Attention: This is not a current document. It is an excerpt from the Web page of the former Colorado governor, Roy Romer. It is displayed by the Colorado State Archives for its historical value.

June 4, 1998

To the Honorable Colorado Senate
Sixty-First General Assembly
Second Regular Session
Denver, CO 80203

Ladies and Gentlemen:

I have returned to the Secretary of State Senate Bill 98-137, "Concerning Use of HIV Testing Information in Cases Where the Person Tested is Charged With a Crime Involving Sexual Behavior," which I vetoed today at 6:22 p.m. . This letter sets forth my reasons for vetoing this bill.

This bill has two provisions. First, the bill requires a person who is convicted under a municipal ordinance such as prostitution or patronizing a prostitute to submit to HIV testing. The results of that test would be reported to the district or municipal attorney, and the prosecuting attorney would be able to use this information to prosecute a repeat offender with the crime of prostitution or solicitation with prior knowledge of HIV. I support this aspect of the bill.

Second, the bill would require the court to order any person who has been accused of a sex offense consisting of sexual penetration to submit to HIV testing. The results would be reported to the district attorney, and if the person tests positive, the district attorney would be able to seek information from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment concerning whether the person had been notified prior to the date of the offense that he or she tested positive. The district attorney would then be able to use the accused person's HIV status to charge them with the sex offense with prior knowledge of HIV.

I am vetoing this bill for three reasons. First, I am deeply concerned that if signed, this legislation would have a chilling effect on the concept of confidential HIV testing. For the past ten years, individuals have voluntarily tested with the understanding that their results will remain private and confidential. Testing data are used by health officials to help understand and control the spread of HIV/AIDS, and to ensure that HIV data are complete, accurate and reliable for directing programs and resources. I am reluctant to allow changes that renege on our promise of confidentiality for those who have already tested. In addition, I fear that breaching confidentiality would result in fewer people testing for HIV, fewer people accessing treatment, and fewer opportunities to control the spread of the disease in the community. Our confidential testing system has worked well for ten years and I object to any efforts which would hamper our primary goal of controlling HIV in our state.

Second, I am concerned about the manner in which this breach of confidentiality would occur. In the legislation, being bound over for trial triggers the request for information regarding whether a person has been notified that they have HIV. A person bound over has not been found guilty, and yet, this legislation treats a person as such. The information about whether someone had prior notification that they are infected with HIV could then be used publicly during the trial. Someone who is found not guilty would then have to deal with their confidentiality having been breached. The opportunity to deal with the infection privately is gone; it has become a matter of public information.

Finally, I believe provisions in current law already allow a prosecuting attorney to seek a higher sentence in a sex offense involving sexual penetration. Recently, I signed H.B. 98-1156 which substantially increases penalties for and provides lifetime supervision of sex offenders. Also, under current law, the accused submits to an HIV test and the victim of a sexual offense is informed of the accused offender's HIV status if he or she is HIV positive. As such, victims of sexual offenses who have been exposed to HIV are able to seek early treatment for the disease.

In conclusion, I believe this bill would have a negative impact on our efforts to curtail the spread of HIV in our state. Confidential testing is essential to our success in fighting this disease, and any breach in confidentiality will dissuade many persons from testing, getting into treatment and participating in partner notification programs. At the end of the day, the larger good of the public health will be compromised. I have no sympathy for sex offenders, and I think they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. However, I do not think we should use confidential public health surveillance information to prosecute people for these offenses - other laws are in place which accomplish the same goal. Therefore, I have vetoed this bill.

Last modified June 18, 2003