Tennessee House Bill HB2001

Tennessee 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/22/26
• Refer: 2/4/26

Caption

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 39, Chapter 13, relative to the transmission of infectious diseases.

Summary

HB2001 amends Tennessee’s criminal code governing the transmission of infectious diseases by adding a new affirmative defense to prosecution under Tennessee Code Annotated § 39-13-109(c). Under the bill, a person accused of transmitting HIV may avoid conviction if they prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the infected person was complying with a treatment regimen prescribed by a healthcare provider to medically suppress the risk of HIV transmission. The bill does not repeal the underlying offense; it narrows when prosecution can succeed by recognizing effective medical treatment as a defense. In practical terms, the measure ties criminal liability for HIV transmission to current medical treatment and viral suppression. It would require courts to consider whether the person living with HIV was following prescribed care that reduces transmission risk, rather than treating HIV status alone as the basis for criminal exposure. The act takes effect immediately upon becoming law.

Impact

The bill would amend Tennessee Code Annotated Title 39, Chapter 13, specifically the statute addressing transmission of infectious diseases, by creating a new affirmative defense in HIV transmission prosecutions. It shifts the legal analysis toward treatment compliance and medical suppression of transmission risk, potentially limiting criminal liability for people living with HIV who are following prescribed therapy. The change affects prosecutors, defendants, courts, and healthcare-provider documentation or testimony used to establish the defense.

Sentiment

No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate or formal support/opposition in the supplied materials. Based on the text alone, the bill appears to reflect a policy approach that aligns criminal law with modern HIV treatment and transmission science, suggesting a reform-oriented intent rather than a punitive expansion.

Contention

The main point of contention likely concerns whether criminal law should continue to regulate HIV transmission and, if so, how much weight should be given to treatment compliance and medical suppression. Supporters would likely view the bill as a science-based modernization that reduces unfair prosecution of people who are managing HIV responsibly. Opponents, if any, might argue that the affirmative defense could make prosecutions harder or reduce deterrence, though no specific objections are documented in the provided record.