Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: Remember not to accept a blood donation or have unprotected sex in California

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Caribbean cliff edge
    Posts
    14,643

    Thumbs down Remember not to accept a blood donation or have unprotected sex in California

    WTH?

    Knowingly exposing others to HIV is no longer a felony in California
    By Eli Rosenberg October 10 at 8:07 AM

    California Gov. Jerry Brown. (Rich Pedroncelli/AP)

    California lawmakers have passed legislation to reduce the penalty for those who knowingly or intentionally expose others to HIV without their knowledge, rolling back a law that mostly affected sex workers.

    The bill, SB 239, which was approved by the Democrat-controlled state legislature in September and signed into law by Gov. Jerry Brown (D) on Friday, will lower the charges for these acts from a felony to a misdemeanor when the law goes into effect in 2018. The act of knowingly donating HIV-infected blood, also a felony now, will be decriminalized.


    The statutes that the new laws revise date back to the late 1980s, when AIDS had emerged as a public health crisis in cities such as San Francisco, Los Angeles and New York. Fear and misinformation about the disease’s potential to spread ran high as the authorities struggled to get a handle on the new epidemic and a spate of legislation about HIV exposure cropped up across the country.


    Supporters of the reform push in California, which included a broad coalition of public health, LGBT, civil liberties and HIV groups in the state, described the laws as outdated and ineffective, pointing to statistics that showed that the vast majority of convictions were related to sex workers, who are required to undergo testing for HIV after being convicted of crimes such as solicitation.


    In the case of the laws around blood donation, research has shown that the law was probably never enforced and probably did little to enhance the screening measures that already exist to identify sources of infected blood.
    “If you are a sex worker and you solicit someone and you’re HIV positive, you’re guilty of a felony before any contact occurs,” said California state Sen. Scott Wiener (D), a co-sponsor of the bill. “These laws are so draconian that you can be convicted of a felony and sent to state prison even if you engage in behavior that creates zero risk of HIV infection.”

    Many Republican lawmakers in the state disagreed.

    “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,” said Sen. Joel Anderson (R-Calif.) during debate over the bill, according to the Los Angeles Times. “It’s absolutely crazy to me that we should go light on this.”

    The bill has since drawn wide media attention, including particularly critical coverage from conservative media sites.


    “Good grief,” wrote the National Review’s Wesley J. Smith. “Leave it to California to make a declining and decadent culture even more declining and decadent.”

    Breitbart’s story about the bill, which drew more than 4,500 comments, focused on three cases, in Michigan, California and Scotland, where in each case a man had allegedly attempted to intentionally infect others.
    But these types of cases are rare.

    Of the 379 HIV-related convictions in California between 1988 and 2014, only seven — less than 2 percent — included the intent to transmit HIV, according to a recent series of studies from the UCLA School of Law’s Williams Institute.


    Instead, the law mostly affected sex workers or those suspected of sex work. The vast majority of the convictions — 90 percent — were for solicitation cases where it was unknown whether any physical contact had occurred. When expanded to include the 800 or so people arrested or charged for the laws through 2014, more than 95 percent were related to sex work, the researchers found.


    Statistics showed that the charge was disproportionately levied against women and minorities: 67 percent of the people who came into contact with law enforcement because of HIV-related laws were black or Latino, the Williams Institute studies showed. Women made up 43 percent, though they represent only 13 percent of the HIV-positive population in the state.


    That requirement that sex workers get HIV tested after convictions will be abolished when the provisions in the bill take effect.

    “At the very beginning, people expected to see most of the weight playing out in those intentional exposure laws,” said Amira Hasenbush, a fellow at the Williams Institute and the co-author of the reports. “I think everyone was surprised to see that wasn’t where the law was being enforced. It was in this felony solicitation.”

    The bill was also prompted, its sponsors say, by a 2015 report on combating HIV from the Obama White House, which cited studies showing that HIV exposure laws do little to influence behavior, and said that many “run counter to scientific evidence about routes of HIV transmission and effective measures of HIV prevention.”


    Wiener said he believed that California’s felony HIV laws created a disincentive for some people to get tested, potentially doing more to increase rather than mitigate the public health risk of HIV.

    Others in the group of more than 150 to support the bill included the California Medical Association, the district attorneys of San Francisco and Los Angeles, the California Women’s Law Center and the American Civil Liberties Union of California.


    Supporters pointed out that the knowing or intentional transmission of any other communicable disease in California, including some potentially deadly ones like SARS, Ebola and tuberculosis, is a misdemeanor crime.


    “There’s no reason that HIV should be treated differently,” said Rick Zbur, executive director of Equality California, a LGBT civil rights nonprofit which was a co-sponsor of the bill. “A lot of what was behind this was basically looking at the laws to see how we could improve public health and modernizing these laws, so HIV is treated the same.”

    Enjoy a good rum on the rocks at sunset.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Caribbean cliff edge
    Posts
    14,643

    Default Re: Remember not to accept a blood donation or have unprotected sex in California

    Why not change the knowing or intentional transmission of any other communicable disease in California, including some potentially deadly ones like SARS, Ebola and tuberculosis, to a Felony crime?
    Enjoy a good rum on the rocks at sunset.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Central Coast, Ca
    Posts
    17,358

    Default Re: Remember not to accept a blood donation or have unprotected sex in California

    Perhaps we should make not registering a gun, and not passing a test for competence a felony? It is the same logic, except that here in the US guns are far more dangerous...

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    20,781

    Default Re: Remember not to accept a blood donation or have unprotected sex in California

    That's nuts!

    Then again, so is having unprotected sex.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 1999
    Location
    St. Paul, MN, USA
    Posts
    46,067

    Default Re: Remember not to accept a blood donation or have unprotected sex in California

    No problem with blood transfusions, that's been under control for decades.
    "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations,
    for nature cannot be fooled."

    Richard Feynman

  6. #6
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    St. Paul, MN Mississippi River Milepost 840.2
    Posts
    8,241

    Default Re: Remember not to accept a blood donation or have unprotected sex in California

    I've never had a blood transfusion in California.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Do you have a warrant?
    Posts
    3,664

    Default Re: Remember not to accept a blood donation or have unprotected sex in California

    “If you are a sex worker and you solicit someone and you’re HIV positive, you’re guilty of a felony before any contact occurs,” said California state Sen. Scott Wiener (D), a co-sponsor of the bill. “These laws are so draconian that you can be convicted of a felony and sent to state prison even if you engage in behavior that creates zero risk of HIV infection.”
    Yes. If you threaten someone with harm, or attempt a bank robbery, and are not successful at either, you can still be charged with attempting the act. Same with planning a terrorist act. Or dozens of other crimes. In the above example, "soliciting someone" means you got caught before the act, but intention can be proved. I know they are trying to decriminalize prostitution, but safety is a key issue. If, in the case of prostitution, they were to say loudly to the customers "It's at your own risk", maybe, and that's a big maybe. But in any other case, I feel it is absolutely incumbent to inform the other partner of your status for any STD. I don't think the law should have been repealed. And again, the prior law said knowingly infecting another.
    When you can take the pebble from my hand, it will be time for you to leave.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    20,781

    Default Re: Remember not to accept a blood donation or have unprotected sex in California

    I get the disproportionate number of sex workers getting charged under the law. I even agree with it in the sense that they have the largest cross section of sexual contacts.

    I don't understand why minorities are more often charged. Is that just old fashioned racism, or is something else going on?

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 1999
    Location
    Hyannis, MA, USA
    Posts
    42,515

    Default Re: Remember not to accept a blood donation or have unprotected sex in California

    The wikipedia article notes that Massachusetts is among the states with no such law and we don't appear to be suffering. It also gives the following interesting case examples:

    Prosecutions at the state level have included:
    Nick Rhoades, an HIV-positive man living in Iowa, who had an undetectable viral load, was sentenced to 25 years after a single sexual encounter during which he used a condom but did not disclose his HIV status (Rhoades v. State of Iowa).[34]
    An HIV-positive man was sentenced to 10 years in prison for aggravated assault after biting a police officer. His saliva was considered to be the dangerous instrument for the purpose of the "aggravated" portion of the charge (People v. Plunkett, New York Court of Appeals).[35]
    A man in Oregon was convicted of ten counts of attempted murder and ten counts of attempted assault based on allegations that he engaged in unprotected sexual intercourse without disclosing his medical condition (State of Oregon v. Hinkhouse).[36]
    An HIV-positive 25-year-old serving in the U.S. Army, was ordered in November 2006 to inform any sexual partner of his HIV status. After he had sex with a 17-year-old male who became infected, he was charged in June 2007 with "crimes against nature, assault and assault with a deadly weapon".[37] He pleaded guilty in November to 3 counts of "aggravated assault by means likely to cause grievous bodily harm or death" and other charges. He was sentenced to serve 40 months in military prison, a reduction in rank to private, and a dishonorable discharge.[38]
    An HIV-positive U.S. Navy officer and Catholic priest pleaded guilty in December 2007 to several crimes committed against U.S. Naval Academy midshipmen he was counseling, including forcible sodomy and indecent assault. Charges of assault were changed to aggravated assault because of his HIV status.[39]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimin..._United_States

    I recall in the early days of his work as a federal public defender that my brother had an HIV positive client charged with attempted murder for spitting on a guard. A bit like attempted murder by stabbing with a piece of ordinary paper folded to the shape of a knife. The prosecution admitted that the guard could not get infected that way but argued that did not matter because the accused thought it would.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Texas ya'll
    Posts
    1,062

    Default Re: Remember not to accept a blood donation or have unprotected sex in California

    Quote Originally Posted by Keith Wilson View Post
    No problem with blood transfusions, that's been under control for decades.
    Uh, not exactly true. Sero-conversion w/ HIV can take weeks/months after exposure. Even with that, thankfully, the risk of acquiring HIV from transfusion is very low. But the statement "under control" means zero risk to me, and it's not zero. Hep B is actually the bigger risk as far as viruses go.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Tacoma, WA
    Posts
    7,812

    Default Re: Remember not to accept a blood donation or have unprotected sex in California

    They've been screening donated blood for HIV for years. If I needed blood, I gladly accept it.
    “What, Me Worry?". -. A. E. Newman

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •