Iowa Legislature updates HIV transmission law with ‘lesser penalties’

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 16, 2014 9:06 PM GMT
    "The Iowa Legislature has sent to the governor a measure lessening the penalties for people who unknowingly expose someone to HIV with no intention of infecting them.....People would be eligible for 25 year sentences only if they intend to transmit a disease without someone’s knowledge."

    Instead of a mandatory 25 years, it's now "up to 25" and at the judges' discretion.

    In a recent case an HIV+ Iowa man was sentenced to 25 years with NO transmission of HIV. He was on ART Therapy with a low viral load, but not undetectable. Subsequently his sentence was reduced to 18 months.

    "The bill expands state laws against transmitting HIV to include other contagious and infectious diseases including hepatitis, tuberculosis and menningicocal disease and requires the transmission to be known for criminal charges to be filed,"


    http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2014/05/iowa-legislature-updates-hiv-transmission-law-with-lesser-penalties/
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 17, 2014 8:45 PM GMT
    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.”

    http://www.healthline.com/health-news/hiv-no-virus-transmission-in-mixed-hiv-status-couples-031014

    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."
    http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/iowa-politics/2014/05/01/hiv-transmission-law-rewritten/8550737/

    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.

    http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2014/03/iowa-supreme-court-hears-appeal-of-man-convicted-of-hiv-notification-law/

    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!
  • Timbales

    Posts: 13993

    May 17, 2014 8:49 PM GMT
    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.


    Do you think it's ok for someone to knowingly expose someone to an incurable infectious disease without their knowledge?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 17, 2014 9:00 PM GMT
    Timbales said

    Do you think it's ok for someone to knowingly expose someone to an incurable infectious disease without their knowledge?


    Oh brother! Is that what you got from his comment?! That doesn't deserve a dignified response, I will say this: He and I have answered that stupid question so many times already. NO, and go fuck yourself for assuming that an HIV+/U would say YES. Do you think that because we are positive we are immoral???? WTF is wrong with you?

    “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.”

    http://www.healthline.com/health-news/hiv-no-virus-transmission-in-mixed-hiv-status-couples-031014


    Do you think a person is guilty of transmitting HIV when he didn't transmit HIV?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 17, 2014 9:26 PM GMT
    unckabasa said
    Timbales said
    Do you think it's ok for someone to knowingly expose someone to an incurable infectious disease without their knowledge?

    Do you think a person is guilty of transmitting HIV when he didn't transmit HIV?

    So you're taking chances? You do it and if they got infected you're guilty but if they weren't infected you're innocent. Is that the way you think?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 17, 2014 9:35 PM GMT
    David3K said
    unckabasa said
    Timbales said
    Do you think it's ok for someone to knowingly expose someone to an incurable infectious disease without their knowledge?

    Do you think a person is guilty of transmitting HIV when he didn't transmit HIV?

    So you're taking chances? You do it and if they got infected you're guilty but if they weren't infected you're innocent. Is that the way you think?


    Another knee JERK reaction!

    No, the law is not specific enough. By making it too broad it becomes nonsensical.
  • Timbales

    Posts: 13993

    May 18, 2014 1:18 AM GMT
    unckabasa said
    Timbales said

    Do you think it's ok for someone to knowingly expose someone to an incurable infectious disease without their knowledge?


    Oh brother! Is that what you got from his comment?! That doesn't deserve a dignified response, I will say this: He and I have answered that stupid question so many times already. NO, and go fuck yourself for assuming that an HIV+/U would say YES. Do you think that because we are positive we are immoral???? WTF is wrong with you?

    “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.”

    http://www.healthline.com/health-news/hiv-no-virus-transmission-in-mixed-hiv-status-couples-031014


    Do you think a person is guilty of transmitting HIV when he didn't transmit HIV?


    I didn't assume anything, and I didn't ask you.

    So fuck off, asshole.
  • Timbales

    Posts: 13993

    May 18, 2014 1:56 PM GMT
    MuchMoreThanMuscle saidYou didn't ask him, you asked me.

    To answer the question, "No, I don't think it's okay to knowingly put someone at risk wothout their knowledge."

    I will provide this input along with my response:

    After all the years we have seen each other on the threads I'm surprised you would ask that question of me. What kind of person would answer "yes" to a question like that? You must think so lowly of me to even ask.


    I don't think lowly of you at all. I'm sorry if you were offended.

    With current therapies, there are more nuances to HIV than there were before.

    If someone is positive, on meds and showing no viral load, do you think they may not inform someone of their status because they don't feel they are putting someone at risk? Because I've heard people assume that's the case.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 18, 2014 5:08 PM GMT
    Timbales said
    unckabasa said
    Timbales said

    Do you think it's ok for someone to knowingly expose someone to an incurable infectious disease without their knowledge?


    Oh brother! Is that what you got from his comment?! That doesn't deserve a dignified response, I will say this: He and I have answered that stupid question so many times already. NO, and go fuck yourself for assuming that an HIV+/U would say YES. Do you think that because we are positive we are immoral???? WTF is wrong with you?

    “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.”

    http://www.healthline.com/health-news/hiv-no-virus-transmission-in-mixed-hiv-status-couples-031014


    Do you think a person is guilty of transmitting HIV when he didn't transmit HIV?


    I didn't assume anything, and I didn't ask you.

    So fuck off, asshole.


    This is a FORUM. Open to anyone. If you wanted to ask such a PERSONAL and invasive question, a Private Message would be more appropriate.

    And since you asked a very leading question that presupposed an answer "Because I've heard people assume that's the case." it IS an assumption that you made. An assumption based on an assumption.

    And since I am one of those "people" I feel I can and should answer your question because it's insulting to us as a group.

  • Timbales

    Posts: 13993

    May 18, 2014 5:10 PM GMT
    unckabasa said
    Timbales said
    unckabasa said
    Timbales said

    Do you think it's ok for someone to knowingly expose someone to an incurable infectious disease without their knowledge?


    Oh brother! Is that what you got from his comment?! That doesn't deserve a dignified response, I will say this: He and I have answered that stupid question so many times already. NO, and go fuck yourself for assuming that an HIV+/U would say YES. Do you think that because we are positive we are immoral???? WTF is wrong with you?

    “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.”

    http://www.healthline.com/health-news/hiv-no-virus-transmission-in-mixed-hiv-status-couples-031014


    Do you think a person is guilty of transmitting HIV when he didn't transmit HIV?


    I didn't assume anything, and I didn't ask you.

    So fuck off, asshole.


    This is a FORUM. Open to anyone. If you wanted to ask such a PERSONAL and invasive question, a Private Message would be more appropriate.

    And since you asked a very leading question that presupposed an answer "Because I've heard people assume that's the case." it IS an assumption that you made. An assumption based on an assumption.

    And since I am one of those "people" I feel I can and should answer your question because it's insulting to us as a group.



    Considering how you replied to me, I don't how insulted you are.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 18, 2014 5:11 PM GMT

    Do you think a person is guilty of transmitting HIV when he didn't transmit HIV?


    Could one of the NEGs answer that?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 18, 2014 5:19 PM GMT
    Timbales said
    unckabasa said
    Timbales said
    unckabasa said
    Timbales said

    Do you think it's ok for someone to knowingly expose someone to an incurable infectious disease without their knowledge?


    Oh brother! Is that what you got from his comment?! That doesn't deserve a dignified response, I will say this: He and I have answered that stupid question so many times already. NO, and go fuck yourself for assuming that an HIV+/U would say YES. Do you think that because we are positive we are immoral???? WTF is wrong with you?

    “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.”

    http://www.healthline.com/health-news/hiv-no-virus-transmission-in-mixed-hiv-status-couples-031014


    Do you think a person is guilty of transmitting HIV when he didn't transmit HIV?


    I didn't assume anything, and I didn't ask you.

    So fuck off, asshole.


    This is a FORUM. Open to anyone. If you wanted to ask such a PERSONAL and invasive question, a Private Message would be more appropriate.

    And since you asked a very leading question that presupposed an answer "Because I've heard people assume that's the case." it IS an assumption that you made. An assumption based on an assumption.

    And since I am one of those "people" I feel I can and should answer your question because it's insulting to us as a group.



    Considering how you replied to me, I don't----- how insulted you are.



    You don't what......care?
    You didn't care from the beginning! Even before I responded.

    When you say shit like this:
    "Do you think it's ok for someone to knowingly expose someone to an incurable infectious disease without their knowledge?"

    That isn't a question, it's a presumptuous indictment. I wasn't about to leave that unanswered.
  • Timbales

    Posts: 13993

    May 18, 2014 5:24 PM GMT
    unckabasa said

    You don't what......care?
    You didn't care from the beginning! Even before I responded.

    When you say shit like this:
    "Do you think it's ok for someone to knowingly expose someone to an incurable infectious disease without their knowledge?"

    That isn't a question, it's a presumptuous indictment. I wasn't about to leave that unanswered.


    YknltEr.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 18, 2014 5:33 PM GMT
    Timbales said
    unckabasa said

    You don't what......care?
    You didn't care from the beginning! Even before I responded.

    When you say shit like this:
    "Do you think it's ok for someone to knowingly expose someone to an incurable infectious disease without their knowledge?"

    That isn't a question, it's a presumptuous indictment. I wasn't about to leave that unanswered.


    YknltEr.gif


    A dumb fuck gives a dumb fuck answer. Brilliant!
  • Timbales

    Posts: 13993

    May 18, 2014 5:44 PM GMT
    unckabasa said
    Timbales said
    unckabasa said

    You don't what......care?
    You didn't care from the beginning! Even before I responded.

    When you say shit like this:
    "Do you think it's ok for someone to knowingly expose someone to an incurable infectious disease without their knowledge?"

    That isn't a question, it's a presumptuous indictment. I wasn't about to leave that unanswered.


    YknltEr.gif


    A dumb fuck gives a dumb fuck answer. Brilliant!


    says the 'man' who claims can read my mind through the internet.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 18, 2014 5:45 PM GMT
    Timbales said
    unckabasa said
    Timbales said
    unckabasa said

    You don't what......care?
    You didn't care from the beginning! Even before I responded.

    When you say shit like this:
    "Do you think it's ok for someone to knowingly expose someone to an incurable infectious disease without their knowledge?"

    That isn't a question, it's a presumptuous indictment. I wasn't about to leave that unanswered.


    YknltEr.gif


    A dumb fuck gives a dumb fuck answer. Brilliant!


    says the 'man' who claims can read my mind through the internet.


    I don't have to.....your quotes do it for me.
  • Timbales

    Posts: 13993

    May 18, 2014 5:49 PM GMT
    unckabasa said

    I don't have to.....your quotes do it for me.


    gallery_170_14_911674.gif

    whatever keeps that clairvoyant persecution complex going
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 18, 2014 5:50 PM GMT
    unckabasa said

    Considering how you replied to me, I don't (______) how insulted you are.

    says the 'man' who claims (______) can read my mind through the internet.






    Since you drop words maybe you need to fill them in?
  • Timbales

    Posts: 13993

    May 18, 2014 5:57 PM GMT
    unckabasa said
    unckabasa said

    Considering how you replied to me, I don't (______) how insulted you are.

    says the 'man' who claims (______) can read my mind through the internet.






    Since you drop words maybe you need to fill them in?

    knock yourself out, mary
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 18, 2014 6:05 PM GMT
    Timbales said
    unckabasa said
    unckabasa said

    Considering how you replied to me, I don't (______) how insulted you are.

    says the 'man' who claims (______) can read my mind through the internet.






    Since you drop words maybe you need to fill them in?


    knock yourself out, mary

    Not worth the trouble
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 18, 2014 6:25 PM GMT
    Do you think it's OK for a person with an unknown HIV status to unknowingly expose someone to an incurable infectious disease without their knowledge?

    THAT is hard to answer with two "unknowns". And THAT is the problem with the Iowa law. It only addresses people with a known HIV+ status. HIV+/U is lumped together with HIV+. Even though most new cases are from untested or unknown so called "NEG" men.

    It is probably nearly impossible to charge an unknown status person with HIV transmission. You can't FORCE everyone to get tested, legally. There's the Catch 22, you can't penalize supposed Negative people for not knowing (who are spreading HIV). But you can penalize HIV+/U people who do know (and who aren't spreading HIV).