This is important to me. I performed this show in 1996. It was a performance used to raise money to protect the human rights ordinance in Lansing (sadly we lost that fight, but won it a decade later) and it was a chance for me to mourn the loss of my late partner David May. David passed away July 24, 1996, as I was stepping onstage for the opening night of the Jackson Shakespeare Festival (now the Michigan Shakespeare Festival). On his birthday in May of 1996 I had told him with great excitement about the shows I was doing (Comedy of Errors and the Compleat Wrks of Wllm. Shkspr. (abdridge)). He was delighted, and swooned at the idea of the shows and how much fun they would be. Then he said “I wish I would be here to see it.”

The production in NYC this May features some amazing talent and is a fundraiser for the Sero Project. You can read more about it here. I would truly be thankful to you all for your support and the opportunity to watch the show and share my take on it with you.

You can make your donation here.

Thank you so much for your help!

On April 10, 2013 from 7 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. I will be speaking to the Center for Inquiry in Grand Rapids about the exceptionalism of HIV. The presentation will be held at the Women’s City Club of Grand Rapids, 254 Fulton St. Grand Rapids, MI. The lecture will explore Michigan’s specific laws and surveillance activities as well as the science that shows these particular activities fail as prevention methods.

Here is the Facebook event page, and here is the explanation of the lecture:

The HIV epidemic has been identified for more than 30 years, but the government and social response to the epidemic remains rooted in misinformation, fear and paranoia. The state is secretly collecting data on all those who test for HIV at federally funded clinics, without the permission of those being tested, and then, in some instances, using this information to institute civil actions against those living with HIV, or at risk for the virus. The talk will explore the laws, the theories behind them, and the science that shows the laws are the wrong approach to public health and may in fact be driving the epidemic further underground.

And on April 17, 2013 starting at 5:30 p.m. at the School of Public Health, Room 1655,1415 Washington Heights, Ann Arbor; I will be speaking as part of a community forum related to Michigan’s HIV surveillance activities including a discussion on the state’s HIV Event System. I will be presenting with Trevor Hoppe, a fantastic Ph.D. candidate. The Facebook event page is here.

Finally on April 23, from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. I will be participating in a Community Roundtable on HIV Criminalization. The conversation will occur at the Library of Michigan Lake Superior Room located at 702 W. Kalamazoo St. in Lansing.

Hoping to see some of you at one or all of these presentations.

The efforts of ALEC’s AIDS policy working group were published that year in a 169-page book containing 13 HIV-specific legislative recommendations. Some of those model laws would, after becoming real state laws, go on to effectively criminalize the behavior of people living with HIV and perpetuate a lasting stigma against HIV-positive people. Today, a majority of states have laws on the books that criminalize HIV exposure regardless of whether the virus was transmitted or there was an intention to infect another person with HIV.

ALEC was not alone in trying to find legislative solutions to the HIV epidemic, though its combination of lawmakers and industry insiders was unique. In the late 1980s, federal and state officials across the country were convening special commissions and task forces to address the crisis. These groups — many of which worked in tandem — collectively helped create laws to regulate the conduct of those living with HIV.

The American Independent has reviewed transcripts and reports from some of these task forces in an effort to shed light on the history of HIV-criminalization laws, something that to this day is not widely understood. What these documents demonstrate is that lawmakers and policy experts were responding to an overwhelming fear in America that HIV would impact the broader American population. Underlying many of these legislative actions was a growing fear and perception that HIV-positive people were maliciously, intentionally infecting others.

“As a transwoman living with HIV I’m always worried that if I don’t disclose to my partner before we even approach the bedroom that they’ll turn around and charge me with a crime. When you have to tell a potential partner that you’re trans and poz, there’s always a fear that they will use that information to make your life hell. I try to always disclose online so that there’s a record of them knowing, that way no one can ever come back and claim I didn’t tell them before we hooked up. The fear and danger of being sent to jail just for having sex is strong enough that many times, I won’t even bother trying if I think someone is litigious.” –Dee Borego, 29, Boston. Credit: Philadelphia Gay News.

Corporate-backed response to the AIDS crisis

ALEC’s National Working Group on State AIDS Policy marked the first time the organization had used its power gathering of corporate and legislative interests to address a single issue.

“Every half hour in America someone dies of AIDS!” wrote ALEC’s then-executive director (and former Denver Bronco) Samuel Brunelli and Florida state representative Frank Messersmith, then ALEC’s chairman, in 1989 in their introductory letter published in the AIDS working group’s final report. “Yet, despite this terrible toll, we have been unable to implement a coherent public health strategy for dealing with this modern plague. Instead, we have allowed political special interests to paralyze the legislative process and block effective public health measures. This politicization of the public health process is exacting a deadly price.”

One of the pieces of model legislation drafted by the working group was the HIV Assault Act. This model bill created a felony charge if a person knew he or she was infected with HIV while engaging in “intimate contact” with another person (exposing one’s bodily fluids to another in a way that could transmit HIV); donating blood, organs, or tissues; or sharing intravenous or intramuscular injection equipment.

Other proposed laws included mandatory reporting of identified persons living with HIV, provisions to quarantine persons with HIV, mandatory HIV testing for insurance coverage, and isolation of HIV-positive prisoners (the latter has been overturned by a federal court in Alabama and repealed in Mississippi but remains on the books in South Carolina). The proposed legislation creating testing and partner-notification programs included provisions for governments to access names-based lists of people infected with HIV. The names-based reporting law was justified, in part, as a tool to identify persons to prosecute under the HIV Assault Act.

“Living in a state under HIV criminalization laws impacts my life and others living with HIV simply by virtue of the fact that we constantly live under the fear of spurious accusations of non-disclosure and intentional transmission. Who is to say, in a court of law, how and when I have disclosed to my partners my HIV status? So I'm forced to live under the fear of litigation and imprisonment. I protect from prosecution by disclosing my status each and every time, though without witnesses to my disclosure I worry that it would be impossible to prove in court.” –Ian Finkenbinder, 30, Seattle. Credit: Philadelphia Gay News.

Today, laws addressing the conduct of persons living with HIV can be broken down into broad categories. There are HIV-specific laws, such as those in Missouri or Michigan, which apply to HIV. And there are general criminal laws, such as in Texas or New York, in which people living with the virus are charged with reckless conduct for anything from sex without HIV disclosure to biting.

When ALEC produced its model HIV Assault Act in 1989, nine states had HIV-specific criminal laws on the books. Today, 32 states and two U.S. territories have laws criminalizing HIV exposure, according to the Center for HIV Law and Policy. Only a handful of laws require intent to transmit the virus, and none requires an actual transmission for criminal prosecution to proceed. Since 2010, HIV-related criminal charges have led to more than 80 prosecutions against people living with HIV in the U.S., according to the LGBT legal advocacy group Lambda Legal.

Michael Tanner, who authored ALEC’s 1989 book The Politics of Health: A State Response to the AIDS Crisis, told The American Independent in a phone interview that the AIDS task force was “unique” in the history of ALEC. While the organization often issued policy books and model legislation, including on health care issues, Tanner said it was the first time ALEC focused its energy on one specific issue. He noted that ALEC has since done so with other issues, like education.

Tanner said ALEC, which brings lawmakers and corporate interests together to hammer out legislative recommendations, came to address the HIV epidemic because of pressure from “private interests.”

Specifically, he recalled that drugmaker Hoffmann-La Roche was a “big mover” and “put up a lot of funding behind publication of the book.”

This pharmaceutical company had the HIV-treating drug zalcitabine (also known as ddC) in clinical trials a couple of years prior. That drug would ultimately win Food and Drug Administration approval in 1992 after three successful trials conducted in cooperation with, among others, the National Cancer Institute.

Hoffmann-La Roche did not respond to multiple interview requests.

The co-chairs of the ALEC working group were J. Brian Munroe of Hoffmann-La Roche and Delaware state Rep. Richard Davis. Representatives from Nationwide Insurance and Alexander Hamilton Life Insurance also served on the AIDS working group.

Michigan state Rep. Susan Grimes Gilbert (formerly known as Susan Grimes Munsell) was tapped to serve on the working group. In a phone interview with the The American Independent, she said she was invited because she had previously headed a Michigan GOP task force on AIDS. That task force led to the Michigan legislature creating a law that criminalized the nondisclosure of one’s HIV status. She said she “shared a lot of the background information we had acquired.”

“At that time people were scared to death of [AIDS],” Grimes Gilbert said.

Reagan’s response to AIDS

Other working group members similarly hailed from other HIV task forces and commissions, thus helping to inform the ALEC group. Information garnered at the federal level was particularly influential.

Long criticized for not doing enough about the AIDS epidemic, which exploded onto the American medical scene in June 1981, President Ronald Reagan established the first Presidential Commission on the Human Immunodeficiency Virus Epidemic in 1987.

The first months of the commission, which deliberated for a year, were plagued by public infighting, leading to the resignation of the chair and another member. The final commission included Richard DeVos, co-founder of Amway and frequent donor to social conservative causes; the late Cardinal John O’Connor, who had served as the archbishop of New York and who openly opposed condoms as an HIV-prevention method; and Penny Pullen, a conservative lawmaker from Illinois.

"For me, it makes me real, real cautious – somewhat scared. I come from the old school where you don't have to disclose to everyone you lay down with, but you gotta have a barrier of protection. ... It's like living like a cat on a hot tin roof. It's a haunting thought. … It's always a threat, always a hint of damn. … You're never comfortable." Jaci Adams, 55, Philadelphia. Credit: Philadelphia Gay News.

“The fourth is some type of federal law, perhaps a withholding of funds, which did or did not encourage states to enact criminal statutes related to the transmission of HIV,” Gault told the commission.

Among the five recommendations laid out in one chapter of the commission’s final report, released in June 1988, the panel called on states to include strong confidentiality provisions in their HIV laws and to refrain from criminally prosecuting people living with HIV for conduct that “did not involve a scientifically established mode of transmission.”

However, none of those recommendations made it into the commission’s top 20 recommendations as presented in the final report’s executive summary. Instead, the commission opined, “The HIV epidemic has highlighted several ethical considerations and responsibilities, including: … the responsibility of those who are HIV-infected not to infect others.”

Many members of the commission opposed criminalization as the first go-to action to curb the spread of HIV. Commissioners were unanimous in their determination that criminalization should only happen after public health departments had exhausted all legally available public health actions. And two of the three legal experts to testify to commissioners said a criminal law would have little impact on the HIV epidemic.

And yet the transcripts of the final executive sessions of the commission reveal that some commission members were overwhelmingly concerned about those “rare” persons who were “intentionally” transmitting the virus or purposely “engaging in activity that would spread the virus.”

References to intentional spread are found throughout the executive session transcripts, such as a discussion on creating public health partner notification laws.

“I’m really concerned that the net effect of this would be that, with regard to intentional spread, which we’re all concerned about, that people will be crippled to act until laws are passed,” said commissioner Theresa Crenshaw, a sex therapist from California.

The late commissioner Frank Lilly, an openly gay man and a geneticist employed by the Albert Einstein College of Medicine of Yeshiva University in New York, told the commission he was worried about the criminalization proposals in the report.

“The one thing that I would like to see done is a further softening on the section of criminalization which I think — I worry about the criminalization section very simply because I think we must do everything possible to keep people from using — acting upon their anger about AIDS by rushing to the district attorney as a first stop,” Lilly said.

In a passage specific to HIV criminalization, Lilly moved that the commission insert the word “knowingly” in the criminalization recommendation. The recommendation was adopted with very little discussion.

The commission’s recommendations, in combination with the transcripts of the hearings and meetings, show that this body intended for HIV criminal laws to be very narrowly tailored and used only to address the behavior of those persons who were intentionally acting with “malice aforethought” to infect others. However, the recommendations on criminalization never made the commission’s executive report, which highlighted the 20 recommendations the commission felt were most important to addressing the HIV crisis. It is unclear why these recommendations did not make the executive report.

As Tanner recalls, the ALEC working group’s process of arriving at final recommendations was also “contentious,” particularly when legislation proposals were HIV-specific, rather than general health policy recommendations. The contention was a result, in part, of the battling ideology represented on the working group, he said.

“I tried to approach all the issues that came before the task force and came before me, as very narrowly defined, dealing with the facts, trying not to get to be emotional about it,” he said.

Tanner said he recalls that former Presidential Commission member Pullen, who testified before the ALEC working group, introduced the model HIV Assault Act during her testimony. Pullen, who now runs the anti-abortion organization Life Advocacy Resource Project in Illinois, declined to comment for this story, saying it was a “25-year-old story.”

Tanner said that no notes or transcripts from the ALEC meetings exist, but he said he remembers that the HIV Assault Act was one of the model bills that generated heated debates. But ultimately, it was adopted by a majority vote.

The Michigan example

Even as the Presidential Commission was struggling to come together, some U.S. states were on a parallel track. In the early 1980s, the death toll from AIDS was mounting, and fear ultimately seized the country as the disease spread from a small group of gay men to children undergoing blood transfusions to the beloved Hollywood icon Rock Hudson, who died of AIDS-related complications in 1985. Lawmakers wandered into this environment of fear, creating laws to fight an epidemic of a virus that respected no laws and understood no boundaries.

In Michigan a legislative package updating the state’s public health laws was introduced in October 1987 by Michael J. Bennane, a Democratic representative from Detroit.

Included in the package was the language that would become Michigan’s HIV disclosure law. It also included legislation, which would become the so-called health threat to others law, that allowed health officials to intervene with those living with HIV using civil court legal proceedings. The legislative package also included legislation that made it a misdemeanor for anyone to disclose someone’s HIV testing information — such as if a person had been tested for the virus or what the results of those tests were.

While the “health threat to others” law is less punitive than the felony disclosure law — which can land a person a four-year prison sentence for engaging in sexual penetration, “however slight,” without first disclosing his or her HIV-positive status — it has come under scrutiny in recent years as allegations have surfaced that health departments in the state have used the law to stigmatize pregnant women and others identified as sexual partners of newly diagnosed HIV-positive people.

As Michigan’s Democratic proposal languished in committee, Republican lawmakers, then in the minority, created their own AIDS task force to explore the issues of the epidemic and to recommend specific legislative reforms to address the crisis. The group issued its report in February 1988.

“An HIV-infected person who knowingly, or with reckless disregard for the safety of others, exposes another to HIV infection by having sexual contact with him or her without first warning that sexual partner about the infection should be subject to criminal sanctions,” was one of the recommendations of the GOP report.

A legislative analysis of the bills from October 1987 outlines possible opposition arguments to the legislation. Copies of draft reports on whether or not to work for repeal of Michigan’s felony disclosure law generated by the Michigan Department of Community Health and obtained by the The American Independent show the department opposed the law because the issue of intentional infection was a “minor problem.” The state GOP House task force came to a similar conclusion.

“In conclusions, the Task Force believes that our compassion and concern for those already afflicted should not blind us to the irresponsible and immoral behavior of a few infected individuals,” the Task Force report reads. “Society, through the enactment of its laws, needs to send a clear and unequivocal message to those who would deliberately or recklessly expose others to infection. By establishing a criminal sanction for such behavior, society has placed them on notice that such behavior will not be tolerated.”

During debates in both the state House and Senate, lawmakers attempted to reduce the proposed disclosure crime from a felony to a misdemeanor.

In an audio recording of a Senate debate on December 29, 1988, Sen. Jack Faxon, a Democrat from the Detroit area, argued against the felony, saying the law would deter the testing of persons at risk.

“Now we’re talking about the incarceration in prison of persons having AIDS so that the disease, instead of being treated, is going to be jailed,” he said.

Later in his floor speech, Faxon said, “This one [law] takes on a certain concentration camp mentality. Where you put into prison a certain category of people who are sick. Now the objectives ought to be to education and safe sex and prevention and all the ways that we know about it, but when you put prison terms for people who have the disease and have to go into court and start proving when they found out and who they saw and who they didn’t see — I think you’re defeating the purposes for which this bill is intended to serve. Senator Kelly’s amendment only makes it a misdemeanor. I would think we should not make it a crime, but rather, we should look to what we can do to help people and educate them. I don’t think criminal sentences work.”

In the end, Michigan’s HIV disclosure law went into effect, as a felony, in 1989.

“We were trying to find a middle ground where hopefully someone could reach out to the person — if there was a person out there continuing to spread the virus – and try and stop it,” Grimes Gilbert told The American Independent. She would soon after take the recommendations of the Michigan GOP task force to ALEC’s working group.

In 1990, Congress adopted an amendment to the Ryan White Comprehensive AIDS Resources Emergency Act that required states to certify with the secretary of Health and Human Services that legal provisions in each state existed to prosecute individuals with HIV who intentionally spread the virus. The secretary was legally forbidden to distribute the money under the act to states unless they certified the ability to prosecute HIV-positive persons for intentional infection. The act provided the first comprehensive funding strategy to address the AIDS epidemic, including money for care, housing, and prevention efforts.

Rethinking the laws

“HIV criminalization adds to my paranoia of state surveillance and the fear of arrest that I already live in as a young queer Muslim man of color. I cannot afford to trust the police or the state like most do. Although I try my best to always disclose my status to my sexual partners, I am not perfect and sometimes my shame has gotten the best of me. I'm blessed to be in a committed and loving monogamous relationship today, but I never know when some trick from my past might decide to use my status against me. But that fear and paranoia does not cripple me and I choose to navigate the world around me accordingly: out and proud as a person living with HIV and fighting for decriminalization and racial justice. Until HIV is decriminalized, state-sanctioned stigma will continue to perpetuate this deadly epidemic and the mass imprisonment of people of color in the United States.” –Hussain Turk, 24, Kalamazoo, Mich. Credit: Philadelphia Gay News.

“I think it would be time to go back,” said Colleen Conway-Welch, a former member of the Presidential Commission, in a phone interview. “In fact, it’s probably past time to go back and subject those laws to scientific scrutiny.”

Former ALEC member Tanner agreed.

“I think it was not well understood at the time,” Tanner said. “I think there was a general belief that this was potentially an epidemic that was going to spread into the general population, that was sort of a guaranteed death sentence, that was extremely transmissible — I think the scientific knowledge has changed in the years since those bills were written.”

Tanner left ALEC years ago and is now employed by the Cato Institute, a libertarian public policy think tank in Washington, D.C.

While he stopped short of calling for a repeal of all HIV-specific laws, he did say they needed to be reviewed.

“Some of the criminalization there really needs to be revisited and narrowed,” Tanner said, noting that he would like to revisit the issues and weigh the positives and negatives of transferring the issue out of the criminal arena and into the civil arena. He also said he would surely frame any legislation he was writing now to include an intent to infect.

The movement to reform or repeal the laws is already under way in some states. The leadership of the Iowa Department of Public Health has recently announced it is backing activists trying to change that state’s law.

And recently the Associated Press reported that a Des Moines lawmaker is planning to introduce a bill that would reduce penalties for people with HIV who have sex without disclosing their disease.

In Michigan the health department is currently concluding a review of the state’s law, while activists in the Grand Rapids area have begun to meet informally to develop a coalition to drive repeal of the law. In Missouri activists and representatives of the state health department have begun meeting to chart a path toward repeal of that state’s law.

On the federal level, the Obama administration’s 2010 National HIV/AIDS Strategy encouraged states to revisit their laws and directed the Department of Justice to prepare technical assistance for states. A DOJ spokesperson said in an email that no state has asked for assistance yet. And yet early in 2013 the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS adopted a resolution condemning HIV criminalization and calling for repeal of the laws.

U.S. Rep. Barbara Lee, a California Democrat, introduced the REPEAL HIV Discrimination Act in 2011. The bill never got a hearing and died when the 112th congressional session ended in January. The legislation had 40 co-sponsors, all Democrats.

Former Michigan Republican lawmaker Grimes Gilbert said she too is on the repeal bandwagon.

“I think it is time to repeal the [felony] law,” she said. “In fact, I don’t do this very often, but I am willing to lobby for that change.”

Evidence of this can be seen at his official Facebook page. When the original Fenuxe magazine story ran, several of his fans weighed in about how sorry they were that he had HIV. Those messages of support have disappeared from his page. So has any mention of HIV.

Now comes news from TMZ  (Thanks to Mark S. King at MyFabulousDisease.com for the hat tip on this TMZ thing) that Thompson is cruising Grindr and passing out the nude shots to bolster his attempts to hook up. No idea if the source for TMZ was told Thompson was HIV-positive — failing to disclose that in Georgia is a felony punishable by up to a decade in prison — but Thompson put the star dazzling action on by announcing in a message to the object of his Grindr.com dreams that he was Honey Boo Boo’s uncle.

I thought Thompson was engaged to be married to Joshua Yarbroughe. Did they call off the engagement? Or is this an open relationship? Personally, I don’t care one way or the other — it’s their relationship.

What I do care about is this is a man who is parlaying his “fame” into an industry of supposedly fighting for LGBT equality and raising HIV awareness. This is a man who, in part of his parlay for fame, claimed to send a man to prison for failing to disclose his HIV-positive status to him and allegedly infecting him; but who refuses to answer even the most simple questions about his claims. This is a man who claims to be engaged yet is cruising Grindr.com, a phone application for hook ups.

OK, so Thompson is hooking up. So what? Well it again puts a bright spotlight onto Thompson’s truthfulness. A recent study just found that half of men who hooked up on Grindr.com did the deed sans condom — you know, bareback. And what does Poodle think of this?

He told us in his Fenuxe interview when he announced he was HIV-positive:

Dino: What is your message to folks having unsafe sex?
Lee: They are damn fools! They are playing Russian roulette; they are playing with their lives and that of their sexual partners

So, “Poodle” where you playing roulette on Grindr? Is that how you got infected and the reason you are not answering all the questions that have been posed about your story? Were you actually complicit in your infection; rather than the innocent victim of a callous ex-lover who selfishly did not disclose to you and infected you?

Thompson, it’s time to own up. Either answer the questions posed a month ago, or admit that you have lied.

I want to be clear here. I don’t care if Poodle is riding raw all over the South. I don’t care if has abandoned condoms — that is his choice and it is a legitimate choice.

I do, however, care about ridiculous hypocrisy. Either things happened the way he claims they did, or they didn’t. But if you want to educate people about HIV, as he claims he does, you have an obligation to be honest. Lying and perpetuating the stigma of “guilty” v. “innocent” people infected with HIV does nothing but increase stigma, harassment and violence against people living with HIV.

And for the record, based on all the evidence we have before us now, I have come to the conclusion that Lee “Uncle Poodle” Thompson has lied. I believe he did so because it was easier than accepting responsibility for his own behaviors and actions. I believe that Thompson lied because his own internalized stigma and fear of HIV left him with the false choice of telling the truth and being demonized for getting infected when “he should have known better,” or creating a perpetrator to blame it on in order to avoid responsibility. It’s a lot easier to place blame on some one else than it is to accept responsibility for yourself and your own actions.

And in the vein, it’s time to hold GLAAD accountable here. The organization which claims to fight for fair representation in the media of LGBT people has nominated the Honey Boo Boo show for an award in their annual awards ceremony. Here’s how the group represents their awards:

The GLAAD Media Awards celebrate outstanding representations of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community and our allies on TV, in film, and in the news. These are the images and stories that bring us closer to equality.

Lying about sending a lover to prison for allegedly infecting you with HIV is not a step towards equality. It is a step backwards. GLAAD needs to call on Thompson to answer the questions and explain what is going on, or withdraw the nomination. No hesitation, period.. Otherwise GLAAD will be complicit in furthering the stigma of people living with HIV. That would violate the group’s mission:

GLAAD amplifies the voice of the LGBT community by empowering real people to share their stories, holding the media accountable for the words and images they present, and helping grassroots organizations communicate effectively. By ensuring that the stories of LGBT people are heard through the media, GLAAD promotes understanding, increases acceptance, and advances equality.

So, it’s time for some accountability. From Fenuxe, who blew the story in the first place; for GLAAD for rewarding this crap; for the mainstream media that has ignored the significant questions of the veracity of Thompson’s claims; and most importantly for Thompson himself.

The evidence is pretty convincing that Thompson’s claim that he prosecuted his ex-boyfriend for infecting him with HIV is simply not true. No law enforcement agency in Alabama or Georgia could find Thompson listed as victim in their databases, nor could they identify a single case that matched the timeline Thompson presented in his interview with the Atlanta based magazine Fenuxe.

I asked 19 very important questions that Thompson needed to answer, if he was truly set on being a voice educating about HIV. I have not heard from Thompson’s PR team. I have not gotten anything but “no comment” from the Discovery Channel.

I also asked questions of the Fenuxe. I have had no email responses or return phone calls from them.

And in the meantime, Thompson’s story has been reported as gospel truth in major outlets all over the country, without reference or mention of the fact that no law enforcement agency can verify his claim.

Silence is part of the stigma that drives HIV. I get it. I understand that blaming an ex-partner for infecting someone with HIV is a very functional way to divert attention from important conversations which require that we take responsibility for our own actions and our own sexual health. But that discomfort is not an excuse for refusing to prove you told the truth, or to answer specific questions about your HIV disclosure.

So, how long with Thompson remain silent and allow his blame-frame allegations to hang out there without verification? And how long will Fenuxe editors and writers shirk their responsibilities as media and respond to the questions they have been asked?

I am guessing that hell will be freezing over before we hear from either party on this.

Oh, wait, I live in Michigan. We have a Hell here. It has frozen over. Thompson and the Fenuxe staff have, in the immortal words of Ricky Ricardo, “some ‘splainin’” to do.

This led to one of my Facebook friends sharing the new HIV awareness campaign from LOGO and the musical Avenue Q. Now, I fully admit I am a show tunes queen, and I love Avenue Q. I think the show is fantastic, so I was expecting the same in your face, thought inducing satire the show characterizes. 

I was sorely disappointed. Before I deconstruct the video, here it is for you to view.

ROD: Do you wanna come in and see my glass figurine collection?

 

RICKY: You mean have sex?

 

ROD: Yes. Yes. Yes, and emphatic yes!

 

RICKY: Cool. Let’s do it. (CUT TO INTERIOR) Hold on, I need to take my meds.

 

ROD: OK. (pause while Ricky takes meds) What are those for?

 

RICKY: You know.

 

ROD: Yeah, OK. So… (Leans in to kiss)

 

RICKY: (Pulling away) Do you really know?

 

ROD: Sure. 

 

RICKY: That I am HIV-positive?

 

ROD: (pulling back) Oh. Well no not that…

 

RICKY: The meds control the virus. I am undetectable.

 

ROD: Right. (pause) Right. 

 

RICKY: You don’t get what that means do you?

 

ROD: No. Not really. 

 

RICKY: The meds keep the virus from replicating, which means I am less likely to be infectious. 

 

ROD: Oh. But you can still spread it? I mean I am negative and I don’t know if I can take that chance. 

 

RICKY: The virus is very hard to spread and when a person — like me — has an undetectable viral load and uses a condom the chance of transmission becomes near zero. 

 

ROD: mmm-hmmm. (Ricky moves in for a kiss, Rod, backs away) I am negative. I don’t know about this…

 

RICKY: When was your last test?

 

ROD: 6 months ago. 

 

RICKY: And you have dated and had sex with other guys since then, right? 

 

ROD: Well, yeah.

 

RICKY: Did you know that nearly half of gay men with HIV are unaware of their infection?

 

ROD: No. 

 

RICKY: So there is a chance you have already had sex with some one with HIV, you just didn’t know it. 

 

ROD: Yeah. I suppose.

 

RICKY: You could be infected and not know it, since you have had sex since your last test. 

 

ROD: I just realized I have a meeting in the morning. I need to go to bed. Can we do this another time?

 

Check out the definition of apartheid on dictionary.com:

“2. any system or practice that separates people according to race, caste, etc.”

Let’s face it — HIV is treated differently than any other infection in America.

When was the last time a person was arrested for a felony for having the flu and spitting at a cop? And when was the last time a family was charged with failing to disclose their child was infected with rotovirus when they sent the child to daycare? Do we expect a person with the flu to disclose that infection to their intimate partners? 

You are welcome to bury your head in the sand and pretend that HIV-positive people are not subjected to separation based on their viral status, but it doesn’t make it any less true. And the truth is, we treat people with HIV differently than we do other illnesses or health conditions — including in most states STIs. 

Beyond the obvious, here are the other reasons I have titled this blog Viral Apartheid:

First, and foremost, this is the title of a book I am writing in relation to HIV and criminal laws. The book is tentatively titled “Viral Apartheid: The Rise of HIV Exceptionalism and the Erosion of American Privacy.” The book, and the lectures I have delivered on the topic, explore how HIV became a health issue turned into a felony infection and how that movement has in some instances eroded our privacy. 

For instance, in Michigan, if you test for HIV through a state funded program and you opt for anonymous testing, the state directs the testing facility to offer you something other than confidential testing. Confidential testing means the testing location knows your name, date of birth and other information about. Anonymous is exactly what it sounds like. So why do they want this? Because they require the information collected for confidential testing to be reported and recorded in the states HIV Event System — a massive database of three quarters of a million entries of people who have tested for the virus, whether they are negative or positive. The state doesn’t tell confidential testers that their information will be reported to this database, where it remains “indefinitely” regardless of their status. 

No such database of persons testing — regardless of whether they are infected or not — for gonorrhea, syphilis or other reportable STIs exists in Michigan. 

Second, HIV remains an infection subjected to massive stigma. Those of us living with the virus are referred to as “unclean.” We are treated as vectors of disease by AIDS Service Organization, public health and governments — not to mention our own communities. Millions of prevention dollars are spent on getting us to prevent transmission to our partners (while ignoring the 20 percent of Americans infected with HIV who do not know they are infected but are 3.5 times more likely to transmit the virus).

In spite of the fact the epidemic has been around for over 30 years, the vast majority of Americans are simply ignorant about the disease, and this exceptionalism feeds this ignorance. 

How ignorant? When I speak to local colleges and universities, I often ask the question, “What is the percent probability of being infected from a one time sexual encounter with a person with HIV?” The responses range from the low end of about 20 percent to the high end of about 90 percent.

The real answer, according to the CDC? The highest probability of sexual transmission of HIV from unprotected sex occurs for the bottom (or passive or receptive) partner in unprotected anal intercourse. The percentage probability of infection? .5 percent. This number does not account for viral suppression of HIV with medications or condom use (96 percent reduction and an 80 percent reduction, respectively). 

The 2012 Kaiser Family Foundation Survey reports that 27 percent of Americans thought you could get HIV from sharing a drinking glass, 17 percent thought one could get infected touching a toilet seat and 11 percent thought HIV could be transmitted by sharing a swimming pool with a person with HIV. (And for those who don’t know, NO none of those are transmission routes for HIV.)

Third, HIV discrimination remains — both overt and covert. One need only look at the incident involving a woman with HIV and a Dearborn Police Officer to know that ignorance fuels discrimination. 

Fourth, many public health advocates want the public to see HIV as just another disease — you know, just like diabetes. The problem is, that just isn’t true. First, diabetes is not subjected to criminal penalties. Second, when a person says they have diabetes, it does not lead to trumped up charges when they get in a scuffle with cops or others (you know like the so-called bio-terrorist in the Detroit area who was charged with bio-terrorism for biting an assailant during a gay bashing incident). Thirdly, being diagnosed with diabetes does not result in people being thrown out of homes, or dis-invited from family meals because they are sloppy eaters. 

And let me be clear, this is not about whether or not a person chooses to have sex with a person who acknowledges they are HIV-positive. (Although I will note that a recent study has found that sero-sorting is the least effective prevention method). This is about treating those with the virus, and frankly, the virus itself, differently than any other disease in America. 

The interview left much to be desired in relation to details and facts, and the time frame presented by Thompson related to his positive test and the prosecution, adjudication and sentencing of his ex-partner triggered red flags for many of us who have covered HIV criminal cases, specifically, and the criminal justice system in general.

Lee Thompson, aka Uncle Poodle. Image Source: Queerty.

Because Thompson does not name the ex-boyfriend, and entertainment blogs about the show and Thompson are mum on the identity of the ex-boyfriend, I spent the last week calling district attorneys and law enforcement in Georgia and Alabama trying to find out where this prosecution happened. Not a single district attorney or law enforcement official I spoke with could find a case to match the facts presented by Thompson, nor could they find a case in which Thompson was the named defendant.

Does that mean Thompson lied? Not necessarily, but it does raise serious questions. First, Thompson lives in Alabama, where, according to Lambda Legal,  transmission of HIV is a Class C Misdemeanor punishable by no more than 90 days in jail and/or a $500 fine. Lambda reports Georgia’s law is a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison. It is unclear where Thompson lived in May of 2012, so I inquired with law enforcement and district attorneys in both states and in every county I could identify as linked to the show and Thompson’s family. It is conceivable that Thompson’s case was adjudicated in another county in Georgia, but very, very unlikely that case was conducted in Alabama.

But, here were the red flag issues raised by the original Fenuxe interview:

1. Thompson says he tested negative at the end of March 2012, then tested again in May of 2012. The May result was positive. Thompson does not provide a date of the positive result, nor of the confirmatory result. He does not identify which test he was tested with. The CDC requires positive test results for rapid testing — the so-called 20 minute test — be confirmed by a blood drawn test series of three tests: ELISA, ELISA, Western Blott.

2. Thompson claims he was “advised” he should press charges, but does not say who advised that.

3. Thompson provides no information related to how long of a time there was between his confirmatory test result and the time he met with health officials for partner notification and epidemiology interviews. In many busy jurisdictions, this time can be as many as 6 or 8 weeks.

4. Thompson indicates that by Jan. 10, 2013 (when the interview was published on Fenuxe) that his ex-partner had been investigated, charged, adjudicated and sentenced. Presuming for a moment that he tested positive on May 1, 2012, that means the entire criminal justice process was completed in 7 months. That just doesn’t fit with the most recent statistics related to time from arrest to sentencing from the U.S. Department of Justice (from 2006):

“Among felons sentenced in state courts during 2006, an estimated 4% were sentenced within 1 month following their arrest, 14% were sentenced within 3 months of their arrest, 33%  were sentenced within 6 months of their arrest, and 67% were sentenced within 12 months of  their arrest (table 4.5). The median time from arrest to sentencing for all felony convictions  was 265 days. The median days from arrest to sentencing was longest for murder (505 days) and sexual assault (348 days) convictions.”

Obviously, there are some serious red flags. I reached out to the production company that produces “Here Comes Honey Boo Boo,” Authentic Entertainment. A production company spokesperson said that the contract with Discovery Channel and TLC required that all questions related to the show had to be handled by the Discovery/TLC publicity department.

“We have no comment,” wrote Laurie Goldberg for the Discovery Channel in response to my questions. They have also thus far refused to make Mr. Thompson available for an interview or to ask him to respond to my questions.

Here are the questions that Mr. Thompson, if he is serious about helping combat the HIV epidemic, needs to answer for the general public.

1. What date did Mr. Thompson test positive?

2. What method of HIV testing was performed for that initial positive test?

3. Was a confirmatory test conducted, and if so on what date was that test done and on what date did Mr. Thompson receive the confirmation?

4. What state and county was Mr. Thompson living in at the time of his HIV positive test?

5. What state/county health department met with Mr.Thompson for partner notification services? What was the date of this meeting?

6. What is the name of the ex-bf Mr. Thompson alleges infected him with HIV?

7. With what law enforcement agency did Mr. Thompson file his criminal complaint?

8. On what date was a warrant issued, and by what county, for his ex-boyfriend on the criminal transmission charge?

9. Were there any other charges the ex-boyfriend was facing?

10. On what dates and times was the ex-boyfriend in court? Which court?

11. How was the case resolved – ie did the ex-boyfriend plea, or was there a jury trial or a bench trial? What date did the resolution occur and with what judge?

12. Did Mr. Thompson provide a victim impact statement to the court at the sentencing hearing? If so, please provide the statement and the date on which it was delivered and the name of the judge and the county in which it occurred. If not, why did Mr. Thompson not provide a victim impact statement?

13. Was the ex-boyfriend ordered to pay any fines or restitution? If so, what were these costs?

14. Mr. Thompson says that he tested positive in May 2012. In July 2012 he announced he was engaged to Joshua Yarboroughe. When did Mr. Yarboroughe and Mr. Thompson meet? When did Mr. Thompson disclose his HIV positive status to Mr. Yarboroughe?

15. On what date did Mr. Thompson end his relationship with the ex-boyfriend he prosecuted for allegedly infecting him with HIV?

16. On what date did Mr. Thompson begin his relationship with the ex-boyfriend he prosecuted for allegedly infecting him with HIV?

17. At what point in the relationship between Mr. Thompson and the accused did the two have a conversation about HIV, HIV status, HIV testing and using condoms in the relationship?

18. Did Mr. Thompson and the accused at anytime use meth or any other drug, including alcohol, before or during sexual activity? Was this before or after the discussion about HIV status, testing and condom use?

19. Mr. Thompson says that he tested negative on March 16, 2012, then tested again in May. The Centers for Disease Control recommends annual testing. HIV testing detects the antibodies somewhere between 3-6 weeks after infection. Most clinicians recommend an HIV test follow up for those who have a known exposure or risk three months after the initial test. Why did Mr. Thompson go in for testing 6 to 8 weeks after his initial HIV negative test?

We, the people, declare today that the most evident of truths – that all of us are created equal – is the star that guides us still; just as it guided our forebears through Seneca Falls, and Selma, and Stonewall; just as it guided all those men and women, sung and unsung, who left footprints along this great Mall, to hear a preacher say that we cannot walk alone; to hear a King proclaim that our individual freedom is inextricably bound to the freedom of every soul on Earth.

It is now our generation’s task to carry on what those pioneers began.  For our journey is not complete until our wives, our mothers, and daughters can earn a living equal to their efforts.  Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law – for if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well.  Our journey is not complete until no citizen is forced to wait for hours to exercise the right to vote.  Our journey is not complete until we find a better way to welcome the striving, hopeful immigrants who still see America as a land of opportunity; until bright young students and engineers are enlisted in our workforce rather than expelled from our country.  Our journey is not complete until all our children, from the streets of Detroit to the hills of Appalachia to the quiet lanes of Newtown, know that they are cared for, and cherished, and always safe from harm.

There’s a lot to chew on in this speech. It is a speech about re-imaging the American promise for this generation. It is powerful, it is thoughtful. I would even go as far as declare it is Obama’s Kennedy moment of declaring the passing of the torch to a new generation.

And while the President made reference to safety — technically in relation to gun violence — I would hope that we can find it in our hearts to make the promise of this generation not just to end AIDS — a fashionable frame pushed at the International AIDS Conference in 2012, which focuses on the end stage of HIV infection while ignoring the new infections — but that we can end HIV infection, period.

The public defense of Greek authorities and politicians centered on the idea of a need to contain an epidemic possibly engendered in the center of Athens.

 

But here again, the irony is palpable. The centre of the Greek capital, where the arrests happened is in many ways a kind of modern Spinalonga. In spite of millions thrown into its development ahead of the 2004 Olympics, central Athens has come to symbolize a berth of isolation for homeless citizens, immigrants and drug users who are abandoned there not by any boat arriving from a nearby coast but by a broken system that has consistently failed its citizens. Austerity measures that were hailed as the surefire way to reforms have coincided with a rapid decline in the social services that are necessary to prevent this influx of vulnerable people in Athens’ downtown neighborhoods.

The U.S. epidemic is not much different. We know that poverty is a key issue in the crisis. Many in the so-called “black belt” of the epidemic — 10 Southern states that are being crushed under the weight  of the epidemic — are states where poverty reigns and the vast majority of the epidemic is pocketed in rural areas, miles from adequate medical care. Fear of HIV drives those who are infected into hiding, which in turn makes access to medical care and medicine difficult, not to mention simple support for those living with the virus.

In addition, states across the country have laws on the books where commercial sex work — consensual sexual activity between adults for an exchange of money or valuables — goes from being a misdemeanor offense of the mostly women (including trans women) who are working in the industry to felony offenses for those who are infected with HIV. In large cities, like New York and Washington DC, being in certain areas and in possession of condoms is often de facto evidence of prostitution, In other cities, such as New Orleans, being transgender in often an invitation to harassment by police and allegations of sex work — whether true or not.

Can we address an epidemic of a virus that is spread by sex and needles when we are creating criminals out of the very people who are infected, by the mere fact that they are infected? Can we address an epidemic when people who take responsibility for their own health by having condoms face criminalization for possessing those items which serve to protect their health?