Opinion | Why repealing Minneapolis’ bathhouse ban could be a public health win

June 8, 2026 - 19:43

History has shown multiple times how invocations of a particular concept of morality can be weaponized against queer people with ramifications on public health and civic good, two professors write. The ongoing debate in Minneapolis over repealing a decades-old ban on bathhouses is a case study in this tension.

The ban, originally enacted during the height of the AIDS crisis, was framed as a necessary public health measure. Yet critics argue it was always more about policing queer spaces than preventing disease. By shutting down venues where gay and bisexual men could gather, the city may have actually driven sexual encounters into more hidden and less safe environments, making outreach and education harder.

Repealing the ban, the professors argue, could reverse that dynamic. Licensed, regulated bathhouses would allow for on-site access to condoms, lubricant, and HIV testing. They could become hubs for harm reduction, where public health workers engage directly with patrons. This approach treats adult sexual behavior as a reality to be managed rather than a sin to be suppressed.

Opponents often frame the issue in terms of morality, but the professors contend that public health policy should be guided by data, not stigma. Other cities that have lifted similar bans have not seen spikes in sexually transmitted infections. Instead, they have created safer environments for a population that has historically been marginalized by the very institutions meant to protect them.

The move is not about endorsing any particular lifestyle, they conclude. It is about acknowledging that when the state steps back from moral judgment and steps forward with evidence-based regulation, everyone benefits.