Just, wow

[tlynn78]

Gov. Jerry Brown signed a bill Friday that lowers from a felony to a misdemeanor the crime of knowingly exposing a sexual partner to HIV without disclosing the infection.
The measure also applies to those who give blood without telling the blood bank that they are HIV-positive.
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.
“We are going to end new HIV infections, and we will do so not by threatening people with state prison time, but rather by getting people to test and providing them access to care,” Wiener said.
Supporters of the bill said women engaging in prostitution are disproportionately targeted with criminal charges, even in cases where the infection is not transmitted.
Republican lawmakers including Sen. Joel Anderson of Alpine voted against the bill, arguing it puts the public at risk.
“I’m of the mind that if you purposefully inflict another with a disease that alters their lifestyle the rest of their life, puts them on a regimen of medications to maintain any kind of normalcy, it should be a felony,” Anderson said during the floor debate. “It’s absolutely crazy to me that we should go light on this.”
Anderson said the answer could be to extend tougher penalties to those who expose others to other infectious diseases.

[jarnon]

Makes sense. The law singled out a disease prevalent among gay men and minorities, but not more infectious diseases that mostly white people have. It's like punishing crack cocaine use more severely than powdered cocaine. The most blatant cases can still be prosecuted as assaults.

[BackInTex]

Makes sense. The law singled out a disease prevalent among gay men and minorities, but not more infectious diseases that mostly white people have. It's like punishing crack cocaine use more severely than powdered cocaine. The most blatant cases can still be prosecuted as assaults.

Wow, just wow.

[tlynn78]

Makes sense. The law singled out a disease prevalent among gay men and minorities, but not more infectious diseases that mostly white people have. It's like punishing crack cocaine use more severely than powdered cocaine. The most blatant cases can still be prosecuted as assaults.

Wow, just wow.

Right? Any everyone who wants one gets a unicorn.

[Bob Juch]

Gov. Jerry Brown signed a bill Friday that lowers from a felony to a misdemeanor the crime of knowingly exposing a sexual partner to HIV without disclosing the infection.
The measure also applies to those who give blood without telling the blood bank that they are HIV-positive.
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.
“We are going to end new HIV infections, and we will do so not by threatening people with state prison time, but rather by getting people to test and providing them access to care,” Wiener said.
Supporters of the bill said women engaging in prostitution are disproportionately targeted with criminal charges, even in cases where the infection is not transmitted.
Republican lawmakers including Sen. Joel Anderson of Alpine voted against the bill, arguing it puts the public at risk.
“I’m of the mind that if you purposefully inflict another with a disease that alters their lifestyle the rest of their life, puts them on a regimen of medications to maintain any kind of normalcy, it should be a felony,” Anderson said during the floor debate. “It’s absolutely crazy to me that we should go light on this.”
Anderson said the answer could be to extend tougher penalties to those who expose others to other infectious diseases.

He did that in October of 2017. Why bring it up now?

[tlynn78]

Gov. Jerry Brown signed a bill Friday that lowers from a felony to a misdemeanor the crime of knowingly exposing a sexual partner to HIV without disclosing the infection.
The measure also applies to those who give blood without telling the blood bank that they are HIV-positive.
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.
“We are going to end new HIV infections, and we will do so not by threatening people with state prison time, but rather by getting people to test and providing them access to care,” Wiener said.
Supporters of the bill said women engaging in prostitution are disproportionately targeted with criminal charges, even in cases where the infection is not transmitted.
Republican lawmakers including Sen. Joel Anderson of Alpine voted against the bill, arguing it puts the public at risk.
“I’m of the mind that if you purposefully inflict another with a disease that alters their lifestyle the rest of their life, puts them on a regimen of medications to maintain any kind of normalcy, it should be a felony,” Anderson said during the floor debate. “It’s absolutely crazy to me that we should go light on this.”
Anderson said the answer could be to extend tougher penalties to those who expose others to other infectious diseases.

He did that in October of 2017. Why bring it up now?

First I'm hearing about it, for one. My apologies, Bob, didn't realize I needed you to vet things before posting.

[BackInTex]

Makes sense. The law singled out a disease prevalent among gay men and minorities, but not more infectious diseases that mostly white people have. It's like punishing crack cocaine use more severely than powdered cocaine. The most blatant cases can still be prosecuted as assaults.

Wow, just wow.

Seems that uninfected gay men and uninfected minorities are being thrown under the bus, or at least are being marginalized. Guess they don't matter.

But hey! [/Oprah]You get some AIDS, and you, and you, and you, too! [/Oprah]

[silverscreenselect]

First I'm hearing about it, for one. My apologies, Bob, didn't realize I needed you to vet things before posting.

It's good to know that the State of California does one thing every 18 months or so that upsets you.

[jarnon]

Makes sense. The law singled out a disease prevalent among gay men and minorities, but not more infectious diseases that mostly white people have. It's like punishing crack cocaine use more severely than powdered cocaine. The most blatant cases can still be prosecuted as assaults.

Wow, just wow.

Seems that uninfected gay men and uninfected minorities are being thrown under the bus, or at least are being marginalized. Guess they don't matter.

But hey! [/Oprah]You get some AIDS, and you, and you, and you, too! [/Oprah]

The debate about minority crime is never-ending. Are policies like stop and frisk that target minorities unfair, or do they make minority communities safer? I don't have all the answers. In this case, treating all criminals who intentionally spread diseases the same makes sense to me.

[Bob78164]

First I'm hearing about it, for one. My apologies, Bob, didn't realize I needed you to vet things before posting.

It's good to know that the State of California does one thing every 18 months or so that upsets you.

She probably won't like this one either. --Bob

[BackInTex]

Wow, just wow.

Seems that uninfected gay men and uninfected minorities are being thrown under the bus, or at least are being marginalized. Guess they don't matter.

But hey! [/Oprah]You get some AIDS, and you, and you, and you, too! [/Oprah]

The debate about minority crime is never-ending. Are policies like stop and frisk that target minorities unfair, or do they make minority communities safer? I don't have all the answers. In this case, treating all criminals who intentionally spread diseases the same makes sense to me.

We don't treat criminals who punch people and who shoot people the same. But I do like the Republican's comment about rather than lessening the punishment for spreading AIDs, increase the punishment for other diseases.

[BackInTex]

First I'm hearing about it, for one. My apologies, Bob, didn't realize I needed you to vet things before posting.

It's good to know that the State of California does one thing every 18 months or so that upsets you.

She probably won't like this one either. --Bob

Why should she care if CA wants to give your money to someone?

[jarnon]

Seems that uninfected gay men and uninfected minorities are being thrown under the bus, or at least are being marginalized. Guess they don't matter.

But hey! [/Oprah]You get some AIDS, and you, and you, and you, too! [/Oprah]

The debate about minority crime is never-ending. Are policies like stop and frisk that target minorities unfair, or do they make minority communities safer? I don't have all the answers. In this case, treating all criminals who intentionally spread diseases the same makes sense to me.

We don't treat criminals who punch people and who shoot people the same. But I do like the Republican's comment about rather than lessening the punishment for spreading AIDs, increase the punishment for other diseases.

Remember that I said "The most blatant cases can still be prosecuted as assaults." There's simple assault, aggravated assault, and even attempted murder, depending on the circumstances. So I don't see any problem with the least serious violations being misdemeanors.