CA Dems: Someone Knowingly Infecting You With HIV Should Only Be A Misdemeanor Offense!

And of course the leftest organizations are agreeing and justifying this. Knowingly infecting someone with an incurable deadly disease should not be a misdemeanor!

False equivalence arguments of course. The usual. Don't care, if you know you have HIV and intentionally and knowingly give the gift that keeps on giving and not telling your intended victim, that is intent and a felony period.

www.aclunc.org...

www.sacbee.com...

SACRAMENTO, Calif.

Exposing a person to HIV is treated more seriously under California law than infecting someone with any other communicable disease, a policy some lawmakers say is a relic of the decades-old AIDS scare that unfairly punishes HIV-positive people based on outdated science.

Several lawmakers are promoting a bill by state Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, that would make it a misdemeanor instead of a felony to intentionally expose someone to HIV, the virus that causes the immune system-weakening disease AIDS. The change would treat HIV like other communicable diseases under California law.

Under current law, if a person who knows they are infected with HIV has unprotected sex without telling their partner they have the virus, they can be convicted of a felony and face years of jail time. Intentional transmission of any other communicable disease, even a potentially deadly condition like hepatitis, is a misdemeanor.

legiscan.com...

www.nbcsandiego.com...

Wiener's bill, SB239, would also repeal California laws that require people convicted of prostitution for the first time to be tested for AIDS and that increase penalties for prostitution if the sex worker tested positive for AIDS in connection with a previous conviction.

unfairly punishes HIV-positive people based on outdated science

Oh yeah it's totally unfair to punish these people for knowingly infecting someone and gosh darn it science proves this.


What they should be doing is upgrading the other diseases to a felony.
Not taking HIV down a notch.



Disgusting.

Imagine being the poor person infected by one of these people?

I'd take a life for that sh*t. No games.

How about this?

When we can cure it, we can revisit it, but until then, something that chains you to a lifetime of extremely expensive drugs in order to avoid death should be considered something that is reprehensible to knowingly expose others to and should carry a hefty amount of jail time.

Polluted minds in charge of people's lives just pollute the innocent lives with their stupidity. Time to ban them from office. That type of bill is legalizing terrorism or a least something worse then terrorism. I guess they personally don't know anyone that was innocently infected, so what do they care. Because they know the people that have infected and they'd probably accepted big money to write a bill as such to protect the infector. What sic bastards are those that are pushing for such an insane bill.

a reply to: Hazardous1408

Maybe its more profitable having them free to keep buying HIV treatments than it is to put them in jail?

Maybe treatment is better now so the disease isn't necessarily deadly?

You have to ask yourself what kind of person would knowingly do this, though?

Dunno what to think.

a reply to: Tulpa

The only reason HIV isn't necessarily deadly is because you have to go on a lifetime regimen of very expensive drugs to keep it from becoming so.

So you tell me if that's really a reason to remove the penalty for someone knowingly exposing someone to it.

Most conditions that cause someone to be drug dependent aren't communicable.

a reply to: ketsuko

That's why I said "what kind of person would knowingly do this?"

originally posted by: Tulpa
a reply to: ketsuko

That's why I said "what kind of person would knowingly do this?"

The same kind of person who commits other types of violent crime in my opinion. It shows a blatant disregard for the life of your fellow.

a reply to: ketsuko

I agree.

My first two questions were about the logic CA has for doing this.

Mind boggled doesn't come over too well when written.

Something tells me that Sen. Weiner (seriously, you can't make this stuff up) has HIV and doesn't want to disclose it.

It is completely disgusting and immoral to knowingly give someone else a lifelong disease without their consent (as if they would).

I've always planned to leave this state of CA where I was born due to the lefts madness. Have been waiting until retirement but the waiting is getting harder with Weiners like this everywhere.

a reply to: infolurker
I would think that not saying it would be an A Misdemeanor (not an misdemeanor, but a class A misdemeanor), that carries years in jail. The conservatives keep saynig condoms are a savior against pregnancy, they are actually more effective against HIV. People should be wearing them. Unprotected sex does not lead to transmission of anything easily except crabs , herpes or a yeast infefction if it isn't rough. It is not very easy to contract HIV.

There have been cases where psychopaths inject people with tainted blood, that should be a felony.

Intentional transmission of any other communicable disease, even a potentially deadly condition like hepatitis, is a misdemeanor.

Geez, but don't even intentionally discharge a firearm in the city limits.

a reply to: infolurker

Just goes to show you just how out of touch liberals are.

Un believable!

originally posted by: Diisenchanted
a reply to: infolurker

Just goes to show you just how out of touch liberals are.

Un believable!

Science is not out of touch. Hysteria is.

a reply to: infolurker

Uhhhh, no. Not cool.

My spouse (soon-to-be-ex) and I have been poly for a while and we actually take our serious partners down to the clinic to have them screened before we sleep with them. We're pretty much settled in with the people we are with now but getting to this point took a lot of screenings, if you know what I mean. The reasons we did this is because we have a daughter and we had each other and we had each other's partners to worry about. If I were to get HSV2, for example, I would be risking her, her partners, and theirs, as well.

Somebody knowingly infecting people with an incurable disease is a seriously bad (or troubled) person who deserves some major negative attention. They aren't just messing with one person when they do this. That is seriously screwed up.

Just wait until people realize that HIV does not lead to AIDS.

It is all about the money.

'No, that is not right. Of course HIV causes AIDS'. 'Gotta trust our government. Gotta trust our government. Lalalalalalalalalala. Gotta trust our government'.

originally posted by: ClovenSky
Just wait until people realize that HIV does not lead to AIDS.

It is all about the money.

'No, that is not right. Of course HIV causes AIDS'. 'Gotta trust our government. Gotta trust our government. Lalalalalalalalalala. Gotta trust our government'.

It often leads to AIDS. But less and less. That is a good question to ponder.

originally posted by: Abysha
a reply to: infolurker

Uhhhh, no. Not cool.

My spouse (soon-to-be-ex) and I have been poly for a while and we actually take our serious partners down to the clinic to have them screened before we sleep with them. We're pretty much settled in with the people we are with now but getting to this point took a lot of screenings, if you know what I mean. The reasons we did this is because we have a daughter and we had each other and we had each other's partners to worry about. If I were to get HSV2, for example, I would be risking her, her partners, and theirs, as well.

Somebody knowingly infecting people with an incurable disease is a seriously bad (or troubled) person who deserves some major negative attention. They aren't just messing with one person when they do this. That is seriously screwed up.

That is all correct. If you are poly, especially, there are families involved. Pregnancy complications. Screenings often are the way to go.

I am still thinking it is not a felony if one gives something to someone else. There are false positives, mainly with herpes. Some things don't show up for 6 months.

The OP was talking about legal sentencing guidelines.

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: Abysha
a reply to: infolurker

Uhhhh, no. Not cool.

My spouse (soon-to-be-ex) and I have been poly for a while and we actually take our serious partners down to the clinic to have them screened before we sleep with them. We're pretty much settled in with the people we are with now but getting to this point took a lot of screenings, if you know what I mean. The reasons we did this is because we have a daughter and we had each other and we had each other's partners to worry about. If I were to get HSV2, for example, I would be risking her, her partners, and theirs, as well.

Somebody knowingly infecting people with an incurable disease is a seriously bad (or troubled) person who deserves some major negative attention. They aren't just messing with one person when they do this. That is seriously screwed up.

That is all correct. If you are poly, especially, there are families involved. Pregnancy complications. Screenings often are the way to go.

I am still thinking it is not a felony if one gives something to someone else. There are false positives, mainly with herpes. Some things don't show up for 6 months.

The OP was talking about legal sentencing guidelines.

So was I. Of course giving something unknowingly to somebody shouldn't be punished. But knowingly? How is that nothing short of maiming a person? If you caused them pain, suffering, and unaffordable bills for the rest of a person's life, you should definitely be held in the same contempt as a person who runs down and gives somebody a life-time spinal injury... on purpose.