the scared little girl I once was it’s okay to feel free
Memorial for groundbreaking bisexual activist set for May 2
Inside the lonely world of MAGA gay men
PHOTOS: Night of Champions
PHOTOS: National Champagne Brunch
‘Big Mistakes’ an uneven – but worthy – comedic showcase
