With a nice price tag ranging from 24,000-60,000 per year for the rest of your life, no biggy. Meanwhile the person that knowingly inflicted you with this life-long disease might get some community service maybe even some probation if they have some other prior criminal record?

Such deterrence, much wow.

Good point. However, the current law just says you have to tell the person.
Not telling is what brings down the felony.

I don't see anything wrong with the current law.


/e I'll even go further. Any politicians in California who are behind SB 239, should be given the HIV virus.

This post was edited by Ghot on Jul 29 2017 11:00pm

Great thing that HIV medication is largely covered by insurance and Ryan White funding. I thought you were big on personal responsibility? If you don't want to get HIV, then utilize your resources and use protection.

I am, hence me not understanding why removing the deterrence to knowingly inflicting someone with a life long disease is not a big deal.

The lefts answer to everything, the taxpayer or someone else can just pick up the bill, don't worry about it, it's totally kewl brah!!

This post was edited by ofthevoid on Jul 29 2017 11:04pm

Because the law doesn't end up actually accomplishing what it hopes to accomplish. Overwhelmingly the law affects people engaged in sex work/survival sex (95% of the time in California), which the HIV criminalization laws then unintentionally become a deterrent for people to get tested because the law only becomes "in effect" after receiving an HIV positive test result. People engaged in this type of work rely on the money and resources gained from sex work/survival and them telling people that they have HIV isn't going to be good for business to say the least. So if you don't get tested, then there's nothing to worry about from these specific laws.

The laws still speak of HIV as though it's as deadly of an infection was it was in the 1980's, which it isn't, and further contributes to people in society being less likely to get tested because laws like this contribute to the narrative that HIV is scary and deadly.

There are far better ways to reduce HIV transmission while also decreasing stigma and increasing knowledge than by laws such as these.

Prostitution is illegal in California, too.

Yes, there seems to be a loophole in the current law. Why not fix the loophole, rather than help spread HIV.

i see, the change didn't make much sense to me either, but it sounds like it's actually trying to solve a serious problem and is based on statistical findings.

i would say a better solution to this problem would be mandatory regular tests for registered sex workers, but then i remembered that prostitution is illegal in prude america...

This post was edited by fender on Jul 29 2017 11:32pm

Removing the laws don't/wouldn't "help spread HIV". HIV prevention is just far better accomplished than by laws like these.



Yeah, but that's how so much of public health goes though, that the most effective strategies tend to be counter-intuitive at first glance.

Just like how people think that sex education in schools is going to increase unintended pregnancies and STI rates, even though the opposite is true.

Or how people thought that needle exchange programs would encourage and worsen the opioid addiction crisis, even though the opposite is true.

This post was edited by Handcuffs on Jul 29 2017 11:42pm

Not telling your partner that you have HIV, will help spread HIV. I don't care how you dress it up with politics.

This is categorically false. It's not about "dressing it up with politics" either. The most effective forms of HIV prevention include comprehensive sex education in schools combined with stigma-reducing knowledge regarding HIV that is accompanied by commensurate access to said methods.