Advertisements

Some Democrat Candidates think it’s Perfectly Fine to Knowingly Give Someone HIV

NEW YORK CITY AIDS MEMORIAL, NEW YORK, UNITED STATES - 2017/03/30: Hundreds gathered on a rally at the AIDS Memorial on West 12th Street, New York City to celebrate ACT UP 30th Anniversary, followed by a march around the West Village to the open plaza in Union Square at East 17th Street. (Photo by Erik McGregor/Pacific Press/LightRocket via Getty Images)

Support us & Get Cool Stuff!

We’ve discussed this topic before. Knowingly giving someone HIV without disclosure in California has been pretty much legalized. It’s all about “intention” now, with a maximum penalty of just 90 days in jail for purposefully transmitting the virus.

Thanks to California Senate Bill 329, as of January 1, 2017, it is no longer a felony for people who are HIV-positive to have unprotected sex and not disclose their status.
SB 329 also automatically vacated prior convictions related to:
Non-disclosure of HIV status (former Penal Code 647f), and/or
Felony prostitution convictions based on HIV status.
But, it is still possible for someone to file a civil lawsuit for money damages if a partner fails to disclose an STD.
Below, we discuss how SB 329 has changed California HIV law and when someone needs to disclose an STD to a partner.
1. PC 120290 – intentionally trying to infect someone with HIV
2. Vacation of former convictions based on HIV status
3. No more mandatory HIV-education for prostitution or solicitation
4. Can I be sued for not disclosing my HIV-positive status to a partner?
1. PC 120290 – intentionally trying to infect someone with HIV
Penal Code 120290 is California’s law on willful exposure to an infectious disease. PC 120290 makes it a misdemeanor to have unprotected sex without telling a partner of an STD – but only if the intention is to infect the other person.
If the person is actually infected as result of the intentional exposure, PC 120290 can be punished by:
Up to 6 months in jail, and/or
A fine of up to $1,000.
Attempting (unsuccessfully) to transmit an infectious or communicable disease can be punished by up to 90 days in jail.
2. Vacation of former convictions based on HIV status
SB 329 also added Section 1170.21 to the California Penal Code. PC 1170.21 automatically vacates prior arrests and convictions for:
Non-disclosure of HIV status (former Penal Code 647f), and/or
Felony prostitution convictions based on HIV status.
Former Penal Code 647f made it a felony for someone who knew he or she was HIV positive to have unprotected sex with a partner without first informing the partner.
California law also made it a felony for a defendant who tested positive for AIDS after a prostitution conviction to be convicted of a second prostitution offense.
SB 329 automatically vacated these arrests and convictions. For all legal intents and purposes, they never occurred. This means that people who were arrested, charged or convicted of these counts do not need to disclose them when applying for employment or a California state license.
But anyone currently serving a sentence for such a charge must petition the court to vacate the conviction. Time served will be credited to any related charges on which the defendant was also convicted (such as Penal Code 647b, California’s law on prostitution).
3. No more mandatory HIV-education for prostitution or solicitation
Under prior California law, anyone convicted of a first offense for prostitution or soliciting prostitution was required to take an AIDS education course.
But following the enactment of SB 329 people convicted of a first offense for these charges no longer need to do so.
4. Can I be sued for not disclosing my HIV-positive status to a partner?
California law allows a plaintiff to sue for damages if:
The defendant owed the plaintiff a legal duty of care,
The defendant was negligent, and
As a result of the defendant’s negligence, the plaintiff suffered damages.
There is also a “negligence per se” law in California. Under this law, a defendant is liable in a civil lawsuit when:
The defendant violated a statute, ordinance, or regulation;
The violation caused death or injury to person or property;
The death or injury resulted from an act the statute, ordinance, or regulation was designed to prevent; and
The person who suffered the death or the injury was a member of a group the statute, ordinance, or regulation was designed to protect.
Sexual partners are members of the group the that Penal Code 120290 is trying to protect.
But a defendant only violates Penal Code 120290 when he or she intentionally tries to infect a partner. So people will usually not be liable under a theory of negligence per se.
This means that in most cases, a plaintiff would have to prove actual negligence by a preponderance of the evidence.
A defendant might be negligent for infecting a partner with HIV if:
The defendant knew he or she had AIDS or was HIV-positive;
The defendant was negligent in not disclosing his/her status and/or not using a condom or dental dam; and
As a result of that negligence, the plaintiff acquired the disease and suffered damages  (such as medical bills and/or pain and suffering).

-shouselaw.com

Now, some 2020 Candidates argue that it should be decriminalized everywhere.

This was a common theme at Thursday night’s CNN town hall focused on gay and transgender issues, sponsored by the Human Rights Campaign. Host Anderson Cooper, for example, called laws criminalizing HIV nondisclosure “antiquated” and based on “old science.” Presidential contender Pete Buttigieg agreed, saying, “It’s not fair and it needs to change.” And both on the CNN stage and in her new LGBT issues platform, Sen. Elizabeth Warren has endorsed decriminalizing HIV transmission as well.
Sen. Cory Booker has also signed on to this radicalism, explicitly agreeing
 that laws requiring disclosure of HIV status to sexual partners are “archaic” and have “no scientific basis,” calling for their complete repeal.

-WashingtonExaminer
Advertisements
You Might Like
You Might Like
Loading cart ⌛️ ...
%d bloggers like this: