MuchMoreThanMuscle saidWell, I guess that's good news.
In contrast, in other parts of the world you have men with HIV who rape women with the intent to infect them with the virus. Yet they get away with this type of behavior and nothing is done to provide these victims any justice.
Not that I expect two separate continents to abide by similar laws but when you embrace the polarity on a global level it really is disheartening. Let's shame HIV+ American men as murderers who forego condom use yet let's all excuse African men who flat out refuse to wear condoms or rape with intent to infect another with HIV as "impoverished" or uneducated. And let's stick our heads up our asses and not acknowledge any of it for fear of appearing indecorous or, god forbid, racist.
Very good points. I hadn't thought of it quite like that. Within the framework of the Catholic church's traditional "no condoms" stance, and many 3rd world's misogynistic hatred.....it's simply murder.
Point I'd like to note " Let's shame HIV+ American men as murderers".....on RJ it's ironically HIV+/U too. Many people her can't separate the difference. Even the lawmakers of Iowa realize there is a difference between the 90s hyperbole of HIV+ gay men wantonly spreading AIDS and modern medicine HIV therapy. Therapies such as HAART....where the point is to NOT pass on the virus and save lives....zero viral load/undetectable. (Yeah, here I go again!
) I'll make this point every time till you ======= get it.
Don't throw away you condoms! Not because I don't think ART is effective, but because people LIE about being HIV Negative, they will lie about being "undetectable" too.
Even more ironically "Many report “serosorting” practices, where one makes assumptions about a potential partner's status and makes sexual decisions accordingly. But a 2007 study showed that gay men who do this were no more likely to know their own status than those who don't.
“This is just amazing for us to know—that those of us in treatment and adherent don't deserve the finger-pointing we sometimes receive: stigma,” said HIV-positive activist Josh Robbins of Nashville, Tenn. “We are not the responsible party, generally, for new infections—those are from people unknowingly infected and that aren't being treated regularly or on PrEP.”
The above underlined is STILL what is wrong with this law. The person with HIV who doesn't know he has the virus is off the hook as far as the law is concerned. The bill..... "requires the transmission to be known
for criminal charges to be filed"
Even THAT is confusing, as the person below was convicted of transmitting the virus when he clearly DID NOT. Yes he knew he had it, no he didn't tell his partner, no he didn't pass it.
"Transmitting one of the diseases could be one of three classes of crimes depending on whether the diseased person passed the infection to another person
intentionally or with reckless disregard or without informing the person of their status."
Rhoades eventually pleaded guilty to criminally transmitting HIV,
a class B felony. A judge sentenced him to the maximum 25 years in prison.
the man learned from a friend that Rhoades had HIV and contacted police. He eventually tested negative for HIV,
but he supported Rhoades’ prosecution.
Transmit: cause (something) to pass on from one place or person to another.
I don't get their definition of "transmission"! It seems to be synonymous with "having HIV" not truly transmitting it. An analogy: It's like a car, if you have a transmission (and you know it) you are guilty, even if it's not in DRIVE. But if you are too dumb to know what a transmission is
(and it's in DRIVE) you are not held accountable for driving recklessly!