Yeah I heard about this back when they were deciding on whether or not to do it. Not really surprised they passed it in California.
Coming from someone who lives in California, I am also not surprised. Disappointed, but not surprised.
I don't see how "pronoun violations" are at all constitutional. They're working in the private sector, so how doctors address their patients should be up to corporate policies. That's one more reason to be glad that we don't have "universal healthcare" I guess.
Yeah, I seriously doubt this is going to hold up in court.
As the forum's token non-binary person, I'd like to say that I'm not at all in favor of this. Should health care workers be misgendering their patients? No. But this is the wrong way to handle it.
Giving someone AIDS isn't murder, not these days. When we run out of ways to make antibiotics, then it'll be murder, but for now it's just making somebody's life really sucky and expensive. Murder is the name for what happens when you find the asshole who gave you AIDS in the first place.
If you put poison in someone's food, and they take an antidote, that's still attempted murder. Moreover, some people might not even be able to afford HIV treatment. Even if you can afford the treatment, it's still going to have a negative impact on your health and lifespan. Until we get a permanent cure for HIV, spreading it intentionally should be considered the same as using a biological weapon.
I don't think it's attempted murder until there's intent to murder. Chopping off someones' leg will also kill them if they can't afford the treatment, and will negatively impact their health and lifespan, but if you were doing it to eliminate competition at a sports event, then it's not attempted murder, it's assault/mayhem/gristly bodily harm. For similar reasons, someone who knowingly gives someone else AIDS because they just want to get laid shouldn't be charged with attempted murder, because that's clearly not what it was. Fucking up someone's life and ending it are two very different things, as is using a biological weapon. The term you're looking for is probably "Negligent Homicide" or something, but even then that only happens if the person dies from AIDS-related complications directly. There isn't exactly a case for "Attempted negligent homicide".
Maybe attempted murder is a little harsh but there should be a harsh penalty for knowingly spreading an incurable disease that prevents someone from having children and costs them tons of money in medical costs. There are cases where people in Canada and the UK have purposely spread the disease to both men and women in order to make life difficult for them.
Honestly if you are HIV positive and not informing someone you should be charged as a sex offender because you are not allowing someone to choose not to have your disease ridden dick inside them.
While I still think people should disclose their status, is possible to be HIV+, undergo treatment, have no detectable viral load, and have 0% chance of infecting anyone.
Well, if it's a 0% chance, then I'm sure they won't mind when they receive an 8 year sentence when someone does get infected.
They're not the ones affected by this change, obviously... that was directed at the idea that it should be criminal for anyone who is HIV+ to not disclose, regardless of outcome.
As for the people who are HIV+ and do have a chance of transmitting it... not disclosing is obviously shitty, but I'm not convinced it's 8-years-in-jail shitty, considering that HIV is no longer the death sentence that it once was.
Yeah, but it sucks a lot. like, shit, I don't care if they're not infectious, because, y'know, it's not that hard to fucking tell someone. It's not exactly a death sentence, but it still fucks your quality of life to a horrible degree. I honestly don't think the minority of people we'd avoid punishing by doing this would be all that much for two simple words and an acronym, 8 years is a good enough deterrent, and anyone who "gets caught" deserves it imho.
>it's not that hard to fucking tell someone.
And when was the last time you had to tell a potential sex partner that you had an incurable STD? :P
I agree that 6 months may be going to far towards leniency... but 8 years is a long damn time.
8 years is a long time, but so is the rest of somebody else's life. Or not, as the case may be. Frankly, I don't really give a shit about someone who can't muster themselves up to tell someone something this fucking important. 8 years should be a good enough deterrent to motivate anyone to be honest about their condition, and if somebody actually goes through with it, it's not exactly like they're prime prison rape/cutting material.
Also its not about if you are 100% non transferable. If you are transferable you should disclose it to not do so should be criminalized harshly. 6 months is way to short. It should be at least a year or two.
You get 3-8 years in California for rape, and HIV arguably fucks up someone's life much worse than rape.
Not true at all. If I don't intend to murder, you, and don't murder you, that's not murder, attempted or otherwise.
That is actually a great point.
It's not, though.
For some reason, I am not surprised at all. Disgested, yes; surprised, no.
Yeah I got eaten by a bear after reading this article
Lol, I utterly despise my phone's keypad.
I mean San Francisco is the "gayest" place in America and with the high percentages of HIV in homosexuals, it doesn't really come as to much surprise along with the fact that the entire state is so hipster liberal.
That being said I'm totally for vigilante justice to those who fuck up peoples lives in such a way.
I think it's a bit unfair to say the entire state is liberal.
Eh yeah I retract that over exaggeration, It's just the first thing that comes to mind along with Oregon and Washington when thinking about the big three western libs.
Huh. Fascinating. I mean, it's not murder, but still, pretty shitty.