Politics Virginia - Legalises the passing of HIV

[colin traveller]

.. I saw this shared on Fb . I thought ...

WTAFH

Va. Senate committee approves HIV decriminalization bill

Statute disproportionately affects LGBTQ communities, people of color

www.washingtonblade.com

 

[Mike1976]

Just like the rest of Africa ...

 

[JimHPTN]

From the article:

"The CDC reports that Virginia currently is one of 21 states with laws requiring people with HIV who are aware of their status to disclose their status to sex partners."

The answer is to get the other 29 states to tighten up their laws.

Right now, we're all living under tight restrictions to try to prevent the spread of a disease with a 99% or so survival rate and Virginia is one of the worst states for restrictions. Now they want to loosen up restrictions on people with a disease that is readily preventable if people have advanced knowledge of the situation. A disease, which I might point out, is almost always lethal if treatment procedures aren't followed for the remainder of a person's life.

 

[muck]

This is ridiculous.

 

[morris]

They decided to contribute to extinction of certain categories of citizens?

 

[Ivan le Fou]

"“To ensure an equitable state for Black and Brown individuals and to promote public health, it’s essential lawmakers pass SB 1138.”"

How would that be "more equitable" for Black and Brown people?
How would that "promote public health"?

"“Criminalization increases stigma and harms marginalized communities. Data shows that these laws target and harm women of color, women who do sex work, and transgender women.”"

And that change would affect the "stigma" how exactly?


At least California thought preferable to maintain the transmission (knowingly) of HIV a misdemeanor...

 

[muck]

"“To ensure an equitable state for Black and Brown individuals and to promote public health, it’s essential lawmakers pass SB 1138.”"

How would that be "more equitable" for Black and Brown people?
How would that "promote public health"?

"“Criminalization increases stigma and harms marginalized communities. Data shows that these laws target and harm women of color, women who do sex work, and transgender women.”"

And that change would affect the "stigma" how exactly?

Doesn't their reasoning mean they deem "black and brown individuals" more likely to be scumbags and not inform sexual partners of their dangerous transmissible diseases?

By the way, the mental acrobatics to declare the legalising of the passing of HIV a contribution to the promotion of public health is just amazing.

 

[Ivan le Fou]

The Afro-american and homosexual communities were among the hardest hit with the AIDS epidemic.
"Back in the days" there were very few, if any, education, prevention programs on the matter and still a fair amount of questions regarding the disease.
So, obviously, disenfranchised, marginal, poorly educated, etc... communities got hit the hardest.

The thing is, that law is... both a form of infantilism, pandering and something else I can't put my finger on just yet.


"Virginia currently is one of 21 states with laws requiring people with HIV who are aware of their status to disclose their status to sex partners."

I know I have HIV, I am not telling you, I have sex with you, you now have HIV because of me.
It is willingly contaminating someone with a life threatening disease. Willingly for a variety of possible reasons; as you said because said person is a douchebag, or because said person is afraid of being rejected, or because said person (a sex worker for instance) would put him/herself in a precarious condition job-)wise, etc...

But the bill does not address how it makes things "more equitable" in any way.
These communities tend to be the hardest hit? Well then lets make sure all the communities can be equally hit! Yeah equity!

And "promoting health"? How is that, exactly?
There is no penalty, you can contaminate anybody.

And "addressing stigma"? Feels more like it will only reinforce it more than anything, and suspicions will broaden to everybody instead of just a minority of marginalized people.
Oh... I think I get it now... could that be the "equity" they were talking about?

 

[Connaught Ranger]

In my opinion the original Law had nothing to do with color, or sexual persuasion, but was created from a health point of view.
i.e. if you have AIDS and knowingly engage in sexual relationship with anybody without informing them, then your commiting a crime period.
Now its gone full circle and is being used as a political tool in the all lets jump on the BLM and ethnic minorities bandwagon.

 

[Fluff]

In my opinion the original Law had nothing to do with color, or sexual persuasion, but was created from a health point of view.
i.e. if you have AIDS and knowingly engage in sexual relationship with anybody without informing them, then your commiting a crime period.
Now its gone full circle and is being used as a political tool in the all lets jump on the BLM and ethnic minorities bandwagon.

Also being missed, is the aim to prevent other people from doing this, because they are afraid of the penalty. i.e. its too late for the person that gets prosecuted - or their victim more accurately, but if it scares off other people, or makes them behave responsibly thats ok by me. Whatever their colour.

What next - more knife crime in UK is black perp, usually black victim, shall we decriminalize attacks with knives, because its racist?

 

[Telmar]

How do you prove you said it to your partner or did´nt? Are you to get witnesses or something, a CCTV vid and recording...? I do consider it a crime but it´s one that cannot be proven.

Never implement rules you can´t enforce was the advice of my first mentor.

 

[Fluff]

How do you prove you said it to your partner or did´nt? Are you to get witnesses or something, a CCTV vid and recording...? I do consider it a crime but it´s one that cannot be proven.

Never implement rules you can´t enforce was the advice of my first mentor.

I think the only times this has been used is severe behavior, like infecting multiple casual partners.

 

[Jake84]

Sorry if unrelated to the threads topic, but still related to the state of Virginia:

Virginia lawmakers vote to abolish state's death penalty

It is set to become the first southern US state to end executions as a punishment.

www.bbc.com

While I believe the death penalty would certainly help get rid of some irredeemable scums, I can’t really fathom that some innocents might get the lethal injection.

 

[Telmar]

I think the only times this has been used is severe behavior, like infecting multiple casual partners.

Yeah, so it´s quite marginal...No need to overregulate. I´m sure there are laws that already exist.

 

[Fluff]

I'm in country that doesn't have it. but I think it should be an option, with a mandatory 'cool-off' period, say 5 years, maybe even a second trial?

Also available as an option to those given life.

Similar to the point on HIV, it may not make much difference to the person caught - i.e. they may not care what happens to them, but its deterrent effect on other people maybe worthwhile. Although USA suggests not really, with a high murder rate....

 

[Ivan le Fou]

While I believe the death penalty would certainly help get rid of some irredeemable scums, I can’t really fathom that some innocents might get the lethal injection.

There will always be innocents who get wrongly convicted.

 

[Connaught Ranger]

How do you prove you said it to your partner or did´nt? Are you to get witnesses or something, a CCTV vid and recording...? I do consider it a crime but it´s one that cannot be proven.

Never implement rules you can´t enforce was the advice of my first mentor.

What percentage of people knowingly would engage in a sexual act if their partner for the event said prior to it

"Oh! one thing before we start to shag, I tested positive for Aids!"

The onus, in my opinion is on the person knowing themselves to be infected to make a declaration before the event.

 

[Telmar]

What percentage of people knowingly would engage in a sexual act if their partner for the event said prior to it

"Oh! one thing before we start to shag, I tested positive for Aids!"

The onus, in my opinion is on the person knowing themselves to be infected to make a declaration before the event.

No problem with that. But how do you prove someone is lying? How many witnesses are there? How can something having been said be proven or unproven?

I´m not a lawyer but I think there already exists penalties for "reckless endangerment".

This is a "feel good" law, but it is administrative overregulation. We have enough "woke" as it is.

 

[Connaught Ranger]

No problem with that. But how do you prove someone is lying? How many witnesses are there? How can something having been said be proven or unproven?

I´m not a lawyer but I think there already exists penalties for "reckless endangerment".

This is a "feel good" law, but it is administrative overregulation. We have enough "woke" as it is.

The law with regards AIDS in the USA, is also similar to that in use in Australia I believe, for some decades now.

There is also a law where prostitutes in bordellos in countries where prostitution is legal have to get a frequent medical check and if infected with any STD have to refrain under legal penalty, from working.

 

[Telmar]

The law with regards AIDS in the USA, is also similar to that in use in Australia I believe, for some decades now.

There is also a law where prostitutes in bordellos in countries where prostitution is legal have to get a frequent medical check and if infected with any STD have to refrain under legal penalty, from working.

Yes and that is verifiable. And it makes sense...but we are talking about something else.

If someone knowingly gave HIV to someone else, it probably falls under reckless endangerment. No need to invent a new law specifically for the threat of transmitting HIV.