Purposefully Exposing People to HIV Is No Longer A Felony In California

[Refractive Reflections]

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.

http://www.latimes.com/politics/esse...htmlstory.html

ACLU's statement:

SACRAMENTO – Today, Governor Jerry Brown signed into law landmark legislation to reform outdated laws that unfairly criminalized and stigmatized people living with HIV. Senate Bill (SB) 239 was authored by Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) and Asm. Todd Gloria (D-San Diego) and cosponsored by Equality California, the ACLU of California, APLA Health, Black AIDS Institute, Lambda Legal and Positive Women’s Network – USA. The organizations are part of Californians for HIV Criminalization Reform (CHCR), a broad coalition of people living with HIV, HIV and health service providers, civil rights organizations and public health professionals dedicated to ending the criminalization of people living with HIV in California.

“Today California took a major step toward treating HIV as a public health issue, instead of treating people living with HIV as criminals,” said Senator Wiener. “HIV should be treated like all other serious infectious diseases, and that’s what SB 239 does. 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 tested and into treatment. I want to thank Governor Brown for his support in helping to put California at the forefront of a national movement to reform these discriminatory laws.”

“State law will no longer discourage Californians from getting tested for HIV,” said Asm. Gloria. “With the Governor’s signature today, we are helping to reduce the stigma that keeps some from knowing their HIV status and getting into treatment to prevent additional infections. I want thank Governor Brown for signing SB 239. This action keeps California at the forefront in the fight to stop the spread of HIV.”

SB 239 updates California criminal law to approach transmission of HIV in the same way as transmission of other serious communicable diseases. It also brings California statutes up to date with the current understanding of HIV prevention, treatment and transmission. The bill fulfills a key goal of the National HIV/AIDS Strategy and is consistent with guidance from the U.S. Department of Justice and with California’s “Getting to Zero” plan to reduce HIV transmission.

“California’s outdated and draconian HIV criminal laws have disproportionately harmed people of color and transgender women,” said Melissa Goodman, LGBTQ, Gender and Reproductive Justice Project Director with the ACLU of Southern California. “With the enactment of this law, our laws will now become more fair, less discriminatory, and will promote treatment and prevention rather than criminalization.”

In the late 1980s and ‘90s at the height of the HIV epidemic, lawmakers passed several laws that criminalized otherwise legal behaviors of people living with HIV or added HIV-related penalties to existing crimes. These laws were based on fear and the limited medical understanding of the time. When most of these laws were passed, there were no effective treatments for HIV and discrimination against people living with HIV was rampant. Research now demonstrates that people living with HIV on effective treatment cannot transmit the virus to their partners. And HIV-negative individuals can take medication, known as PrEP (pre-exposure prophylaxis), to reduce the risk of acquiring HIV by up to 99 percent. SB 239 ensures that these advances inform our laws and the manner in which we address our public health response to HIV.

“With his signature, the Governor Brown has moved California’s archaic HIV laws out of the 1980s and into the 21st century,” said Rick Zbur, executive director of Equality California. “SB 239 will do much to reduce stigma and discrimination against people living with HIV – it is not only fair, but it’s good public health. When people are no longer penalized for knowing their status, it encourages them to come forward, get tested and get treatment. That’s good for all Californians.”

In addition to the organizations sponsoring the bill, SB 239 was supported by CHCR members including the Los Angeles LGBT Center, the Los Angeles HIV Law and Policy Project, the Transgender Law Center, Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF), the Free Speech Coalition and the Sex Workers Outreach Project (SWOP).

https://www.aclusandiego.org/governo...rnia-hiv-laws/

Which brings into question these incidents, if they took place in California after Jan. 1, 2018:
'I'm turning myself in, my life is over': HIV-positive man 'infected hundreds' after setting out to pass on virus to as many as possible"
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-possible.html
"Man who knowingly spread HIV sentenced to six months. Judge calls it a ‘travesty.’"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.367c51b51b65
"Man with HIV tried to infect partners he met on Grindr, court told"
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...e_iOSApp_Other

[IndigoErth]

What? Why? Why even spend time and money on that.

laws that unfairly criminalized and stigmatized people living with HIV.

Uh, no, not if they know they have it and go and give it to someone without telling them. That could actually be pretty malicious. (Though if there is not medical record of diagnosis and the person didn't know they have it, then obviously that shouldn't be criminalized in that case as there was no intent.)

I don't care what modern medicine is doing, it isn't cured. If it was easily treatable with a quick Dr's visit, fine, but until then... no. Another person's health is more important than not disclosing to avoid risking rejection.

[Powder]

That's majorly F'd up.

[mrmaczaps]

Holy spitballs. Y'all seeing this like I do?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Did the world just start spinning backwards?

Thats just as insane as.... well, nevermind.

[Sumac]

I was surprised at reaction of some of the so called "keyboard-progressives" about this: apparently it's OK bill, because, there are other diseases, which are bad.

I am not really sure, what have surprised me more: this bill or such reaction of some people. But apparently, some "keyboard-progressives" will do anything to look more progressive (the most progressive?) in the eyes of their peers, by not infringing on freedom of others, even, if consequences might be deadly.

Because, if you are restrict people in something - you are of course, dirty conservative, horrible xenophobe and generally atrocious human being.

[plastroncafe]

I'd be curious to know if this was done to match pre-existing legislation for other diseases. In which case, it's probably easier to ease up on the penalty for this one, rather than make the penalty for the others more strict.

[MsMarvelDuckie]

Problem is, walking around with HIV and not disclosing to sexual partners or blood donation is just a step down from walking around with vials of anthrax or ebola(for exampke) and randomly infecting people with them. So decrimnalizing the act of KNOWINGLY and INTENTIONALLY passing it to others is just idiotic because it could count as an act of terrorism.

[plastroncafe]

Originally Posted by MsMarvelDuckie

Problem is, walking around with HIV and not disclosing to sexual partners or blood donation is just a step down from walking around with vials of anthrax or ebola(for exampke) and randomly infecting people with them. So decrimnalizing the act of KNOWINGLY and INTENTIONALLY passing it to others is just idiotic because it could count as an act of terrorism.

I don't know that those are comparable at all, but to each their own.

[DestronMirage22]

Wow.
Just...wow.

*SMH* That’s pretty messed up.

[TurtleWA]

Research now demonstrates that people living with HIV on effective treatment cannot transmit the virus to their partners. And HIV-negative individuals can take medication, known as PrEP (pre-exposure prophylaxis), to reduce the risk of acquiring HIV by up to 99 percent.

Wow both research and medicine has advanced quite a bit since what I was taught in high school biology.

[Metalwolf]

Oh boy. So they want to decriminalize intentional infection just to spare the feelings of a tiny minority? 'Gee, this asshole intentionally infected you with HIV and lied to you about his status, and you will have to go on a lifetime of anti-viral medication to keep it from progressing to AIDS, horrible infections, cancers and dying, But as long as we can spare the feelings of a few micro-minorities, what is it to us? Their feelings matter more then your life or health.' - 'Progressive' California

[Candy Kappa]

Ending the stigma of HIV would be beneficial and do more good. Medicine have come a long way and being HIV positive is not a death sentence, its treatable and we're not living in the 90's. I also find it absurd that HIV is the only chronic incurable STI that is/was a felony and not the other incurable ones as well.

That said, intentionally infecting another person with HIV through sexual intercourse without that person's consent is rape.

[MsMarvelDuckie]

Originally Posted by plastroncafe

I don't know that those are comparable at all, but to each their own.

It might as well be the same thing as putting anthrax on something you know people will touch in hopes they get it. That was my point. Or any dangerous disease, really.

[plastroncafe]

It's more than possible that I was scrutinizing your comparison a bit too closely. Anthrax is Airborne, and Ebola is far more communicable than HIV.

I gleaned the language of the bill last night, and it almost sounds as if HIV was the only communicable disease to have legislation like this.

And it almost reads to me like the original language of the bill that this new one is repealing doesn't actually require that the person being exposed contract the disease.

This new language, again I'm not a lawyer and my legalese is night on non-existent, appears to me too now in compass all communicable diseases. So if someone has syphilis and purposely doesn't tell their partner and that partner contracts syphilis from them, now that partner has legal recourse.

Whereas before I think it was only HIV, and then it was only exposure and not actually Contracting the disease at all. Which I can only imagine is impossible to prove.

Singling out one disease seems to me to be like singling out one specific breed of dog.

[mrmaczaps]

Originally Posted by Candy Kappa

That said, intentionally infecting another person with HIV through sexual intercourse without that person's consent is rape.

If both parties agree to the sex, its not rape at all. Its just being a whorable excuse for a human being.

[plastroncafe]

No it's Rape all right.
If you lie to obtain consent, then consent was never freely given at all.

[snake]

Never change, Commiefornia.

[Candy Kappa]

Originally Posted by mrmaczaps

If both parties agree to the sex, its not rape at all. Its just being a whorable excuse for a human being.

It is when one part is lying, same deal as stealthing is rape.

[Sumac]

Originally Posted by plastroncafe

Singling out one disease seems to me to be like singling out one specific breed of dog.

From what I understood it was singled out because at the time, when original bill was made HIV was more likely than not a death sentence.
Nowadays, things have changed of course, but it still not completely curable, like many other deceases.