May, 19 2010, 09:15am EDT

Uganda: Protect, Don't Punish, People With HIV
Remove Discriminatory Measures From New Bill
KAMPALA
Uganda's parliament should amend a proposed law on HIV/AIDS to remove
punitive and discriminatory provisions and to ensure that the rights of
people living with HIV/AIDS are protected, Human Rights Watch said
today, after the controversial bill was introduced.
The 2010 HIV/AIDS Prevention and Control Act was introduced on May
19, 2010 by the Honorable Beatrice Rwakimari, Chairperson of the
Committee on HIV/AIDS and Related Matters, following months of debate
about provisions that mandate HIV testing, force disclosure of HIV
status, and criminalize behavior that might result in transmission among
those who know they are HIV-positive. HIV prevalence has increased in
Uganda in recent years, with over a million people living with HIV and
more than 100,000 newly infected each year. It is estimated that 80
percent of those living with HIV in Uganda are unaware of their HIV
status.
"The bill contains measures that have been proven ineffective against
the AIDS epidemic and that violate the rights of people living with
HIV," said Joe Amon, Health and Human Rights director at Human Rights
Watch. "The HIV epidemic in Uganda is getting worse, and this bill is
another example of misguided, ideological approaches and lack of
leadership."
The bill as currently written codifies discredited approaches to the
AIDS epidemic and contains dangerously vague criminal provisions.
Contrary to international best practices, the bill would criminalize HIV
transmission and behavior that might result in transmission by those
who know their HIV status.
The bill would discourage voluntary HIV testing, while making testing
mandatory for pregnant women, their partners, suspected perpetrators
and victims of sexual offenses, drug users, and prostitutes, in
violation of fundamental principles of consent. The bill also allows
medical practitioners to disclose a patient's HIV status to others,
breaching confidentiality standards. These provisions could potentially
endanger those who are infected by exposing them to stigma,
discrimination, and physical violence.
Human Rights Watch and 50 Ugandan and international organizations
commented on an earlier draft of the bill and released a 10-page analysis of it in
November 2009. UNAIDS also released a 23-page critique of the bill, and a
coalition of Ugandan civil society groups published a joint position
statement that criticized many provisions of the draft bill. Since then,
the law was partially improved by removal of criminal penalty for the
transmission of HIV from mother to child through breastfeeding.
Reflecting these changes, Human Rights Watch released an updated analysis of the bill
this month.
Uganda's government has recently received international criticism for
a proposed "anti-homosexuality" law mandating the death penalty for
individuals living with HIV who engage in homosexual sex, regardless of
the use of HIV prevention, and including a requirement that individuals
report suspected homosexuals to the government within 24 hours.
"Like the anti-homosexuality bill, the HIV/AIDS bill tramples on
rights and encourages stigma and intolerance," Amon said. "The
international community and Ugandan civil society have been vocal and
clear about the problems in the bill. It is time for Uganda's parliament
to listen and amend these damaging provisions."
One consequence of the law would be to require all HIV testing
programs in the country to amend their pre-test counseling to inform
individuals of the law and its potential consequences, Human Rights
Watch said. Those being tested would need to understand that the
consequences of a positive test result could include disclosure of their
HIV status without their consent by medical personnel and criminal
liability for failure to adopt HIV prevention measures. International
research projects in Uganda that conduct HIV testing may also have to
modify and resubmit their protocols to ethical review boards, Human
Rights Watch said.
International guidelines issued by UNAIDS, the UN Development
Program, and the World Health Organization oppose criminalization of
transmission because it deters people from getting tested and
stigmatizes people with HIV. In contrast to the Ugandan bill, a pending
East African model law on HIV/AIDS provides broad protections for people
living with HIV and does not include provisions for criminalization of
transmission.
Mandatory testing undermines the rights of women and girls to
security of their person, does not meet the consent requirement set out
in medical ethics and international human rights law, and is
discriminatory. Under the provisions of the bill, for example, if a
woman tested positive, she could be liable for prosecution unless she
abstained from sex with her husband or partner or was able to ensure
that any partner used a condom. Combined with the bill's grant of
discretion to medical practitioners to disclose an individual's status
to other parties, the law exposes women in particular to intimate
partner violence and abandonment.
The bill also would criminalize a wide and ill-defined range of
conduct, such as breach of safe practice, obstruction, and making
misleading statements. A vague catch-all "general penalty" clause in the
bill would allow for criminal prosecution resulting in up to 10 years
imprisonment for contravening any provisions in the bill.
"For Uganda to address its HIV epidemic effectively, it needs to
partner with people living with HIV, not blame them, criminalize them,
and exclude them from policy making," Amon said. "Recognizing that
rights-based approaches are critical, and that people living with HIV
will prevent transmission if they are empowered and supported, would
allow Uganda's HIV response to get back on track."
Human Rights Watch is one of the world's leading independent organizations dedicated to defending and protecting human rights. By focusing international attention where human rights are violated, we give voice to the oppressed and hold oppressors accountable for their crimes. Our rigorous, objective investigations and strategic, targeted advocacy build intense pressure for action and raise the cost of human rights abuse. For 30 years, Human Rights Watch has worked tenaciously to lay the legal and moral groundwork for deep-rooted change and has fought to bring greater justice and security to people around the world.
LATEST NEWS
'Welcome to a New Era for NYC': Zohran Mamdani Sworn In as New York City Mayor
“This is truly the honor and privilege of a lifetime," the new mayor said.
Jan 01, 2026
Democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani was sworn in as New York City's mayor early Thursday inside an abandoned subway station, capping off the meteoric rise to power of a former state assembly member whose laser focus on affordability, willingness to challenge establishment corruption, and adept use of social media inspired the electorate—including many previous nonvoters.
Mamdani's choice of location for the swearing-in ceremony, led by New York Attorney General Letitia James, symbolized his commitment to restoring a city "that dared to be both beautiful and build great things that would transform working people’s lives," the mayor said in a statement.
During his campaign, Mamdani pledged to pursue a number of ambitious changes that he and his team will now begin the work of trying to implement, from fast and free buses to a $30 minimum wage to universal childcare—an agenda that would be funded by higher taxes on large corporations and the wealthiest 1% of New Yorkers.
“Happy New Year to New Yorkers both inside this tunnel and above,” Mamdani said in brief remarks at the ceremony. “This is truly the honor and privilege of a lifetime.”
This is now the official account of Mayor Zohran Mamdani. Welcome to a new era for NYC. pic.twitter.com/sDyiGWUVeb
— Mayor Zohran Kwame Mamdani (@NYCMayor) January 1, 2026
Much of Mamdani's agenda would require action from the city legislature. But in the weeks leading up to his swearing-in, members of Mamdani's team scoured city statutes looking for ways Mamdani could use his mayoral authority to lower prices quickly.
In an interview with Vox earlier this week, Mamdani said that enacting his agenda is "not just critically important because you’re fulfilling what animated so many to engage with the campaign, to support the campaign, but also because of the impact it can have on New Yorkers’ lives."
"There’s a lot of politics where it feels like it’s a contest around narrative, that when you win something, it’s just for the story that you can tell of what you won, but so many working people can’t feel that victory in their lives," he said. "The point of a rent freeze is you feel it every first of the month. The point of a fast and free bus is you feel it every day when you’re waiting for a bus that sometimes never comes. The point of universal child care is so that you don’t have to pay $22,500 a year for a single toddler."
Prior to Thursday's ceremony, former Democratic Mayor Eric Adams spent his final hours on a veto spree, blocking 19 bills including worker-protection legislation.
City & State reported that "among the 19 pieces of legislation that received a last-minute veto was a bill that would expand a cap on street vending licenses, a bill that aims to protect ride-hailing drivers from unjust deactivations from their apps, a bill that would prohibit federal immigration authorities from keeping an office at Rikers Island, and a bill that would grant the Civilian Complaint Review Board direct access to police body-cam footage."
Bhairavi Desai, executive director of the New York Taxi Workers Alliance, said in a statement that "Mayor Adams' last stand to steal protections from workers can’t dampen our hope for a better New York City under the leadership of Zohran Mamdani... and his pro-worker appointees, including Julie Su."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'A National Disgrace': 19 States to Raise Minimum Wage But Federal Rate Stuck at $7.25
One Fair Wage noted that "tipped workers can still legally be paid as little as $2.13 an hour, a system advocates describe as a direct legacy of slavery."
Dec 31, 2025
Over a third of US states are set to raise their minimum hourly wage in 2026, but worker advocates including Sen. Bernie Sanders on Wednesday decried a federal minimum wage that's remained at $7.25 since 2009—and just $2.13 an hour for tipped workers for over three decades.
Minimum wage hikes are set to go into effect in 19 states on Thursday: Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington.
Increases range from 28 cents in Minnesota to $2 in Hawaii, with an average hike of 67 cents across all 19 states. More than 8.3 million workers will benefit from the increases, according to the Economic Policy Institute (EPI). The mean minimum wage in those 19 states will rise to $14.57 in 2026, up from $13.90 this year.
Three more states—Alaska, Florida, and Oregon—plus Washington, DC are scheduled to raise their minimum wages later in 2026.
In addition to the state hikes, nearly 50 counties and municipalities plan to raise their minimum wages in the coming year, according to the National Employment Law Project (NELP). These include San Diego, California—where the minimum wage for hospitality workers is set to rise to $25 an hour by 2030—and Portland, Maine, where all workers will earn at least $19 by 2028.
However, the federal minimum wage remains at $7.25, and the subminimum rate for tipped workers is $2.13, where it's been since 1991—and has lost more than half its purchasing power since then.
The federal minimum wage has stayed at $7.25 since 2009. In 2026, workers in 19 states and 49 cities and counties an increase. Alabama’s rate will stay at $7.25. 🔗 https://t.co/mrGfPAKba3 pic.twitter.com/EsokVIc6KP
— AL.com (@aldotcom) December 31, 2025
"Tipped workers can still legally be paid as little as $2.13 an hour, a system advocates describe as a direct legacy of slavery," the advocacy group One Fair Wage (OFW) said in a statement Tuesday.
Sanders (I-Vt.) said on social media on the eve of the hikes: "Congratulations to the 19 states raising the minimum wage in 2026. But let’s be clear: A $7.25 federal minimum wage is a national disgrace. No one who works full time should live in poverty. We must keep fighting to guarantee all workers a living wage—not starvation wages."
Yannet Lathrop, NELP's senior researcher and policy analyst, said earlier this month that "the upcoming minimum wage increases are incremental and won’t magically turn severely underpaid jobs into living-wage jobs, but they do offer a bit of relief at a time when every dollar matters for people."
“The bigger picture is that raising the minimum wage is just one piece of a much larger fight for a good jobs economy rooted in living wages and good benefits for every working person," Lathrop added. "That’s where we need to get to."
Numerous experts note that neither $7.25, nor even $15 an hour, is a livable wage anywhere in the United States.
"The gap between wages and real living costs is stark," OFW said. "According to the MIT Living Wage Calculator, there is no county in the United States where a worker can afford to meet basic needs on less than $25 an hour. Even in the nation’s least expensive counties, a worker with one child would need at least $33 an hour to cover essentials like rent, food, childcare, and transportation."
"Advocates argue that policies like President [Donald] Trump’s 'no tax on tips' proposal fail to address the underlying problem of poverty wages," OFW continued. "While the policy has drawn attention, they say it is a headline rather than a solution, particularly since nearly two-thirds of tipped workers do not earn enough to owe federal income taxes."
Frustrated by the long-unchanged $7.25 federal minimum wage, numerous states in recent years have let voters give themselves raises via ballot initiatives. Such measures have been successful even in some red states, including Missouri and Nebraska.
Rising minimum wages are a legacy of the union-backed #FightFor15 movement that began among striking fast-food workers in 2012. At least 20 states now have minimum wages of $15 or higher.
However, back then, "the buying power of a $15 minimum wage was substantially higher than it is today," EPI noted. "In 2025, a $15 minimum wage does not achieve economic security for working people in most of the country. This is particularly true in the highest cost-of-living cities."
In April, US senators voted down an amendment that would have raised the federal minimum wage to $17 an hour. Every Democratic and Independent upper chamber lawmaker voted in favor of the measure, while all Republicans except Sen. Josh Hawley (Mo.) rejected it.
As Trump administration and Republican policies and practices—such as passing healthcare legislation that does not include an extension of Affordable Care Act tax credits, which are set to expire on Wednesday and send premiums soaring—coupled with persistently high living costs squeeze workers, advocates say a living wage is more important than ever.
The issue is underscored by glaring income and wealth inequality in the US, as well as a roughly 285:1 CEO to worker pay gap among S&P 500 companies last year.
"Minimum wage doesn't cover the cost of living," Janae van De Kerk, an organizer with the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Airport Workers union and Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport employee, said in a video posted Tuesday on social media.
"Minimum wage doesn't cover the cost of living. Many of my co-workers have to choose between food on the table or health insurance" Janae, Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport service worker No one should have to make that choice.
[image or embed]
— Airport Workers United (@goodairports.bsky.social) December 30, 2025 at 10:34 AM
"Many of my co-workers have to choose between food on the table or health insurance, or the choice between having food and paying the electric bill," van De Kerk—who advocates a $25 hourly minimum wage—continued.
"We shouldn't have to worry about those things," she added. "We shouldn't have to stress about those things. We're willing to work and we wanna work, and we should be paid for our work."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Says National Guard to Leave Chicago, LA, and Portland, But 'Will Come Back'
Accusing "a president desperate to be king" of using troops "as political pawns," California's attorney general noted the announcement followed "a stinging rebuke by the Supreme Court."
Dec 31, 2025
After a series of losses in court, President Donald Trump ended 2025 with an announcement that he is pulling the plug on legally contested National Guard deployments in three major US cities—but he also pledged that troops will return in the new year.
Trump initially sent thousands of California National Guard members to Los Angeles in June amid protests against his violent immigration operations. The remaining troops left the city earlier this month in response to a pair of orders from a district judge and the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.
The president also tried to deploy National Guard members to the streets of two other Democrat-led cities—Portland, Oregon, and Chicago, Illinois—but those moves were blocked by lawsuits, including one that produced a US Supreme Court decision last week.
Throughout the president's push to deploy troops to these and other cities, he has circulated lies about crime rates. He did so again in the Wednesday announcement on his Truth Social platform, writing, "We are removing the National Guard from Chicago, Los Angeles, and Portland, despite the fact that CRIME has been greatly reduced by having these great Patriots in those cities, and ONLY by that fact."
"Portland, Los Angeles, and Chicago were GONE if it weren’t for the Federal Government stepping in," Trump claimed. "We will come back, perhaps in a much different and stronger form, when crime begins to soar again - Only a question of time! It is hard to believe that these Democrat Mayors and Governors, all of whom are greatly incompetent, would want us to leave, especially considering the great progress that has been made???"
California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat expected to run for president in 2028, said on social media Wednesday that it is "about time Donald Trump admitted defeat. We've said it from day one: The federal takeover of California's National Guard is illegal."
Newsom and the state's attorney general, Rob Bonta, challenged the LA deployment. In that case, the US Department of Justice on Tuesday filed a brief with the 9th Circuit withdrawing its motion to keep the California troops under federal control.
"For six months, CA National Guard troops have been used as political pawns by a president desperate to be king," Bonta said Wednesday. "Now, in the face of a stinging rebuke by the Supreme Court, the Trump administration is backing away from its effort to federalize and deploy CA National Guard troops."
Although that Supreme Court decision was not directly about California, the justices' rejection of the Trump administration's request to strike down a temporary restraining order that barred the Illinois deployment was expected to inform other cases.
Trump federalized Illinois and Texas national guard troops to patrol in Chicago, but Illinois quickly sued and won a court ruling keeping them out of the city. The troops did training exercises instead. Today, Trump claims that the guard "greatly reduced" crime in Chicago. Did they do it remotely?
[image or embed]
— Mark Jacob (@markjacob.bsky.social) December 31, 2025 at 4:24 PM
Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, another Democrat who may run for the Oval Office in the next cycle, also pointed to the recent ruling in his response to the president on Wednesday: "Donald Trump's lying again. He lost in court when Illinois stood up against his attempt to militarize American cities with the National Guard. Now Trump is forced to stand down."
"Illinois and Chicago have reduced crime with smart investments in police and community violence reduction programs," he continued. "Meanwhile, Trump cut federal support for both. No matter how many lies he tells, we will keep standing up for truth and against his abuse of power."
Ahead of Trump's announcement, the New Republic's Greg Sargent said that the president and his deputy chief of staff, Stephen Miller, "are actually failing in crucial ways. Deportations are lagging behind their goals, courts are mostly functioning, and their fascist, ethnonationalist cruelties have unleashed a countermobilization of unexpected scope and power."
After the new Truth Social post, Sargent added: "Trump just announced that he's pulling the National Guard out of Chicago, LA, and Portland while pretending he won some kind of big victory. Here's the reality: Their authoritarian designs have faced massive civil and popular resistance."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


