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

[Cthulhu 2020]

You are right. My argument is invalid because people never lie.

They test blood regardless of the question and answer process you go through when giving blood. It's law now, after blood transfusions infected a lot of people in the 80's. The question and answer process does not determine IF they do tests to screen the blood. The question and answer process is there to knock you out of the process of giving blood in the first place if your questionnaire makes you high risk. If you answer yes to those questions, you just simply can't donate.

I give blood every time I become eligible, every few weeks. The red cross workers at the local blood bank know me by name and face now.

If someone gives blood, it is tested for HIV. If it is positive, it is thrown out. We're not living in the 80's. They will call you to inform you that you were infected, since a phone number is pretty much required to give blood. If you give them a fake phone number, they at least have your name since you have to provide photo ID to give blood. If you give them a fake ID and you start trying to give blood all over the place with fake IDs, I'm not sure what that person is trying to accomplish since the blood will all be thrown out anyway. If you continue to try to give blood after you've been informed of your infection, they'll just turn you away. If you have unprotected sex with someone, that's where this law FINALLY comes into play.

Nothing of this has anything to do with blood donations at all. Reality is trumping your feelings incredibly hard right now.

[Cyberowl]

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.

So, how are you, the mean HOMOSEXUAL, supposed to KNOWINGLY spread the virus, if the tests for the virus don't react yet?

lmao, the fucking stupidity

[Felya]

So, how are you, the mean HOMOSEXUAL, supposed to KNOWINGLY spread the virus, if the tests for the virus don't react yet?

lmao, the fucking stupidity

I am intentionally side stepping this argument, even though it helps my point. You might have just turned this thread into something else... at least will is good.

[Cyberowl]

I am intentionally side stepping this argument, even though it helps my point. You might have just turned this thread into something else... at least will is good.

Ssssshhhh, we can let the guys pretend we don't know where they get the news of this change from. It wasn't from Breitbart, Infowars and all the other sites mentioning it in their coverage of that one homosexual who went on an infection spree. They all just happened to stumble upon that! Just like that, all over the internet, in the last few days. Totally random.

[Deleted]

So, how are you, the mean HOMOSEXUAL, supposed to KNOWINGLY spread the virus, if the tests for the virus don't react yet?

lmao, the fucking stupidity

Easy: The ONE who INFECTED him could be the one knowingly spreading the virus in this example. The one who donates during the incubation time has no way to know for sure but he can assume a certain chance if he engaged in high risk sexual activity in that timeframe.

I too laugh at your fucking stupidity and the need to spoonfeed you this.

[Cyberowl]

Easy: The ONE who INFECTED him could be the one knowingly spreading the virus in this example. The one who donates during the incubation time has no way to know for sure but he can assume a certain chance if he engaged in high risk sexual activity in that timeframe.

I too laugh at your fucking stupidity and the need to spoonfeed you this.

Hate to tell ya, but moving the goalpost to the other side of the world still doesn't give you an argument. You can not for a fact know that you have the virus, if tests don't show it. This is what the law and the made up HIV+ blood donation scenario is about.

[draynay]

I don't exactly agree with this change, but I understand it, the penalty had a different effect than they hoped, instead of people being more careful to avoid felony prosecution, they just embraced ignorance to evade it. That kind of behavior would only worsen the problem, so I get needing to make a change, just not sure if this was the best way to do it.

[Derpleton]

Can we just kick California out of the US already?

[Sky High]

Can we just kick California out of the US already?

Sure, after we kick the after birth that is whatever state YOU live in.

[Mafic]

Magic Johnson was on KCAL years ago pleading for the public to take HIV seriously...now California is turning its back on HIV awareness and responsibility. That is very troubling and sad news to be honest.

[Masark]

now California is turning its back on HIV awareness and responsibility. That is very troubling and sad news to be honest.

"Don't get tested or you open yourself up to felony charges from everyone you've ever had sex with" isn't exactly a wonderful policy for dealing with HIV.

[Mafic]

"Don't get tested or you open yourself up to felony charges from everyone you've ever had sex with" isn't exactly a wonderful policy for dealing with HIV.

No it means now that victims must seek out justice via the civil courts which is not fair to many innocent people. That still is enough for people to avoid the test if they are going to be sued but makes the spread of HIV worse as a result.

Bad move Cali.

[GreenJesus]

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.

The left LGBT groups say it is a win for them since apparently gay people with HIV want to fuck people without telling the recipient the potential of getting a disease. Apparently these LGBT groups are fine with people not informing their partners before having sex.

[Lynarii]

No it means now that victims must seek out justice via the civil courts which is not fair to many innocent people. That still is enough for people to avoid the test if they are going to be sued but makes the spread of HIV worse as a result.

Bad move Cali.

Moving it to civil court changes a critical thing though. The felony was 'exposing to', which means that the person can be put into jail even if no actual infection took place. To sue someone in civil court there has to be actual damages that took place. It is acceptable to ask that the guilty party pay for the treatment of their victim, but putting the person in jail can actually prevent that from happening.

And geez, I have to ask, what kind of world do you all live in where you think that there are significant numbers of HIV-positive people sitting and home thinking "Damn, I really want to go out and infect some people, but I'm afraid of going to jail." Have you considered moving somewhere that isn't primarily populated by sociopaths?

[Theodarzna]

Moving it to civil court changes a critical thing though. The felony was 'exposing to', which means that the person can be put into jail even if no actual infection took place. To sue someone in civil court there has to be actual damages that took place. It is acceptable to ask that the guilty party pay for the treatment of their victim, but putting the person in jail can actually prevent that from happening.

And geez, I have to ask, what kind of world do you all live in where you think that there are significant numbers of HIV-positive people sitting and home thinking "Damn, I really want to go out and infect some people, but I'm afraid of going to jail." Have you considered moving somewhere that isn't primarily populated by sociopaths?

What is the acceptable civil damages for infecting someone with a 100% fatal disease?

[Deleted]

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

read this again:
The measure also applies to those who give blood without telling the blood bank that they are HIV-positive.
There might be some measure of clemency for those who have sex with someone while infected, but going to a blood bank and giving blood while you have HIV?
That's premeditated fucking evil.
Life in prison is a fair punishment.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

knowingly donating blood while infected by HIV should still be a crime, because it's premeditated evil.

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.

the solution is to remove the loophole.

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.

decriminalising abhorent evil behaviour is not contradictory to this.

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.

I would be okay with that.

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.

Because the measels is not spread by fucking.

If you answer yes to those questions, you just simply can't donate

unless you are one of those people without any medical training who lie because they find the question homophobic, and thing the only reason they don't want gay blood is because it gay or something.

[breadisfunny]

well looks like i won't be traveling to california.

[Vyuvarax]

People in this thread are just speaking past each other. There are two primary points that need to be reconciled:

a) Knowingly giving someone a disease is wrong and should carry a punishment equal to the crime, and
b) Learning you have HIV opened people to legal action from past sexual partners, causing people to simply go untested for HIV.

You can argue about a solution that addresses both of these concerns without all this strawmanning.

[Garnier Fructis]

read this again:
The measure also applies to those who give blood without telling the blood bank that they are HIV-positive.
There might be some measure of clemency for those who have sex with someone while infected, but going to a blood bank and giving blood while you have HIV?
That's premeditated fucking evil.
Life in prison is a fair punishment.

Dude.

You're talking about the punishment. I prefaced that post by saying that I don't agree with lowering the punishment. The rest of the post was about how blood banks test and handle blood, which is a separate issue.

[Rukh]

This really says it all, doesn't it?

No it doesn't. If you think this is some objectively terrible action with no upside, what do you believe the reason for signing it in to law is then? I'm genuinely curious.