I think it is risky, but they did provide a rationale for changing the law. 

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.

But if they knowingly infect someone then they have obviously already been tested. There is no other way to know, and there is no crime for being HIV positive, only knowingly making someone else so without their knowledge. I think if you know you are HIV positive, and infect someone else without telling them, then you should be punished. 

They chief spreaders of HIV are too irresponsible to get tested.

HIV are too irresponsible to get tested

 I wonder if there is awareness of how easy it is to spread pathogens, like elevators? Public Transport? Clinics/Hospitals?

 Do people have a right " to self protection " if so how?

But if you use the wrong pronoun, off to jail!

Also, you need a signed and notarized contract, with three witnesses, before you can assume consent for sex. But infecting someone with a incurable disease? No biggie.

Yep, tossed in the pokey and fined even. Interesting to see that that new law is not receiving wider attention.

“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,” [Republican Lawmaker Joel] Anderson said during the floor debate. “It’s absolutely crazy to me that we should go light on this.”

What does this official want the Governor to do, ignore the science and continue to tackle the problem with fear and pretense that lives are not being shattered by inappropriate (disproportionate) sentencings?

"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."

Ummm....well......but......WHAT THE FUCK kind of Liberal excuse is that ?

"Oh....that's okay.....just transmit your known disease to others. We...."The People"..... can fix YOUR PREMEDITATED........ INDESCRETION ?"

Comment removed for CoC violation [ph]

"Modern medicine allows those with HIV to live longer lives and nearly eliminates the possibility of transmission,

E.A                                     BINGO!!!

So in Short, they try to say it is OK to Spread Pathogens that Kill Millions and render Humanity extinct, what can be more ?? Satanic ??

NB: See Carriers, and what happens to those that have " Undetectable Viral Load " See also ZIKA and how long a " Virus remains Detectable in the Blood "

So in Short, they try to say it is OK to Spread Pathogens that Kill Millions and render Humanity extinct, what can be more ?? Satanic ??

Probably the Liberal way of getting more people on Obamacare !

CA is losing their bloody minds!

CA is losing their bloody minds!

Ok.....then what do you say about states like Alabama and Kansas, who never had a felony statute? California isn't the first state to change their statute nor are they the ONLY state to have it classified as misdemeanors

The operative word is knowingly.   I would refine that word to intentionally.    If someone intentionally infects another with an incurable disease there should be a harsh penalty that stops them from infecting others.   As with anything legal, the trick is to find cases of genuine intent vs. accident.

I would refine that word to intentionally.

E.A   -  A man has been found guilty of knowingly infecting his former partner with HIV and Hepatitis C. Wednesday, 7 February 2007, 14:50 GMT
During the trial, Mola denied claims that he had bedded 200 women.

The court also heard how Mola never wore condoms and "aggressively" refused to do so.

Tell me how often does one have " Sex " accidentally?

E.A       He admitted falsely telling the women - one from Ireland and one from Germany - that he was not HIV positive. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4487610.stm Thursday, 1 December 2005, An Australian court has jailed an HIV-positive man for 12 years for having unprotected sex with two European tourists. Kanengele-Yondjo, a married father-of-five in his 40s, was diagnosed with the virus in February 1999. 

 So what defines " Murder "?

Tell me how often does one have " Sex " accidentally?

Not sure how anyone has sex accidentally, but I do not see anyone making that particular point.

However, using your word, I can imagine someone accidentally infecting their partner without intending to do so.   For example, a faulty condom.

For example, a faulty condom.

So,,  condoms where designed to stop pathogen transmissions?

Care to educate me how a Condom does that Remember " Body Fluids " is the Key !~

 See also the Microns of a Pathogens

Okay, I will explain the obvious.  Once.

Most people are aware that condoms are not 100% effective for anything (including contraception).  Even so, they are one of the most common methods used to reduce infection.   So, back to your first question on 'accidentally',  imagine a couple that uses condoms (and maybe other measures) to mitigate spreading the HIV virus.   Imagine then that it does not work one time and the partner is infected.   That would not be an intentional infection.  It would be unintentional.

That would not be an intentional infection.

E.A NO in a Court of Law it would be " Manslaughter " at least murder most likely, as   is when " Playing with a loaded Gun and accidentally killing " knowing there is a potential is an element of burden!

We are not discussing Russian roulette or similar practices.   We are discussing consensual sex with both individuals aware of the HIV risk and taking prescribed precautions.   

There is no intent to infect (quite the opposite) so infection would be unintentional.   If the scenario were different, say an infected individual purposely hiding his HIV, then even with the precautions and the lack of intent, there should be IMO legal implications for not giving the partner knowledge of the risks.

I think the two words are kinda the same in this situation though. I mean, if you know you have HIV, yet have unprotected sex with someone and don't tell them, then are you not also intentionally infecting them? If I know I am driving on the wrong side of the road, and decide not to get back on the correct side, then am I not at that point intentionally endangering others? 

I think the two words are kinda the same in this situation though.

I agree.   That is precisely why I substituted the word intentionally to get closer to the legal mechanisms that deal with intent.

I mean, if you know you have HIV, yet have unprotected sex with someone and don't tell them, then are you not also intentionally infecting them?

Exposure isn't the same as transmission, and someone who is HIV+ but has an undetectable virus load isn't transmissible.

This change in the law is good public health policy because the law no longer discourages people from knowing their HIV status.

I'll also note that many public health issues are like this, where what seems intuitively correct is the opposite of what's best for public health.

HIV patients in California who expose others to disease will no longer face felony charges

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.

“Today California took a major step toward treating HIV as a public health issue, instead of treating people living with HIV as criminals,” Sen. Scott Wiener, D.- San Francisco, told The Los Angeles Times.

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.

Under the old law, if a person who knows they are infected with HIV has unprotected sex without telling their partner they have the virus, they can be convicted of a felony and face years of jail time. Intentional transmission of any other communicable disease, even a potentially deadly condition like hepatitis, is a misdemeanor.

“These laws were passed at the height of the HIV/AIDS epidemic when there was enormous fear and ignorance and misinformation around HIV,” Wiener earlie said. “It’s time for California to lead and to repeal these laws to send a clear signal that we are going to take a science-based approach to HIV not a fear-based approach.”

Republican lawmaker, Sen Joel Anderson, reportedly voted against the bill.

“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, according to the paper.

foxnews

“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

E.A   At Last some one with " Common Sense " that this days is not so " common "

In that case, the "common-sense" would be to make a law that felonizes EVERYBODY who afflicts someone with a serious communicable disease (including Herpes, Hepatitis, and well-known STDs.)

What I see Governor Brown doing is achieving multiple purposes at once. Although, he makes one glaring political maneuver out-of-step, he did not prepare the public first.

The multiple purposes:

1) He explains the new science.

2) He points out that other diseases are intentionally being spread in the community without the severest of legal consequences.

3.  He makes the general public aware and signals to all interested professional, legal, and scientific agencies that HIV no longer needs a distinct political solution. Equal to other diseases it needs continued scientific research leading to a cure.

 * This is a difficult subject I know. Attitudes will run high for sure.

E,A and here is what they says about " Knowing "  and note what the CDC says about what percentile are unaware, is that an excuse?

CANADA: Emerging Face of AIDS: Heterosexual Females May Not Know They Are HIV-Positive Until They Nearly Die Guelph Mercury (07.26.05) - Tuesday, August 09, 2005

here is what they says about " Knowing"

WASHINGTON, April 26 - A significant number of young bisexual and homosexual men in the United States are unaware(LIES and LIARS) that they carry the AIDS virus, according to the findings of a study by US federal health authorities published Tuesday. Agence France Presse - April 26, 2005
In a survey of 5,600 men aged between 15 and 29 years old, of those who tested positive for HIV, some 77 percent did not know they had become infected with the virus, said Duncan MacKellar of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention who led the study. HOW Stupid is the Education system in the USA 40 YEARS ON and Comment removed for TOS violation [ph] STILL have NO clue about AIDS

* This is a difficult subject I know. Attitudes will run high for sure.

I'm glad to see that at least you're injecting good common sense into the debate.   Most folks have a very difficult time seeing this from a public health standpoint.

well it isn't the best of our society intentionally spreading HIV.  only a jackass would not disclose it.  and he/she should be punished severely.  Mothers can give their children HIV also.

why is the liberal way always excusing behavior?  

why is the liberal way always excusing behavior

I voted! But I do not understand why you added the above. (-:

isn't giving minor punishment for spreading a serious disease minimizing the behavior?  

also, whose idea was it for California to become a sanctuary state?  Once again, minimizing or excusing the behavior of illegals aliens and criminals.  

birth control for teenage girls.  illegal to have sex at 14, but birth control....no problem. shouldn't the child be punished for breaking the law?  both of them.

handing out needles to junkies

what is this "restorative justice" being implemented in our schools?  no punishment for breaking school rules.  students attend a "talking circle" for their touchy feely sessions.  

why is the progressive way to excuse bad behavior?

What is your issue with Governor Brown's rationale? Explain the Governor's action in your own words and then tell me where he is wrong. Please proceed. . . .

Define "good" behavior. Take your time.

Tell us, who is absolutely living out "good behavior"? Point me to that individual/s, please.

Define "good" behavior. Take your time.

oh geez, what nonsense.

what is Brown going to do when a mother intentionally infects her child?  give her a citation?  HIV is still a serious and deadly disease.

HIV is still a serious and deadly disease

E.A If I may:

 There are over 6000 Humans immunodeficiency pathogens and growing, No two persons have the same pathogens, so many lies are told about immunization, the " cure " is simple, avoid " high risk activities " 

Governor Brown's point is utterly that modern medical SCIENCE has brought this disease into a different category of disease (i.e., chronic sickness).  In doing so, a category QUESTION arises: If the nature of HIV treatment has STEPPED IT DOWN is it appropriate to continue treating it in a STEPPED UP CAPACITY (i.e., as a felony), when other diseases in its category are not treated so (i.e., misdemeanors). Either raise the entire category penalty to felony status or lower HIV to a misdemeanor. That's all he is saying about this action.

There may be extenuating information or issues the Governor is aware of that the public is not, such as petitions, lawyers, or governmental health policy.

>>

What is Brown going to do when a mother intentionally infects her child? Nothing, specifically. The Governor is dealing with a category and not individuals. I suppose there are other situational laws that a mother infecting her child with a serious/grave disease can be brought up on.

why is the liberal way always excusing behavior?

That's an over-generalization. All liberals are not like that...

However, that being said, over the past few years it seems that many liberals seem to believe that people should not be held responsible for their actions...and that's creating serious problems .

(Especially true on college campuses....)

That's an over-generalization. All liberals are not like that...

I didn't mean all liberals are.  But, that the policies are driven by progressives.  

" "Gay Comment removed TOS violation [ph] men do not have the right to spread a debilitating and often fatal disease," Charles Kaiser, a historian and author of "The Gay Metropolis," told the Times in an article published Feb. 15. "A person who is HIV-positive has no more right to unprotected intercourse than he has the right to put a bullet through another person's head." The Washington Blade - Friday, March 04, 2005
.... "Do you think because they're attacking us on the right, we should not be informed? Is that a pro-gay Comment removed TOS violation [ph] agenda -- that we get a deadly disease and die?" he said. "

" "Gay Comment removed for context (no violation) [ph] men do not have the right to spread a debilitating and often fatal disease,"

Why the mention of gays (not having that right?) Do you believe that gays don't have a right to spread HIV-- but straight people should be allowed to spread it?

Since you mentioned one minority group (gays)-- what about all thre others? Which ones shouldn't have the right to spread HIV-- and which onbes should be excluded (i.e. have the right)?

In addition to gays, which of these groups specifically do you feel shouldn't have the right to spread HIV? Lesbians, "Ass-men, Tit-men, African-Americans, Latinos, Catholics, Jews, practitioners of Santeria, Klingons, WASPs in general, Southern Baptists,Wiccans, Athiests in general,  Kurds, Italian-Americans, Jews, member of the alt-right, extreme leftists, Socialists, tall people, midgets, Californians, People from the deep South, pet owners... asnd people that spend half their life on the Internet?

(FWIW, my own view is that which minority (or majority) group someone belongs to is irrelevant-- IMO all people who know they have HIV and spread it should be found guilty....)

Kurds, Italian-Americans, Jews, member of the alt-right, extreme leftists, Socialists, tall people, midgets, Californians, People from the deep South, pet owners... asnd people that spend half their life on the Internet?

E.A  Did You notice where that article was taken from?

 and Do you think that we have a " right to spread pathogens "?

Do you think that we have a " right to spread pathogens "?

E.A  Ahh " Golden Silence " what a way  to scream!!!

Safe Sex?? what is that lets see :::

Under federal mandates signed by President Clinton in 2000, http://www.aegis.org/channel/s/AD032660.html CDC was to have issued a report on the best HPV prevention strategies by Dec. 21. Separately, FDA http://www.fda.gov/ was to re-evaluate condom labels to ensure that they are "medically accurate" concerning their efficacy in preventing disease, including HPV. Neither agency has complied, said Souder. New address they cannot hide, http://www.aegis.org/news/ads/2003/ad032660.html

Safe Sex?? what is that lets see :::

Condom labels should say more, FDA advises
Agency pressed by those who see link to disease, promiscuity
Johanna Neuman, Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar, Los Angeles Times
Friday, November 11, 2005
http://leda.law.harvard.edu/leda/data/737/Samuel05.html On one hand, condoms can prevent bad outcomes associated with each act of risky sex, and on the other, condom use can promote more acts of risky sex (by making people less fearful about bad consequences). One question is how to weigh the two factors together. For instance, if condoms are 1% effective, but lead to a 300% increase in risky conduct, then the net increase in overall risk is (.99)(3.0) = 2.97, or a 197% increase.

Here is how pathogens are spread ::

Mr Smith, 53, told the Sunday Times he did not tell Tony Blair about his illness when he became Britain's first openly gay Cabinet minister in 1997.

"It means you have to take quite a lot of pills, but if you carry on doing that, there's no reason why you should not be able to go on living with this condition." http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4219501.stm

Sunday, 30 January, 2005,
Mr Smith, 53,..The MP, who has always been treated by the NHS, said he was lucky to soon be put on a combination of anti-retroviral drugs that have helped him fight the illness. ....,,,,,,... rising costs as well as ill health with each HIV infection estimated to cost between £500,000 and £1m in treatment and lost productivity.

Thursday, 25 November, 2004, Can YOU afford IT?

E.A  But note how he thanks that Nation for the Medical Care :: See who he funded to enter the country and what was Known.

As if we needed more evidence of the idiocy of the Californicators....................

redstate

This is just provocateur nonsense! Why can't you simply call other people what they want and ask to be called? What is the conservative issue about selective freedom for other people?! Just call people what they ask you to call them, particularly if you have no compelling reason not to!

Is that REALLY what you took away from that story and this law? Holy crap. It, for now concerns nursing homes and the like. If you think a man walking around in a dress knows what you call him ................The gist is frigging jail time. That is beyond "just being nice" and calling someone what they "want" to be called.

Is calbab the combination of Calvin and Barbara?

SMDH

"Hey, badfish, dinner's ready!!"

Maybe I should call you, "Just'im Boy"? It is so simple to call people what they ask to be called. You do not need to get into their head, psycho-analyze it, or write a critical paper on it for publishing. It keeps the peace, especially in their presence. Costs you nothing. No feelings are involved. Everybody can be happy. The only reason a law is needed is because somebody felt violated and a policy change became the only viable course of action! One more case of adjudication!

Calbab? It is a combination of "Cal" and "Babs." You can call me either, "Cal" or "Babs".

It is so simple to call people what they ask to be called.

This isn't about someone "asking". It's about someone inadvertently "hurting feelings" by not knowing what to call them.

The only reason a law is needed is because somebody felt violated and a policy change became the only viable course of action! One more case of adjudication!

A very few somebodies it seems. Exactly. .13% of the population (that's .0013) gets their feelings hurt (grownups supposedly to boot!!!!!) and there has to be a law to punish and even inflict jail time because some old geezer walks to the dinner room in a dress and gets pissed when the servers ask "Can I get you anything else sir?" What in the hell breed of pretzel logic, politically correct, everyone gets a trophy thinking is that? (That is MOST CERTAINLY a rhetorical question.) Sorry but makes absolutely NO sense to me. Even kids in school have to put up with nicknames and some bullying and have more guts and tolerance than that.

Sorry but we are going to adamantly disagree on this. Talk about worthless legislation. What next, noticing someone is not looking well and actually asking them if they are okay?

Now I'm SMFH.................

Call people what they want to be called, ESPECIALLY if they make it plain to you, Just Jim. I take it no one addresses you in any way (more than once or twice) other than you wish! If you do not want to call a man by a standard female noun just avoid the occasion to do so, or avoid classification altogether. Easy-Peasy. Fires all out. Hoses down. Axes stowed.

One more thing. I have to assume the 'problem' is more complex than you are alluding to. Sensible policies especially involving penalty for inaction or inappropriate execution derive from a need of some kind.

—Babs

How about the 15 states that never even had such a law on the books? Bunch of wackos right? 

Agence France Presse - January 9, 2005

Will AIDS campaign be tsunami's next victim?

"Eight thousand people die of AIDS each day, in terms of mortality that's a tsunami every fortnight," said Annick Hamel of the French organisation Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF - Doctors Without Borders).

USA. Estimated number of deaths of persons with AIDS is 501,669, including 496,354 adults and adolescents, and 5,315 children under age 15 -

Following is the distribution of the estimated number of diagnoses of AIDS among adults and adolescents by exposure category.

A breakdown by sex is provided where appropriate.Male-to-male sexual contact 420,790 Male-to-male sexual contact and injection drug use 59,719= 490.509 =%??(98%)

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/resources/slides/epidemiology/index.htm

hiv/topics/surveillance/resources/slides/epidemiology/index.htm

E.A  https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/library/slidesets/index.html

E.A Why has the CDC made it harder to Search and View FACTS?

E.A the answer::

A Quote found

" Bush's Anti-Gay AIDS Appointee Quits;

http://gaytoday.com/events/012403ev.asp

"It is important that the administration bolster PACHA's credibility by avoiding divisive figures, such as Thacker, who distract the panel from doing the important work of fighting against HIV and AIDS. We look forward to working with the administration and PACHA on scientifically sound policies that disseminate accurate information and save lives."
Bush appoints gay Comment removed for TOS violation [ph]

man as head

http://www.aegis.com/news/bayw/2001/BY010401.html
Comment removed for TOS violation [ph]

Russell Rich, who had worked at McDonald's for 20 years and was employed as a manager when he resigned, first sued the corporation in October 1998, saying supervisors had altered his duties after he complained about a "hostile work environment." Rich, who has AIDS, in 2001 won a $5 million verdict against McDonald's, but a three-judge panel of the 8th Ohio District Court of Appeals in October 2003 http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=27287 ,, http://www.gaypeopleschronicle.com/stories05/July/0708052.htm

“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.

That's a blatant lie-- totally misrepresents what happened!!!

The past law did not treat with HIV as criminals. There was no punishment for merely having HIV as this liar claims. Rather, the punishment had been not for merely having it, but rather knowing you had it-- and spreading it!

(If you own a kitchen knife & murder someone with it-- that's a crime. However that does not mean the law is punishing people for merely having a kitchen knife. All owners of kitchen knives are not "treated as criminals"). 

The past law did not treat with HIV as criminals. There was no punishment for merely having HIV as this liar claims. Rather, the punishment had been not for merely having it, but rather knowing you had it-- and spreading it!

Actually it criminalized mere potential HIV exposure not just actual transmission and thus treated HIV far more seriously than other serious infectious diseases.     Nor did the law keep up with the improvements in understand HIV transmission and treatment.   In the end that adversely affected public health.

In general these anti-HIV laws are very bad public health policy for a number of reasons which is why medical professionals and healthcare organizations which fight HIV have uniformly opposed these criminal laws.

I would like to piggy-back on this one with useful information in two parts about SB239:

SB239

Modernizing California HIV Criminalization Laws – SB 239 (Sen. Scott Wiener, Asm. Todd Gloria)

Summary

Several California criminal laws specifically target people living with HIV. SB 239 (Wiener & Gloria) eliminates this form of HIV exceptionalism by incorporating the current scientific understanding of HIV, addressing exposure to HIV in the same manner as exposure to other serious communicable diseases, and eliminating extra punishment for people living with HIV who engage in consensual sexual activity.

Background

Modernization of outdated laws is necessary. Most California HIV criminalization laws were passed in 1988, with limited medical understanding of HIV and tremendous fear surrounding the disease. Little was known about the virus, there were no effective treatments, and stigmatizing people living with HIV was politically expedient.

In the years since, societal and medical understanding of HIV/AIDS has greatly improved. There are now effective medications that greatly lengthen and improve the quality of life for people living with HIV—treatment that also nearly eliminates the possibility of transmission. In addition, HIV-negative individuals can take similar medications to prevent acquisition of HIV. California law should reflect the current landscape of HIV prevention, care and treatment.

Current law hurts more than it helps. Research indicates that HIV-specific laws do not influence people’s behaviors or reduce the number of new infections. Criminalization serves only to fuel continued stigma and discrimination against people living with HIV.

These laws work against public health. They provide an incentive not to know your HIV status because you can only be prosecuted if you know you are HIV-positive. They create mistrust of public health professionals, making people who have tested HIV-positive less likely to cooperate with partner notification, treatment adherence and prevention programs. And they place HIV-negative people in harm’s way by making them believe they can engage in risky behaviors without the risk.

Addressing HIV the same as other communicable diseases benefits public health because it reduces the stigma associated with this particular disease, thereby addressing barriers to testing and treatment. The National Alliance of State and Territorial AIDS Directors (NASTAD), U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), HIV Medicine Association, American Psychological Association, AIDS United, and others agree that outdated HIV criminalization laws must be replaced with laws promoting public health.

eqca

Part 1

HIV criminalization laws disproportionately impact vulnerable populations. Ninety percent of HIV-related prosecutions in California take place under the statute that transforms misdemeanor solicitation into a felony. Though only 13% of the people living with HIV in California are women, 43% of the people criminalized under HIV specific laws are women. Transgender women, who are subject to police profiling as sex workers (i.e., “walking while trans”), are even more disproportionately affected by these laws. Furthermore, 51% of people living with HIV in California are Black or Latino/a, but 67% of people criminalized under HIV specific laws are Black or Latino/a. And though foreign-born individuals are underrepresented among those criminalized based on their HIV status, felony charges can result in dire consequences, including deportation proceedings for those who are undocumented.

Solution

• Place HIV on par with other serious communicable diseases.
• Promote public health by reducing stigma, acknowledging shared responsibility for health, and eliminating barriers to testing and care.
• Maintain criminal penalties for people who intentionally harm others.

Sponsors

APLA Health
ACLU of California
Black AIDS Institute
Equality California
Lambda Legal
Positive Women’s Network – USA

eqca

Part 2

If it’s not a felony in other states, then what compelling reason is there to keep it a felony in California? The person with HIV should be responsible and not infect others. However, everybody has a responsibility to protect themselves. Anybody who has sex without any protection whatsoever (especially with a stranger) assumes the risk of getting infected. Once you get a fatal disease, putting the person who infected you in jail isn’t going to do you any good. 

Once you get a fatal disease, putting the person who infected you in jail isn’t going to do you any good.

E.A Pardon? so " killing slowly with a Pathogen " is ok?

Not Punishing a " Killer " makes a better world?

like I said numerous times, what kills more guns or pathogens?

So we have " screamers to ban Gun " but it be ok to " Kill " with pathogens? See earlier statements about Sperm and Apoptosis.

UPDATED:: for a NT questioner to look up " Hematospermia " and " Hemospermia " Sperm Ingested  Orally or Anally is deadly!

Once you get a fatal disease, putting the person who infected you in jail isn’t going to do you any good.

E.A Pardon? so " killing slowly with a Pathogen " is ok?

Not Punishing a " Killer " makes a better world

I was just talking about taking personal responsibility. In any event, is California moving in line or out of line with other states on this issue? If it’s in line and there’s no problem, then I doubt there’d be a problem in California either. On the other hand, California is a liberal nut house. I don’t live there so I really don’t care what they do to each other. 

I don’t live there so I really don’t care what they do to each other.

E.A so you think that Pathogens are " Border aware " so when one state get a PANDEMIC, other states need  not worry, since the pathogens have no " travel Documents "  is that a bit like EBOLA  and ZIKA?

I don’t live there so I really don’t care what they do to each other.

E.A so you think that Pathogens are " Border aware " so when one state get a PANDEMIC, other states need not worry . . . 

If that is so, and other states don’t make it a felony, then it really doesn’t make any difference what California does because the pathogens will come from elsewhere. 

E.A ok I see a " defeatist " thread there, so I can not say anything more, many thanks

Pardon? so " killing slowly with a Pathogen " is ok?

Not Punishing a " Killer " makes a better world? like I said numerous times, what kills more guns or pathogens?

So do you advocate for mandatory flu vaccines? If you have the flu, have sex and give it to someone else, should you be charged with a felony? MANY more people die from the flu then from HIV. In fact, you could say the same about TB and intestinal viruses. 

So you aren't obsessed with viruses. You are obsessed with HIV. Why HIV and not the much more prevalent viruses that you really SHOULD be worried that your family may contract? Do you go after the anti-vacers that put other children in danger without telling everyone? 

Epidemiology of HIV/AIDS --- United States, 1981--2005
www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5521a2.htm
Epidemiology of HIV/AIDS --- United States, 1981--2005 ... diagnosed with HIV to describe the epidemiology more