Knowingly exposing others to HIV no longer a felony in Cali

[Iridencia]

That's a bad thing, sure, but this issue is less about whether or not the state considers it a felony and more that California made a conscious decision to go back on something that it was doing right in the first place. It's one thing to have always just been neglectfully fucking up, it's another to undo the progress and protections you already had in place. A lot of those states could potentially be chalked up to sheer laziness or apathy, which isn't good, but California is an out and about case of stupid ideas actively striving to make the state more dangerous than it was before.

So Texas just up and forgot to write a law about sexual relations when it comes to HIV? I highly doubt that

I said laziness and apathy, not forgetfulness, but it's irrelevant. The point still remains that those states started off with a stupid position and remain in it, California actively regressed backwards into a stupid position. Whether or not you think that's worse or better is subjective, but you can't deny that it comes with its own flavor of concern different from that of states that just never had these laws in the first place. It means that a shift is happening, and we should try to think about what this shift implies in a broader context.

[Minzerland II]

That does not excuse California at all.

How so? It makes the rants about insane Commiefornia look ridiculous.

One stupid decision does not make another stupid decision alright, it just makes all parties look stupid. California's stupid decision is not excused because Texas does not criminalise knowingly infecting a sexual partner with HIV.

[Thermodolia]

It's right there in the original article: They hope to de-stigmatize HIV, and thus encourage people who may not get tested out of fear of being a felon. While it is super shitty for said people to not disclose they have HIV with people they have sex with, it is an even shittier outcome for people not to get tested in the first place and thus never know they have it (And take preventative action for spread of infection). The people are going to have sex with people either way, regardless of whether its a felony or not. Best they know about it, and best they get treatment to try and reduce it.

It's also not out of line with either California law or other state's Law; It seems that California was unusually harsh on the subject.

That said, I think people are misreading this as dealing with people whom intentionally spread the disease, which it doesn't seem to do. Rather, it seems this law applies to people who simply do not disclose they are HIV positive, though may not be trying to spread the disease.

It’s still irresponsible behavior. Though if this manages to work, then alright. People who intentionally spread the disease though should be treated like felons.

Well we already have 7 states where this is only a misdemeanor and several more where it's not even against the law. You could look up the transmission rates in those states and compare it with those where it's a felony. That's how you figure out if it works or not.

[Thermodolia]

So Texas just up and forgot to write a law about sexual relations when it comes to HIV? I highly doubt that

I said laziness and apathy, not forgetfulness, but it's irrelevant. The point still remains that those states started off with a stupid position and remain in it, California actively regressed backwards into a stupid position. Whether or not you think that's worse or better is subjective, but you can't deny that it comes with its own flavor of concern different from that of states that just never had these laws in the first place. It means that a shift is happening, and we should try to think about what this shift implies in a broader context.

Again Texas, the state that went nuts on abortion somehow just didn't get around to making this a felony? Ya I'm not buying what you are selling there.

[Oil exporting People]

Friendly Reminder that we're about to have a Second AIDs Epidemic.

[MERIZoC]

https://www.lambdalegal.org/blog/20170515_updating-hiv-criminal-laws-will-improve-public-health

SB 239 does not change California law with respect to disclosure of a person’s HIV status.

Current law does not require disclosure of one’s HIV-positive status prior to sexual activity. While it is true that the current HIV exposure statute applies only if the person did not disclose their HIV-positive status; mere nondisclosure isn’t a violation of the law. Rather, the person must also act with the specific intent to transmit HIV.

SB 239 would not change that.

Yes, the penalty is being lowered from a felony to a misdemeanor.

I believe I already stated as much in my OP.

That's not the point of the quote. It's about the distinction between non disclosure and intent to transmit HIV, which is something I can't imagine happens very often, if at all.

[Stellar Colonies]

I love my home state just, so much.

What a stupid move. I can see the reason behind it, but it's just ridiculous.

[Neutraligon]

I love my home state just, so much.

What a stupid move. I can see the reason behind it, but it's just ridiculous.

It is ridiculous for the law to respond pragmatically to an issue?

[Rusozak]

I love my home state just, so much.

What a stupid move. I can see the reason behind it, but it's just ridiculous.

You do? Can you explain it to me then? Because I think of knowingly spreading a deadly disease as nothing short of attempted murder or biological warfare. Forget what the politicians say, if you KNOWINGLY spread it, you ARE a criminal.

[Neutraligon]

I love my home state just, so much.

What a stupid move. I can see the reason behind it, but it's just ridiculous.

You do? Can you explain it to me then? Because I think of knowingly spreading a deadly disease as nothing short of attempted murder or biological warfare. Forget what the politicians say, if you KNOWINGLY spread it, you ARE a criminal.

Easy solution, never get tested so that you do not ever know you are spreading it.

[Albrenia]

How to encourage testing to be done then while also keeping it being illegal for people to knowingly or carelessly spread disease they know they have?

[Crockerland]

How to encourage testing to be done then while also keeping it being illegal for people to knowingly or carelessly spread disease they know they have?

Make it criminal for them to spread the disease even if they don't know they have it. Unfortunate but the only solution that encourages testing while also upholding justice for victims of infection.

[Shofercia]

The wealthiest county of Southern California is red - Orange County. People vote for various reasons, but labeling most red or most blue voters as X=Y, is silly. So not really sure what debate you guys were attempting there, but I'd rather talk about the law that was passed.

And the law that was passed really isn't a big deal because technically you could try them in federal court. As it's still illegal and a felony at the federal level

It's a fucked up law, because there will be some idiot, somewhere, that will now think that it's ok to taint a blood bank.

And yet California and New York are depopulating.

And most of the most popular states to move to are Republican.

Watching you be snarky never stops being funny. You always just... fail.

This dubious source says New York but not California. It also says Kansas is depopulating, I wonder why?

Kansas is growing at 2%.

...why though?

At work so I can't go over the actual bill but was this legislation for this thing specifically or was it a consequence of a bill's wording?

Fucking dumb either way, but it would enter a whole new realm of retardation if it was stand alone.

The reasoning is that since it was a felony, people may have been reluctant to get tested out of fear that now they would be 'on the hook', so to speak, if they infected someone.

The notion being that now people will be more willing to get tested, and thus more willing to get treatment, under this system. I have no knowledge over this, to be honest, and I have no idea if they have studied the issue at all. That said, it's not a particularly ridiculous concept, to be frank, as people are dumbasses who will do that.

In other words, this may have the consequence of reducing infections through reducing the stigma associated with HIV positive individuals. Maybe.

Get tested for HIV before you donate to a blood bank and if you're fucking someone, and you're unsure about your HIV status - use a condom.

So Texas just up and forgot to write a law about sexual relations when it comes to HIV? I highly doubt that

All depends on how much beer Texas Lawmakers have on a daily basis

[Shofercia]

Absolutely and utterly insane. I don’t know what they hope to accomplish with such a reckless law.

As Seangoli was explaining, it appears to be an effort to get people to get tested and treated and take care not to spread it. There was (allegedly) a fear of getting tested because you might be charged with a crime if you were found HIV positive and had a partner.

I'm not sure if they did any studies on it or not, but the rationale isn't insane.

But then why would they include the blood bank in said law? Is Jerry Brown secretly hoping that HIV positive people will donate blood?

It’s still irresponsible behavior. Though if this manages to work, then alright. People who intentionally spread the disease though should be treated like felons.

Exactly!

I love my home state just, so much.

What a stupid move. I can see the reason behind it, but it's just ridiculous.

It is ridiculous for the law to respond pragmatically to an issue?

How is tainting blood banks with HIV a pragmatic solution?

You do? Can you explain it to me then? Because I think of knowingly spreading a deadly disease as nothing short of attempted murder or biological warfare. Forget what the politicians say, if you KNOWINGLY spread it, you ARE a criminal.

Easy solution, never get tested so that you do not ever know you are spreading it.

Shouldn't they test you before you donate blood to a blood bank?

How to encourage testing to be done then while also keeping it being illegal for people to knowingly or carelessly spread disease they know they have?

Make it criminal for them to spread the disease even if they don't know they have it. Unfortunate but the only solution that encourages testing while also upholding justice for victims of infection.

Works for me.

[Saiwania]

HIV is so incredibly dangerous and permanent, it must be contained and avoided as much as is possible.

[Neutraligon]

Make it criminal for them to spread the disease even if they don't know they have it. Unfortunate but the only solution that encourages testing while also upholding justice for victims of infection.

Works for me.

How expensive is it to get tested? Are you going to be the one to try and force that law on the population? To basically make a law that so badly harms the poor and essentially makes them criminal because they cannot afford a test like that? You sure you want to basically criminalize having sex?

[The East Marches II]

Works for me.

How expensive is it to get tested? Are you going to be the one to try and force that law on the population? To basically make a law that so badly harms the poor and essentially makes them criminal because they cannot afford a test like that? You sure you want to basically criminalize having sex?

>Basically criminalize having sex

Nice hyperbole but you went a little too far.

[Crockerland]

Works for me.

How expensive is it to get tested?

Free if it's mandatory, fucking obviously.

[Arkandros]

the average cost of an HIV test is $50 for a negative test, which gets expensive very quickly for a nonprofit like the red cross. The first number I found for the red cross' net "profit" on blood was 17 million in 1991, which only allows testing of 340,000 people (you could derive a better measure from their publicly available donation records and reimbursement rates, but I'm too lazy). Basically, it isn't feasible to test every person individually for HIV unless government funded, which would be a multi-billion dollar expense just for California. I personally believe that Crockerland had the right idea, making it criminal even if you don't know you have it. Responsibility for the testing and disclosure should fall to the infected person, and the law should reflect that.

[Atlanticatia]

Someone who is successfully on medication has a near-zero (basically, as close to zero as you can get) chance of transmitting HIV to their partner. If someone has HIV under control and they have been found to be 'undetectable' then I don't see why they should have to go to prison for putting their partner at essentially 0 risk. Of course, morally and socially I think people should always be upfront about that - but a felony for essentially doing nothing of risk is a bit much.

[Thermodolia]

And the law that was passed really isn't a big deal because technically you could try them in federal court. As it's still illegal and a felony at the federal level

It's a fucked up law, because there will be some idiot, somewhere, that will now think that it's ok to taint a blood bank.

Nope. That's against the law to do so knowingly, federal laws still exist even when state laws might not. The Feds don't like that shit.

[Thermodolia]

Works for me.

How expensive is it to get tested? Are you going to be the one to try and force that law on the population? To basically make a law that so badly harms the poor and essentially makes them criminal because they cannot afford a test like that? You sure you want to basically criminalize having sex?

Free tests exist. At least 70% of the US population is within reach of a free clinic.

[Arkandros]

Someone who is successfully on medication has a near-zero (basically, as close to zero as you can get) chance of transmitting HIV to their partner. If someone has HIV under control and they have been found to be 'undetectable' then I don't see why they should have to go to prison for putting their partner at essentially 0 risk. Of course, morally and socially I think people should always be upfront about that - but a felony for essentially doing nothing of risk is a bit much.

The point is more that disclosure should be present. Even if it is a one in a million chance, people might not be willing to engage in intercourse with someone who has HIV. This doesn't necessarily have to be blunt- explaining that they've been undergoing treatment and the HIV is undetectable probably would, and should, be part of the disclosure.

[Kollin]

This makes me sad. To be in Cali. And also a pansexual trans girl XD
Like wow thanks, now if someone fucks me in more ways than one there's nothin to care about! YAY GOVERNMENT

[Major-Tom]

Glad I'm in AZ, not Cali. Brown is an idiot, and I say that as a Dem.