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

[Theodarzna]

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.

(source)

Welp, blood donation in California and getting blood from California may have just became a bit more hazardous.

[Garnier Fructis]

I don't agree that intent to infect someone should be lowered to misdemeanor, but the law as written has a whole section on how donated blood has to be tested for HIV, and how blood with evidence of HIV antibodies won't be used for transfusion.

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...201720180SB239

[Ahovv]

If you have knowledge of any STD and pass it on without telling your partner, you're a piece of shit and deserve a good prison sentence.

[Edge-]

Welp, blood donation in California and getting blood from California may have just became a bit more hazardous.

You realize they still screen donated blood, right? I'm not a fan of lowering this from a felony to a misdemeanor, but let's not pretend like this is going to somehow flood supplies of blood with HIV positive blood.

[Sunseeker]

This is what you get for electing Jerry Brown people.

He was the governor. He did stupid shit like this. We elected someone else. Then what did we do? We elected Jerry Brown again. Fucking idiots.

[Deleted]

You realize they still screen donated blood, right? I'm not a fan of lowering this from a felony to a misdemeanor, but let's not pretend like this is going to somehow flood supplies of blood with HIV positive blood.

You are clueless. HIV has an incubation time and if someone who contracted it donates blood within that timeframe, the hiv in the donations is undetectable.

[Lynarii]

It's a good change, if you care about reducing the rates of HIV transfer.

Some things to consider.

A) They're still screening blood. If someone gets a blood transfusion with infected blood, the hospital done fucked up, and there's still someone's head that is going to roll for having failed the testing.

B) If it's a felony to basically have sex knowing you're HIV positive, what's the point in getting tested? If you don't get tested, you can't be charged, because you don't know. That's a VERY bad way of thinking to push.

C) Modern medicine can pretty much eliminate the chance of HIV spreading, but only if the person who has it has gotten tested and is on the proper medication. We WANT people to be tested, we want them treated properly, because that's how you actually stop it from spreading.

D) There's no law on the books stating it's a felony if you don't vaccinate your kid, they get measles, and spread it to someone else who dies from it. What exactly is special about HIV that makes it so much worse than spreading other dangerous diseases? All this is doing is moving it to be in the same category as every other serious infectious disease. The idea that HIV is some special bogeyman that is super infectious and guaranteed deadly is an idea that we've known is false since the 90s, it's about time to stop pretending it is something it isn't.

- - - Updated - - -

You are clueless. HIV has an incubation time and if someone who contracted it donates blood within that timeframe, the hiv in the donations is undetectable.

And if it's undetectable, then the person donating would have no way of knowing, so this law changes nothing in that scenario.

[Garnier Fructis]

You are clueless. HIV has an incubation time and if someone who contracted it donates blood within that timeframe, the hiv in the donations is undetectable.

In which case the new law doesn't change anything. Because for it to be a crime before, the person had to know that they tested HIV positive or know that they had AIDS at time of donation.

During that window where it's undetectable, that person doesn't know. So why would this scenario have anything to do with Edge's main point, which is that this won't cause an influx of infected blood?

[Masark]

You are clueless. HIV has an incubation time and if someone who contracted it donates blood within that timeframe, the hiv in the donations is undetectable.

The undetectable period is extremely short, 11 to 13 days, with modern NAA tests.

And if its within that period, it wouldn't be knowingly either, so the law is entirely moot.

[Deleted]

In which case the new law doesn't change anything. Because for it to be a crime before, the person had to know that they tested HIV positive or know that they had AIDS at time of donation.

During that window where it's undetectable, that person doesn't know. So why would this scenario have anything to do with Edge's main point, which is that this won't cause an influx of infected blood?

No felony for infecting someone -> more infections
More infections -> More contaminated blood donations and more undetectable ones

It's a double whammy

[Sunseeker]

B) If it's a felony to basically have sex knowing you're HIV positive, what's the point in getting tested? If you don't get tested, you can't be charged, because you don't know. That's a VERY bad way of thinking to push.

This is not what the law does. The law prohibits spreading the disease without knowledge if you tell your partner and they consent to sex with you anyway, the law doesn't apply.

[Masark]

No felony for infecting someone -> more infections^{[citation needed]}
More infections -> More contaminated blood donations and more undetectable ones

It's a double whammy

Furthermore, if it's undetectable, it's not transmissible. That has been well established.

[callipygoustp]

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot

[Deleted]

Furthermore, if it's undetectable, it's not transmissible. That has been well established.

This is bullshit. Maybe with someone who is on HIV treatment but surely not for someone who is not.

[Garnier Fructis]

No felony for infecting someone -> more infections
More infections -> More contaminated blood donations and more undetectable ones

It's a double whammy

The felony that was removed was for -->knowingly<-- infecting someone or -->knowingly<-- donating infected blood.

Your argument for why this will result in more infected donations is that there's a period after infection during which it can't be detected. If it can't be detected, then these people don't know they have HIV. This change in law doesn't affect these people at all.

Which was pointed out to you twice, and you ignored it.

[Felya]

Welp, blood donation in California and getting blood from California may have just became a bit more hazardous.

You are a horrible human being... how exactly did donations become more hazardous? Do you think they reuse needles? What is wrong with you?

- - - Updated - - -

You realize they still screen donated blood, right? I'm not a fan of lowering this from a felony to a misdemeanor, but let's not pretend like this is going to somehow flood supplies of blood with HIV positive blood.

See... you are focusing on the recipient part, which yes, goes through extreme scrutiny in both screening and testing. It's not the 80s...

The worse part is the donation assertion. There is no way this can possibly make donation more hazardous. It's absurd and discouraging donation due to ignorance to fill a need for sensationalism, is fucking horrible.

- - - Updated - - -

You are clueless. HIV has an incubation time and if someone who contracted it donates blood within that timeframe, the hiv in the donations is undetectable.

Are saying HIV cannot be detected, yet can be passed at the same time?

- - - Updated - - -

No felony for infecting someone -> more infections
More infections -> More contaminated blood donations and more undetectable ones

It's a double whammy

What? It wouldn't be a felony, even before this.

- - - Updated - - -

This is bullshit. Maybe with someone who is on HIV treatment but surely not for someone who is not.

You are saying that HIV cannot be detected while "encubating" yet, can be passed... while also saying people who don't know they have aids, would be relevant to a law that impacts willful infection... I think your bullshit detector is in reverse...

- - - Updated - - -

The felony that was removed was for -->knowingly<-- infecting someone or -->knowingly<-- donating infected blood.

Your argument for why this will result in more infected donations is that there's a period after infection during which it can't be detected. If it can't be detected, then these people don't know they have HIV. This change in law doesn't affect these people at all.

Which was pointed out to you twice, and you ignored it.

To follow current trends on these forums... did you also know OJ was black and was found not guilty? Not sure what that has to do with anything here. But, it looks like some people have a strategy of saying nonsense with enough conviction, to convince some moron that it's true. The sad part is... the lurkers might believe it... why won't no one think of the lurkers?

[Deleted]

Ah, California. You never cease to amaze.

[Deleted]

You are saying that HIV cannot be detected while "encubating" yet, can be passed... while also saying people who don't know they have aids, would be relevant to a law that impacts willful infection... I think your bullshit detector is in reverse...

What the fuck is "encubating"? Also how do you explain infections from donations despite screening?
I think you're overwhelmed.

[Grapemask]

What the fuck is "encubating"? Also how do you explain infections from donations despite screening?
I think you're overwhelmed.

You know someone's argument is stretched thin when they've resorted to playing stupid about spelling.

[Incredibale]

There's no excuse for this, but the left will conjure one, as seen here and elsewhere. California is stuffed full of illegals and leftist weirdos so there is and will not be enough political will to drag Brown and his fellow reprobates out of office.