HB 76 creates a new felony offense for the intentional infection of an incurable sexually transmitted disease. The bill applies when a person, knowing they have an incurable STD, specifically intends to infect another person without the victim’s knowing and lawful consent and does so through sexual intercourse or sodomy, donation or sale of blood, semen, tissue, organs, or other bodily fluids, or sharing a hypodermic needle or syringe.
The bill sets a general penalty of up to a $5,000 fine, up to 10 years imprisonment, or both. It also creates enhanced penalties for cases involving especially vulnerable victims, including children under 13, minors under 18 with a significant age difference, adults age 65 or older, and victims previously diagnosed with an intellectual disability. The bill includes affirmative defenses where the victim knew of the infection risk and consented, or where the infected person disclosed their status and took practical preventive measures as advised by a healthcare provider, including for healthcare providers following accepted infection-control procedures.
HB 76 also amends Louisiana’s sex-offender definition statute to classify this new offense as a “sex offense.” That means a conviction under the new law would trigger sex-offender registration and notification consequences under existing law, in addition to the criminal penalties in the bill itself. The measure is framed as an addition to the state’s sex-offense and public-safety framework rather than a standalone health statute.
The general sentiment reflected in the bill’s progress appears supportive, as the House passed final passage by a substantial margin, 67-18. The committee and floor amendments suggest lawmakers were focused on tightening the offense definition, clarifying intent and consent requirements, and refining the penalty structure rather than rejecting the concept of the bill. The lack of recorded committee transcript discussion limits insight into detailed debate, but the vote indicates majority support with a meaningful minority opposed.
The main points of contention likely center on how broadly the offense is defined, the severity of the penalties, and the decision to treat the crime as a sex offense for registration purposes. The bill also raises policy questions about proof of intent, disclosure, consent, and the use of age-based enhancements, especially where lack of knowledge of the victim’s age is not a defense in certain cases. Supporters likely view it as a deterrent and victim-protection measure, while opponents may be concerned about overcriminalization, evidentiary issues, and the collateral consequences of sex-offender designation.
HB 76 adds a new criminal offense to Title 14 of the Louisiana Revised Statutes and expands the statutory definition of “sex offense” in Title 15 to include intentional infection of an incurable sexually transmitted disease. As a result, convictions under the new offense would carry not only imprisonment and fines, but also sex-offender registration and notification consequences under Louisiana law. The bill also creates specific aggravating circumstances and affirmative defenses that will affect how prosecutors charge the offense and how courts evaluate consent, disclosure, and victim vulnerability.
The bill appears to have received generally favorable treatment in the House, reflected by its 67-18 final passage vote. The amendments adopted during the process suggest lawmakers worked to clarify the bill’s scope and elements, indicating constructive support rather than broad opposition. At the same time, the size of the no vote shows there was still notable concern about the bill’s criminal penalties and collateral consequences.
The most notable areas of contention are the bill’s criminalization of disease transmission, the requirement of specific intent, and the decision to classify the offense as a sex offense. Critics may be concerned about whether the law is too broad or difficult to prove, especially in cases involving disclosure, consent, or preventive measures. The enhanced penalties for minors, older adults, and persons with intellectual disabilities, along with the rule that lack of knowledge of the victim’s age is not a defense in some cases, are also likely to have been debated as potentially harsh or expansive.