New York Wants to Reopen Gay Saunas After 40 Years of Bans

Carle Jasmin (Image : IA / Gay Globe)

A revolution is about to occur in New York City. After nearly 50 years of restrictions, the law governing the operation of men’s saunas is about to be changed to allow them to reopen within the city. In the 1980s, New York restricted the operation of men’s saunas in an attempt to reduce the spread of HIV, leaving only two small, outdated saunas to serve a city of more than 8 million inhabitants, within a metropolitan region of nearly 20 million.

This restriction, still in place for the time being, no longer made sense, partly because, elsewhere in the world, such restrictions do not exist, whether in Montreal, Paris or even Bangkok. Yet the rate of HIV transmission there has been comparable to that observed in New York despite these restrictions. But today, as treatments have evolved considerably, both therapeutically and in terms of prevention, this measure could no longer have any real effect on HIV transmission, especially since, since the 1980s, gay, bisexual and heterosexual men who visit saunas are much better informed than before about prevention and testing.

How did these restrictions begin?

In 1985, the main political trigger was the New York State government, particularly Governor Mario Cuomo and the State Health Commissioner, David Axelrod. On October 25, 1985, the State’s Public Health Council adopted emergency regulations allowing the closure of establishments where sexual activities considered to present a high risk of AIDS transmission were taking place. The regulations went even further than some recommendations from experts by including oral sex among the activities covered.

In New York City itself, Mayor Ed Koch and his administration subsequently supported the enforcement of these measures. Koch, although considered a relatively important ally of the gay community — he had notably signed an ordinance in 1978 protecting municipal employees against discrimination based on sexual orientation — supported the closure of saunas in 1985. The City’s Health Department began inspections and legal proceedings.

It is interesting to note that not everyone within the health administration supported the closures. New York City Health Commissioner Dr. David Sencer, in particular, opposed them because he believed that saunas could actually serve as places to reach gay men with information about HIV, condoms and prevention. The proposed closures therefore already pitted two public health philosophies against each other at the time: closing places considered high-risk or keeping them open in order to conduct prevention efforts.

The case of the New St. Mark’s Baths, in Greenwich Village, became emblematic. The City obtained a court injunction allowing its closure, with the court finding that authorities had a compelling public health interest in intervening given the high-risk sexual practices observed there. The establishment finally closed on December 7, 1985.

But did this actually reduce HIV transmission? This is much less certain. Historical and medical research at the time could not clearly demonstrate that closing saunas would save lives. A report from the era by the National Research Council described the closures as potentially largely symbolic and noted the lack of clear evidence that they actually reduced transmission.

The problem was fairly logical: closing the venues did not make sexual behaviors disappear. Sexual encounters could simply move to private apartments, hotels, bars, clubs or other places that were less accessible to prevention programs. Some observers even feared that the closures would make men more difficult to reach through prevention and testing campaigns.

Saunas remained open despite the restrictions!

Historical documents indicate that after the restrictions took effect, several establishments continued to operate, sometimes by modifying their practices or complying with new health requirements. In 1986, for example, the East Side Club and the Wall Street Club reached an agreement to comply with “safe sex” rules, including staff assigned to monitor the spaces and educational programs.

Some owners resisted the closures, some establishments modified their operations, and authorities also had difficulty fully enforcing the restrictions. One historical source even reports that four establishments had never closed and that the City eventually limited its inspections to visible sexual activity rather than attempting to control what was happening in private spaces.

New York Wants to Turn the Page on the Ban on Gay Saunas

After more than 40 years of restrictions, New York may finally turn the page on a public health policy inherited from the early years of the HIV epidemic. On August 5, 2026, New York State Senator Erik Bottcher and Assemblymember Tony Simone introduced the Public Health Modernization Act, a bill that seeks to repeal the regulations adopted in 1985 to prevent establishments from making their facilities available for sexual relations between consenting adults.

The bill does not, however, simply propose eliminating the ban and allowing establishments to operate without oversight. Instead, it would replace the old system with a modern regulatory and licensing framework overseen by the New York State Department of Health.

If the bill is passed, the Department of Health would have 180 days to establish new rules concerning operating permits, health and safety standards, inspections and the conditions under which establishments may operate.

The shift in philosophy is major. In the 1980s, authorities viewed saunas and bathhouses as places likely to facilitate HIV transmission and chose closure or restrictions on their activities as an intervention. Forty years later, Bottcher and Simone are essentially proposing the opposite approach: rather than making these places disappear, authorities could regulate them and turn them into key access points for sexual health services.

The bill would specifically promote access to HIV and STI testing as well as information and prevention tools, including PrEP and PEP. The goal is to reach people directly where they visit these establishments rather than distancing them from public health services.

This approach is supported, among others, by Dr. Demetre Daskalakis, chief medical officer of Callen-Lorde, who believes that establishments of this type can be effective places to reach populations with prevention services.

The bill therefore represents a historic reversal: in 1985, New York wanted to close places considered dangerous to public health; in 2026, lawmakers are proposing to regulate them in order to use their clientele as an opportunity for prevention.

It should nevertheless be made clear that the introduction of the bill does not mean that saunas can immediately reopen their doors. The bill must still go through the legislative process and be passed before the new rules can be implemented. Even after its adoption, the Department of Health will have to develop the regulations and licensing system provided for by the bill.

For a city of nearly 9 million people, at the heart of a metropolitan region of nearly 20 million, the issue goes far beyond the simple reopening of a few saunas. It raises an embarrassing question for New York authorities: how much longer can a public health policy designed more than 40 years ago be maintained when the science that justified it has changed so radically? During the AIDS era, doors were closed in an attempt to slow the virus. In 2026, with antiretroviral treatments, PrEP, PEP, testing and the U=U — undetectable = untransmittable — principle, closing the doors increasingly appears to be a response from the past to a problem that is no longer addressed in the same way.

New York: Close Rather Than Transform

In New York, the authorities’ response in the 1980s was essentially restrictive. Regulations adopted during the AIDS crisis considered establishments allowing certain sexual activities to be a public health threat. The logic was to reduce opportunities for transmission by restricting or closing these venues.

This approach was far from universally accepted, however. In San Francisco, for example, authorities also clashed over the issue of bathhouses, but some measures attempted to keep establishments open while imposing prevention measures.

San Francisco: Control Rather Than Simply Close

San Francisco probably provides the most interesting comparison with New York. In 1984, the city had also launched an offensive against bathhouses. A court nevertheless allowed some establishments to remain open provided that they implemented prevention measures: monitoring, client education and modifications to private spaces. The majority of establishments nevertheless eventually closed.

Decades later, San Francisco completely changed its perspective. In 2020, regulations began to be modernized in order to eliminate, among other things, the requirement to monitor sexual activity and the ban on private rooms. Authorities acknowledged at the time that these measures had been designed at the height of the AIDS crisis and no longer corresponded to the realities of modern prevention, particularly with the arrival of PrEP.

This is therefore a particularly revealing evolution: San Francisco moved from closing or monitoring saunas to integrating them into a public health approach.

Elsewhere: Prevention Has Shifted Toward People

In several countries, particularly in Europe, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, the response to the epidemic has relied more heavily on a combination of measures: condoms, testing, treatment for people living with HIV, education and, more recently, PrEP and PEP.

The World Health Organization now specifically recommends this so-called combination prevention approach, which combines biomedical, behavioral and structural interventions rather than relying on a single measure.

This is a fundamental difference from the New York philosophy of the 1980s. The goal is no longer necessarily to prevent people from gathering in a place where sexual relations may take place; instead, the goal is to ensure that they have the tools necessary to reduce risks.

The New York Paradox

This is precisely what makes the Bottcher and Simone bill interesting. New York’s regulations are essentially a vestige of an era when neither PrEP nor modern PEP, nor today’s antiretroviral treatments, nor the U=U concept existed.

Today, a person living with HIV who has and maintains an undetectable viral load does not sexually transmit HIV, while PrEP is a highly effective prevention method for HIV-negative people.

The paradox is therefore rather striking: New York has maintained for four decades a policy designed to prevent sexual relations in certain establishments, while modern public health seeks instead to reach people where they are.

This is precisely the argument made today by supporters of the bill: according to them, regulated establishments could become places where HIV testing, PrEP, PEP, condoms and STI information are offered, rather than venues that the state attempts to keep in the shadows.

ADVERTISING