Knowingly exposing others to HIV will no longer be a felony in California

#1
Modern medicine allows those with HIV to live longer lives and nearly eliminates the possibility of transmission, according to state Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) and Assemblyman Todd Gloria (D-San Diego), authors of the bill.
”Today California took a major step toward treating HIV as a public health issue, instead of treating people living with HIV as criminals," Wiener said in a statement. ”HIV should be treated like all other serious infectious diseases, and that's what SB 239 does."
Supporters of the change said the current law requires an intent to transmit HIV to justify a felony, but others noted cases have been prosecuted where there was no physical contact, so there was an argument intent was lacking.
Brown declined to comment on his action.
HIV has been the only communicable disease for which exposure is a felony under California law. The current law, Wiener argued, may convince people not to be tested for HIV, because without a test they cannot be charged with a felony if they expose a partner to the infection.
http://www.latimes.com/politics/ess...ades-from-felony-to-1507331544-htmlstory.html
 
#5
So now even if you admit to doing it on purpose, you're in the clear?

That doesn't seem right.

I see their points and that makes sense, but if there is clear intent to harm it should be a crime.
 
#7
If your viral load is zero, I see zero reason why you should have to tell anyone.

Why should one infectious disease be singled out?

You've got to look at it from the perspective not of 'Should it be a crime to expose people to HIV?' but of 'Should HIV be the only disease it is a crime to expose people to?'

The answer to that second question is clearly "Fuck no."
 

GaimeGuy

Volunteer Deputy Campaign Director, Obama for America '16
#16
The solution is to make it a crime to knowingly expose others to all STDs without telling them, not to decriminalize spreading HIV.


One step back
 
#20
So is Hep C. And HPV. Hep B. And syphilis. And...
Right?

I can't think of any reason why this one disease may have been singled out to get treated differently.

Surely this must *only* be about protecting peoples health.

It can't possibly have more to do with horrendously dated attitudes towards a disease that is now very much in control and that for people receiving proper treatment has an almost 0% chance of spreading.

Surely not in America.
 
#26
That's bullshit. Maybe when we have a full-fledged cure available. Getting WAY ahead of ourselves.

Hiv is the only disease where it is even a crime to 'knowingly' expose it so that should tell you all you need to know the intention of the original law.
I think we looking in the wrong direction here. HIV and Aids were a huge epidemic 30 years or so ago, weren't they? Just how many deaths did it cause? Now, I admit, that it being the only disease covered under the original law makes no sense, but let's not pretend it's not a shitty thing to tell a partner about. Even if we've made strides in finding the cure.
 
#28
So you can't be charged for literally destroying someone's life because you didn't tell them you have HIV?
If you are undetectable (someone on treatment) it is impossible for you to infect someone.
I think we looking in the wrong direction here. HIV and Aids were a huge epidemic 30 years or so ago, weren't they? Just how many deaths did it cause? Now, I admit, that it being the only disease covered under the original law makes no sense, but let's not pretend it's not a shitty thing to tell a partner about. Even if we've made strides in finding the cure.
We also progressed quite a bit since 30 years ago. HIV is now a manageable infection with modern medicine. You cannot infect someone if you are undetectable.
 
#29
So you can't be charged for literally destroying someone's life because you didn't tell them you have HIV?
OH LOOK ANOTHER PERSON WHO HAS NO IDEA HOW TREATABLE HIV IS THESE DAYS.

Dear EVERYONE in this thread decrying this, please look at the current state of treatment for being HIV positive, rather than throwing around fearmongering based on attitudes and treatments that date back to the 80s.

Thank you.
 
#32
Right?

I can't think of any reason why this one disease may have been singled out to get treated differently.

Surely this must *only* be about protecting peoples health.

It can't possibly have more to do with horrendously dated attitudes towards a disease that is now very much in control and that for people receiving proper treatment has an almost 0% chance of spreading.

Surely not in America.
The financial cost of treatment alone can be devastating.

1 in 8 people do not know they have HIV.
 
#34
I'm all for it. You assume the risk of being exposed to disease when you have sex and should protect yourself accordingly. Courts would bogged down to a halt if STDs were the basis for lawsuits and incarceration.
 
#37
I think we looking in the wrong direction here. HIV and Aids were a huge epidemic 30 years or so ago, weren't they? Just how many deaths did it cause? Now, I admit, that it being the only disease covered under the original law makes no sense, but let's not pretend it's not a shitty thing to tell a partner about. Even if we've made strides in finding the cure.
Looking at how lethal a disease was decades ago and ignoring modern medicine is 100% looking in the wrong direction.

Because, yes in the 80s it was a death sentence, but now with proper treatment you can live a completely normal life without risk of infecting anyone else.
 
#38
Do not agree with this

OH LOOK ANOTHER PERSON WHO HAS NO IDEA HOW TREATABLE HIV IS THESE DAYS.

Dear EVERYONE in this thread decrying this, please look at the current state of treatment for being HIV positive, rather than throwing around fearmongering based on attitudes and treatments that date back to the 80s.

Thank you.
Yes with expensive drugs not always covered b y insurance.
 
#40
If you are undetectable (someone on treatment) it is impossible for you to infect someone.
This is what's complicating this right now.

It absolutely should be a crime to try and deliberately infect someone, but how you make the distinction between that and an undetectable person going w/o a condom is going to be difficult.
 
#42
Right?

I can't think of any reason why this one disease may have been singled out to get treated differently.

Surely this must *only* be about protecting peoples health.

It can't possibly have more to do with horrendously dated attitudes towards a disease that is now very much in control and that for people receiving proper treatment has an almost 0% chance of spreading.

Surely not in America.
How about we just add those to the list too
 
#43
More like it should be a felony to expose someone to a disease with the intent to infect that person. But I doubt you could effectively separate criminal and innocent conduct under such a rule.
Well if you took a syringe of diseased blood and inject it into an infant, I'm guessing you are going to jail.
 
#46
We can treat HIV. Being undetectable means it is impossible for you to infect someone.
Well if the law was originally made to be discriminatory towards certain groups of people, then obviously that's not okay. But on a purely surface level it seems to be a bad idea to ease the penalty for knowingly exposing other people to HIV.

I feel as if you don't know anything about HIV and current medicine.
Okay.
 
#47
OH LOOK ANOTHER PERSON WHO HAS NO IDEA HOW TREATABLE HIV IS THESE DAYS.

Dear EVERYONE in this thread decrying this, please look at the current state of treatment for being HIV positive, rather than throwing around fearmongering based on attitudes and treatments that date back to the 80s.

Thank you.
I know exactly how treatable it is. And? It's TREATABLE. Not cured. If I can't wake up one morning and say "Damn... Got the HIV... Guess I'll hit the clinic up for that affordable cure.", then this is too much. And I'll be clear- I feel this way about ANY STD or communicable disease, sexual or otherwise. Just because it's treatable, doesn't mean I want the risk or the hassle. Got Herpes? tell me. Got a cold? Please warn me before I hug you, or sit next to you on a plane.

Looking at how lethal a disease was decades ago and ignoring modern medicine is 100% looking in the wrong direction.

Because, yes in the 80s it was a death sentence, but now with proper treatment you can live a completely normal life without risk of infecting anyone else.
You can't tell me that you wouldn't be fucking PISSED, and a little worried if you found out somebody gave you HIV and didn't warn you when they damn well should have. HIV and Aids still carries a lot of stigma, and treatment isn't as easy as "There ya go! All better! Here's your Snoopy Band-Aid." The "undetectable" information just became available.. When? This YEAR?"
 
#48
If you are being treated I don't see how you have a responsibility to tell other people. I think morally you get into an issue where I do think people should be honest with their partner especially if they aren't using protection.
 
#49
I don’t think this will get more people to get tested and it can only embolden people who intentionally try to infect others.
You really think there's no other law on the books they can use if you actually try to infect someone else with a disease, HIV or otherwise?
 
#50
OH LOOK ANOTHER PERSON WHO HAS NO IDEA HOW TREATABLE HIV IS THESE DAYS.

Dear EVERYONE in this thread decrying this, please look at the current state of treatment for being HIV positive, rather than throwing around fearmongering based on attitudes and treatments that date back to the 80s.

Thank you.
How much does it cost though? If someone sticks me with 100s of thousands in medical bills I’m going to sue. So I guess it’s slightly better?