Lady Checkmate's headline: "Knowingly exposing others to HIV will no longer be a felony in California"
Don't forget to RECOMMEND. Thanks.
California’s governor, Jerry Brown, on Friday signed a law that lowers the penalty for exposing partners to HIV from a felony to a misdemeanor, which includes those who donate blood without informing the center about their HIV status.
(full story truncated, link she provided goes here: http://www.foxnews.com/health/2017/10/10/report-knowingly-exposing-others-to-hiv-will-no-longer-be-felony-in-california.html )
Lady Checkmate:
11 comments
With your ever increasingly retarded 'claims', you're...:
image
...oh, and Charlie Sheen.
Checkmate, Lady.
According to CNN, the sponsors of the bill were trying to de-stigmatize HIV, making people more likely to get tested, seek treatment, ultimately decreasing the incidence and spread of the disease.
I can see why Faux and Lady Checkmate would be against any effort to not treat the HIV-infected as lepers.
Thank you, California, for forcing me to partially agree with the Queen of Cunts on something. No length or number of showers will make me feel clean again.
@SpukiKitty :
Well, no fuckie-fuckie in CA till they raise it again, at least for me and other sensible people, this is really an idiotic ordinance. Now the blood screening is still the same as it was, though more culstist fucks might try and contaminate the pool now that it won`t put them in prison.
Assuming this is true, I agree with LC: It should be (or remain) a felony for people who deliberately risk passing on dangerous diseases, such as HIV, to uninformed partners.
It's an issue of public health and safety, and it's an issue of informed consent. I would argue that where consent is incomplete (for example, by a failure to fully disclose information that could directly alter the life of the one from whom consent is asked), it simply isn't consent.
You misspelled "Donald Trump" there at the end, honey. It's not spelled C-a-l-i-f-o-r-n-i-a. He's the most embarrassing thing that your country has ever had. The rest of the world is baffled as to why you'd want that overgrown toddler as head of state.
Isn't this law-change due to better medication; if you take your medication properly, you can't infect other people, as you don't have any infecting agents in your body? But, you still ought to inform the people you're making love with, that you have this potentially deadly disease, I'd say. Without knowing the possible consequences, it's not possible to form a full consent. Without that information, you just have to assume that EVERYONE can carry it, and demand condoms all the times.
Article:
> Exposing a person to HIV was treated more seriously under California law than infecting someone with any other communicable disease, a policy some lawmakers said was a relic of the decades-old AIDS scare that unfairly punishes HIV-positive people based on outdated science.
Say what you will about whether *all* diseases should be felonies, or whether there should be accomodations for severity. But I think we can agree that "is HIV" isn't the right factor.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
