"Deliberate indifference to a prisoner’s serious medical needs constituted cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment… regardless o f whether the indifference was manifested by prison doctors in their response to the prisoner’s needs or by prison guards in intentionally interfering with treatment once prescribed."

Denying prisoners access to condoms denies them access to medical care and can thus be seen to violate their Eighth Amendment-given right to freedom from cruel and unusual punishment. Health officials encourage the use of preventative measures such as condoms amongst all sexually active people. The incarceration of prisoners does not make them any less in need of medical care than the general population. In fact, the high prevalence of HIV/AIDS in the prison population proves the increased necessity for such health resources.

Furthermore, the Bureau of Prisons is required to provide "comprehensive coverage for service relating to immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS)" to all prisoners under 18 USCS β 4048 of the United States federal law code for the Bureau of Prisons. Preventing the contraction of HIV/AIDS amongst prisoners should qualify as a service relating to HIV/AIDS and should therefore be required under federal law.

The law supports the prevention of HIV/AIDS in prisons, but the resistance to the distribution of condoms in prisons appears to be mainly political. Phil Curtis, the director of governmental affairs for AIDS Project Los Angeles, an organization dedicated to improving the lives of people affected by HIV disease, explains the situation: "there’s no great mystery here, it’s just political resistance… to a common sense measure that could help people protect themselves." From a public health perspective, it is obvious that the government should welcome a basic tool capable of preventing the spread of HIV/AIDS. Politics has simply overtaken this public health issue. It is necessary to demand the distribution of condoms in prisons not just because it makes sense medically and legally, but because it encompasses broader values, including the belief that all humans should have access to, at the very least, a basic standard of health.