Notorious HIV: The Criminal Prosecution of a Virus

Notorious HIV: The Criminal Prosecution of a Virus <<<COLIN>>>

---

Published on The Root (http://www.theroot.com)
Home > Notorious HIV: The Criminal Prosecution of a Virus
Notorious HIV: The Criminal Prosecution of a Virus

By: Cynthia Gordy
Posted: March 11, 2011 at 12:58 AM
So far 34 states have passed stringent laws that target people who are HIV positive, but these laws don't help get the disease under control.

In Texas, a man is serving 35 years in prison for spitting at a police officer. In the state of Washington, a 19-year-old college student sits behind bars on first-degree assault charges for having unprotected sex with his girlfriend. A Georgia woman was sentenced to eight years in prison after consensual sex without a condom, while a Michigan man faced 10 years in prison on a felony charge for allegedly biting his neighbor during a scuffle. The penalties are steep because, according to the laws in these states, the defendants all brandished a deadly weapon: their HIV-positive status.

Such prosecutions are frequent. Thirty-four states have some type of HIV-criminalization law. Depending on the state, it may be illegal to expose someone else to HIV, transmit the virus or conceal your own HIV-positive status from potential sexual partners. This criminalization extends even to cases in which condoms were used or when the virus was not transmitted, as well as to acts, such as spitting or biting, that pose minuscule to no risk.

More than 80 HIV-specific prosecutions have occurred in the past two years alone, and HIV-positive people are increasingly required to register as sex offenders after conviction. With African Americans accounting for more than half of new HIV infections in the country, and Latinos representing 22 percent, it's no surprise that the issue hits communities of color hardest.

Pushing back against what they see as a cycle of stigma, shame and incarceration, a growing coalition of organizations, including the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation and the Center for HIV Law and Policy, are framing the criminalization of HIV as a civil rights struggle. "This is a targeting of people, based on a stigma against groups that are associated with HIV," Catherine Hanssens, director of the Center for HIV Law and Policy, told The Root. "And that's gay people and people of color."

Quieting the "Monster"

At first glance, the concept of railing against HIV-related laws may not get much popular support. Potentially exposing people to such a devastating virus should be a crime, many would argue. Lisa Fager Bediako, a consultant for the CBCF and an advocate against HIV criminalization, confirms that it's a common response.

"When I talk to people, their awareness on the issue is usually based on the sensationalized stories we get through the media," she says. "I find that, with a little more information, people begin to see it differently. People always say that they weren't really aware of what's going on around the country."

Rather than a malicious intent to spread disease, activists say that there are many reasons some people keep quiet about their HIV status. The misinformed belief that HIV-positive people are highly toxic, for example, fuels not only social exclusion and familial rejection but has also led to discrimination in employment, housing and child-custody battles. In the military, where it's illegal for HIV-positive people to have sex, dismissal can mean the loss of benefits.

Lurid media reports on HIV-criminalization cases, describing men as "monsters" and "public health threats," only add to public fears. The story of 19-year-old Nushawn Williams, who in 1997 stood accused of infecting more than a dozen women and girls with HIV in New York state, is perhaps the best-known example. Amid frenzy over the case, Williams emerged as the poster child for the passage of HIV-transmission laws.



"Of course, if people commit crimes, they should do time," Bediako says of Williams, who was also convicted on statutory rape charges. "But there are some problems with that case, from distortions about who he actually infected to 'he said, she said' claims." Above all, Bediako takes issue with the fact that Williams finished serving his full 12-year sentence in 2010, yet remains imprisoned indefinitely. Authorities insist that he's a threat to society.

Flawed Logic

High-profile incidents like the Williams panic have nonetheless stoked passage of HIV statutes that, well intentioned as they may be, critics say are terribly misguided. Putting aside ethical considerations, campaigns against HIV criminalization, such as the Center for HIV Law and Policy's Positive Justice Project, contend that such laws are illogical from both legal and public health perspectives.

"Compare this with the sentences that people get for vehicular manslaughter," says Hanssens, who studied huge disparities between the two crimes. "In Arkansas, for example, somebody with HIV could get 30 years for putting their finger in another person's vagina, but if they run you over and kill you with a car? A maximum sentence of five years.

"It's not just that people are getting arrested," she continued. "They're getting put behind bars for 10, 15 and 20 years, even in cases where there is no transmission."

Bediako argues that singling out HIV as the only disease with a criminal offense doesn't hold up. "HPV [human papillomavirus] is a sexually transmitted infection that can cause cervical cancer in women, and that carries a more severe likelihood of death than HIV," she says. "Yet we have no laws that require people to disclose that they have HPV before they have sex. When most new cases of HIV are among people of color, it raises questions about why we have laws for just this one disease."

Ostensibly, one goal of HIV criminalization is to prevent new infections, but opponents say that they have the opposite effect. For starters, since criminal liability applies only to people who know their HIV status, it discourages people from getting tested.

"In these situations, your only defense is that you've never been tested and didn't know your status," explains Bediako, who adds that most new HIV infections are caused by people who have not been tested. "Can we really afford for our communities to not know their HIV status?"

Studies show that criminalization of HIV exposure has no mitigating effect on risk behavior, and if anything, fear of prosecution can inhibit those who know their status from disclosing it to their sexual partners. Moreover, these laws undermine the most basic STD-prevention principle: Everyone must take responsibility for protecting his or her health. "Sex between consenting adults is a shared decision. It's not sensible to put all the responsibility for using a condom, or talking about sexual history, on one person," says Bediako. "We all have to be responsible for ourselves."



So far, efforts against HIV criminalization haven't made a dent as new legislation is rolled out across the country. A pending proposal in Nebraska would make striking a police officer with any bodily fluid a misdemeanor. The act would be upgraded to a felony, with a penalty of up to five years in jail, if carried out by someone infected with HIV/AIDS or hepatitis B or C.

"If you know you're HIV positive and you're throwing your bodily fluids at someone, then you're committing assault," Jeff Franklin, the sheriff of Clay County, Neb., said to The Root. Franklin likens an HIV-positive person expelling bodily fluids to someone aggressively wielding a firearm. "This law specifically targets people who intend to intimidate or do harm, and makes sure that they are held responsible. I think there should be a criminal prosecution for that."

The Law of the Land?

With 34 state laws on the books, the challenge for advocates is daunting. Hanssens maintains that much of the social change required lies at the feet of public health officials, whom she holds accountable for widespread ignorance about the actual routes and risks of HIV transmission.

"I think that public health officials at the state and federal levels have done a huge disservice to everyone by being coy about how HIV is transmitted and by not giving the facts," she says. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, for example, does not quantify the risk level of oral sex, while Hanssens' and many other HIV-prevention groups contend that it is an extremely low-risk activity.

"When public health officials talk about 'bodily fluids,' that's how we start to see laws where spitting on a police officer can get you 30 years," she says. "But has spitting ever transmitted HIV? No. Can it transmit HIV? No."

Although Bediako participated in a congressional hearing on HIV criminalization last year with the CBCF, federal policymakers are largely blocked by the hurdle of state laws. Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), who is also a member of the United Nations Global Commission on HIV and the Law, is therefore taking an educational approach.

Lee is currently drafting legislation that will provide state attorneys general and public health departments with resources to help them understand how HIV is transmitted. The goal for the bill, which her office expects to introduce within the next two months, is to make states more informed about handling HIV-related cases.

Additionally, as part of the National HIV/AIDS Strategy released last summer, the Obama administration underscored its support for an end to HIV-specific criminal laws. "State legislatures should consider reviewing HIV-specific criminal statutes to ensure that they are consistent with current knowledge of HIV transmission and support public health approaches to preventing and treating HIV," the report recommends.

Still, advocates know that rallying the public will be a long process. "We're dealing with years of unaddressed ignorance and stigma," says Hanssens. Even after crossing the bridge into the 21st century, she points out, a significant number of Americans don't want to work with, ride in cars with or be served food by people who are HIV positive. "This is not going to be corrected overnight, and we have a lot of work to do. But something needs to be done about it."

Cynthia Gordy is The Root's Washington reporter.

Quote:

Let Common Sense Reign Nothing about criminalizing HIV works in the interest of public health! It just makes people more fearful of disclosing, particularly in the communities that are hardest hit. Today, 21:38:22 – Flag – Reply South Suburban HIV Check this out: Notorious HIV%3A The Criminal Prosecution of a Virus Yesterday, 18:26:52 – Flag – Reply via Twitter Henri Gaither blah, blah,blah what about protection for those of us who did not engage in risky behaviers. If you know you can kill somebody with your body and you disreguard that, its criminal! Today, 18:19:10 – Flag – Reply Lawrence Forbes I think the law clearly needs an overhaul. I also think that both HIV positive and HIV negative people need to be held accountable for their actions/behavior. It's as wrong for a person to hide his/her status as it is foolish for a person to have unprotected sex and not think they're putting themselves at risk. Today, 13:49:56 – Flag – Reply icantrememberallofmyaliases Having lived through the first public announcement of that disease that was killing White gay men to seeing how we know what it is and it is that disease infecting Blacks who weren't even so many born back then, we have not as a centric group caught hold of ourselves--not the disease. If you are assuming, Cynthia, that Blacks are being targeted disporportunately of this law, you are right, because we have the highest numbers increasing. It is us who are out-of-control and Hispanics. But I would also think that Whites meth-heads might be at risk too. Could this be racially-motivated out of fears because of so much mixing among the youth and the youth being so trusting of their partners? Probably. And could this ostracize people? Sure. But we've had almost three decades to reverse our existing trends. This legislation just like the vote in Wisconsin are drastic measures that are not appealing or considerate of everyone's feelings but are created to start moving the momentum in another direction to stop the bleeding. I knew in the last decade the US would get to this place in eventually constructing peevish, blowback legislation addressing this issue. While arguing about the legislation smart power limits in rationale, the legislation is an effort to move solution-building along from the public. This article--your announcement of the law is news for me. I have followed the issue about our statistics to track the trajectory that seems directed skyward in Blacks being the dominant block; and with knowing that, I know we don't have the social agency to with very much in real-time of social issues that we could possibly of our mortal limitations still manage to eradicate. And hearing this lobby here at The Root in a staff writer framing this as an injustice makes us have to either join your opinion or not. The scare tactics may influence some to act more proactively austere in when negotiating sexual relations. The scare tactics may infuriate bleeding hearts who feel the legislation is stigmatizing. I think the stigmatizing concern is outrageous. This country is not asking anyone to wear a Scarlett letter on their chest or armband or tattoo on their forehead. The State of Maryland just ruled that prospective employers and employers can't ask for your social media access. This legislation will create acrimony but the bigger problem is that our people have not proven that they can be trusted to protect themselves or others. It's not just about the HIV issue. It's about our social system breakdowns, disconnects, dsyfunctions, and macro and micro failures. Today, 13:46:54 – Flag – Reply Liked byBe On Purpose icantrememberallofmyaliases What does trouble me is the Catch 22 of consenting adults who may agree to engage in sexual relations knowing of one's HIV status but end up at odds against one another with this arsenal leverage of legal convenience to try to destroy the person. The issue about those with pre-existing positive statuses being festooned is scary. Other than that, I'm not sensitized to care very much and feel guilt for not feeling tortured about this radical enforcement. Our country has so many freedoms and too many abuse their freedoms. There is a cost for our freedoms. Legislation is radically offensive because people are sick and tired. Lawmakers who are elected rely on data collected and framed for them to deliberate upon. Black-centric activists have not made any reverse impact benchmarks for all the busywork they are dedicated too. The problems are so big and they aren't superhuman but they also don't want to admit they haven't been successful to derail this course of action from lawmakers. Not every public health official is compassionate about mollycoddling this issue for perpetuity the way the public and government has handled it. For many people wanting to be off-the-record in various ranks, they are disgusted with our collective inability to manage our centric public health concerns and issues. They can't be on the record telling their truth about their frustrations. When one group is identifiable by race as being a perpetrator to harm themselves, it sends out fear that that group will eventually affect you. No one wants to have to apply drastic measures that uncomfortable, stratifying, and hindering but we're beyond the tipping point on this issue. Lawmakers did not have to create these laws; the people have failed to get a handle on it. When looking our own who are affected and are feeling abandoned ofcivil rights, I agree. But still I don't think our country is trying to hurt them as much as they are scared of irresponsible people affecting others--eventually them. The lawmakers are dealing with the issue in infuriating citizens to "do something" and help their failing policy mavens trying to hinged a fractured case up for them stand. I'm not jumping on this bandwagon, Cynthia. This is the result of our failed social systems. These laws are created to manage the populace. It's far from perfect but the disease is not being controlled by all. Some have found a way to control it but not us. This argument you've made again tries to the racist Bad Guys when a lot of us good people are Bad Guys too in not containing our people from hurting themselves and others. Today, 13:47:12 – Flag – Reply Liked byBe On Purpose Taiyisha Pierre If we are going to point out HPV for being just as bad or worse than HIV then it should be added to this law, not that the law should be taken away. I don't see how it could possibly be ok for anyone knoiwng they have a disease that could harm anyone to sleep with people without opening their mouths. It becomes your responsibility to say something. Whether it be as simple as I need to get a condom or the actual words "I HAVE HIV." Frankly everyone should be responsible for remembering contraceptive, but if you've learned that you have a disease that ultimately makes you responsible for KNOWING that you NEED to wear something. As I see it the man who spit in the officers face: 1. shouldn't be spitting in anyones face EVER; and 2. could have been hit in the mouth before he spit in the officers face meaning that now there is more than one bodily fluid coming out of his mouth. Spit may not spread the disease from body to body but we know blood can. Today, 13:02:37 – Flag – Reply Sammy Davis Sr. RT @TheRoot247: How do we get HIV under control without criminalizing the patients? Today, 12:44:01 – Flag – Reply via Twitter The CBGMC RT @TheRoot247: How do we get HIV under control without criminalizing the patients? Today, 12:50:44 – Flag – Reply via Twitter Horace LaFontaine RT @TheRoot247: How do we get HIV under control without criminalizing the patients? Today, 14:20:56 – Flag – Reply via Twitter justmyopion Promoting a certain lifestyle doesn't actually help the situation, know you don't know who has what, since bisexuals are re-infecting the population, hiv is all colors and races! Today, 12:41:53 – Flag – Reply SeldomSeen "The HIV rate among African American Women is the crime that needs to be stopped. " AND "African American Women that contract HIV are our Daughters, Sisters and Mothers." Can someone PLEASE inform people that Black women aren't the only ones with HIV? Are there ANY women out there who have sons, brothers, uncles, fathers? Have you even constructed a friendship along the way? Was the rise in HIV only a problem when it spread to Black women? With the revolving door of mandatory minimums serving time in the general pool with violent long termer and lifers; what did we think would happen? No policy of protecting those who would return in 18 months, no policy to test them before they're released, no policy that links frequent testing to parole or treatment? "Do the crime, do the time", I get it, "throw their sorry asses in jail" BUT ah yes, then they return. And someone chooses, chooses, CHOOSES to sleep with them unprotected with little care about their life behind bars. Oh he want talk about it, huh, that's it good to go? This requires a SERIOUS adult stuff approach. But it seems too much to handle, we'd rather rely on some writer that appears on Oprah. For far too many in the "Black community" what constitutes public policy and scientific evidence is "I heard this guy on Oprah talkin' bout", it hits the grapevine and it's off. New evidence doesn't matter; once it's on the grapevine there's no return. Then the mainstream media picks up on it, treats it irresponsibly as they do most of what they report. Suddenly the entire NATIONS issue of homophobia get's viewed through the "Black community" as proof of how fare behind and different we are from everyone else. But hey they're not making the news only following our lead. HIV rate, opps who knew, how did that happen? Long as we take a adolescent rumor based approach to serious issues we get what we get. With the rate among women isn't it plausible that there are occasions where the woman infects the man? So is this a national public health issue and are we reeeally serious? Or do we have the luxury of platitudes lace with gender politics and pointing fingers, look what you did to poor old unsuspecting me? Sorry but tired of this nonsense when people are dying. Today, 12:35:34 – Flag – Reply Liked byBe On Purpose Vince icantrememberallofmyaliases stonepony This can be added to an every growing of self-destructive behavior we engage in. In this case it can happen totally by accident and through deceit. Regardless how, there is a price to pay. The unfortunate thing this price differs little between the guilty and the innocence. I really think it is a topic for adult discussion. But like other things we seem to want to avoid those discussions because we fear it might make us look bad. Therefore we hide and the problem only grows. Today, 14:35:07 – Flag – Reply SeldomSeen "price differs little between the guilty and the innocence." The bottom line. And if it can't be beaten then as for the notion of "community"; it doesn't exist. Today, 16:06:33 – Flag – Reply Anaiah Richardson i have grown so tired of these "disproportionate impact" arguments to nullify laws that have been put in place to protect everyone from the reckless and/or malicious acts of a few people who cannot see past their own fear or rage to tell their partners what they're dealing with. the irony, of course, is that those who decry "racism" and "homophobia" in this regard are usually members of the population that is most at risk for contracting the disease. HIV/AIDS is not a chronic, treatable condition. it's not diabetes, or gout, or HPV. it is no longer an automatic death sentence as it once was, thank God, but even with advances in science and pharmacology we don't know whether it can be controlled indefinitely before the body becomes resistant to antiviral drugs. and if the body does become resistant, you die. pardon me for asking that a holistic, compassionate approach to those living with this illness be coupled with common sense. Today, 10:42:49 – Flag – Reply rosa101 @primarycloud, this article is about HIV..what does intollerance have to do with votes have to do with this topic; you must be an angry white person. Today, 10:25:46 – Flag – Reply rosa101 anyone who does not inform their partner of their HIV status and knowingly infects someone with HIV should get a death sentence. anyone who has unprotected sex with anyone...is a fool! Today, 10:21:42 – Flag – Reply primarycloud This is one of those arbitrary laws that are used to target specific people. It spells intolerance and is indicative at white panic over their impending loss of the popular vote as the minority population grows in size. They think that by weakening the goverment and its agencies they will be able to maintain economic power. From now on I expect a lot of devisive laws to keep everyone unbalanced and distracted. They hope to gain enough time to create a situation where the new majority will hold power over an economically bankrupt gov't and a socially divided population. They have an agenda, we are just being ignorant and manipulated. Today, 10:09:05 – Flag – Reply icantrememberallofmyaliases Whether or not the Boogeyman exists, we have to not be available to prey upon. We are available to preyed up, ostracized, and stratified because of our behaviors. Working to eradicate the laws doesn't cancel out HIV spreading. The lawmakers are hoping to slow-down transmission and possibly kill two birds with one stone, deal with us. But in dealing with survival of the fittest, the fitness in evolution is not conciliatory to people with poor decision making skills that allow them to be vulnerable to others' oppression. We have to not be weak and then laws like this won't have a space to arise into fruition. We allow others to have advantages. It's basic evolution/economics. Today, 14:11:02 – Flag – Reply primarycloud This is one of those arbitrary laws that are used to target specific people. It spells intolerance and is indicative at white panic over their impending loss of the popular vote as the minority population grows in size. They think that by weakening the goverment and its agencies they will be able to maintain economic power. From now on I expect a lot of devisive laws to keep everyone unbalanced and distracted. They hope to gain enough time to create a situation where the new majority will hold power over an economically bankrupt gov't and a socially divided population. They have an agenda, we are just being ignorant and manipulated. Today, 10:07:59 – Flag – Reply fsilber "HPV [human papillomavirus] is a sexually transmitted infection that can cause cervical cancer in women, and that carries a more severe likelihood of death than HIV," she says. "Yet we have no laws that require people to disclose that they have HPV before they have sex. When most new cases of HIV are among people of color, it raises questions about why we have laws for just this one disease." Cervical cancer may be more deadly than HIV, but HPV _usually_ doesn't cause cervical cancer, and therefore HPV is much less deadly than HIV. That's why we have laws for just this one disease. (You'd think someone as visible and outspoken as Hanssens would have had the error in her thinking explained to her.) Today, 10:06:55 – Flag – Reply Beirne Roose-Snyder She's not wrong though. HIV, for most people, when on medication is a chronic, treatable condition now. It's not good or desirable of course, but it is not a death sentence in the developed world. And that's if you get infected. You are much more likely to contract HPV in a sexual encounter then HIV. Public Health doesn't talk openly about transmission risks because we don't want people to get complacent because HIV is still very serious. But in the MOST high risk sexual encounter (receptive partner of unprotected anal sex) the chance of transmission in any given encounter is still less then 1%. That is a preposterous thing to hang 20 year prison sentences on. Today, 10:22:55 – Flag – Reply k.t. It's hard for most people to grasp the facts that you have stated because they have been giving information contrary to your statement above. For various reasons (funding, prevention, politics, etc) public health continues to sell HIV as the deadly disease it once was. Of course it's a disease that no one wants to live with at the same time we should start puting the correct information out there and stop holding back for fear of bad decision making. Today, 15:30:08 – Flag – Reply Dan Moshenberg US #prison: Notorious HIV: The Criminal Prosecution of a Virus Today, 09:45:11 – Flag – Reply via Twitter Lisa Fager HIV is preventable. It is no longer a death sentence, however if you are telling your sons to wear condoms then you need to tell your daughters to make sure their partners are wearing condoms. It is not just the "guy decision". We must encourage our children to make good decisions especially when it comes to their bodies. Monogamy also doesn't ensure your child won't become infected b/c while he/she may be, you don't know the history their partner... again we must teach our children to be responsible for themselves; a lesson beyond just having sex. Today, 08:07:12 – Flag – Reply fanonn Condoms, condoms, condoms, we tell our sons over, and over. And one of them is not sexually active yet. Once they are in what they think will be a long term, monogamous, relationship, and they and their partner want to stop using latex condoms, then both should submit to an HIV test, and be willing share the results. Today, 07:16:25 – Flag – Reply Curiousjamal The HIV rate among African American Women is the crime that needs to be stopped. The writer of this article obviously has an agenda. I want my 3 daughters to be safe from anyone that would purposefully spread HIV. Access to over the counter HIV testing is a simple answer. You should be able to purchase a home test as easily as you can purchase condoms. The agenda of a few conservatives have wrongly correlated access to HIV testing to promoting promiscuity. I will now step down off my soap box. Today, 05:41:47 – Flag – Reply Beirne Roose-Snyder But these laws aren't "just" for people who "purposefully" spread HIV. That malicious person can be prosecuted under regular criminal laws. These laws mean that if you cannot prove you disclosed you status before sex- even if you used a condom- you will be found guilty. And it's really hard to prove. There are people in jail who did everything right- got tested, take their meds, told their partner. But had a bad break-up, the former partner says "they didn't disclose" and because they didn't have their disclosure in writing, they were found guilty. The best thing you can do for your daughters is encourage them to know their facts, and protect themselves. Everyone is responsible for their own health, and you shouldn't trust someone to tell you about any STDs, since statistically they probably don't even know. Letting them assume that unless someone discloses their HIV status they are HIV negative is incredibly dangerous. Today, 10:30:07 – Flag – Reply Stonewall J Once again, I have a fundamental issue with HIV and Blacks, when WHITE FOLKS continue to hide behind getting tested, as they want Black folks to do. More proof below: S.C. House lawmakers gave a key approval Thursday to eliminating the requirement that the state Department of Health and Environmental Control NOTIFY school officials when a student tests positive for HIV. Now what kind of foolishness is that. http://www.thestate.com/2011/03/10/1...proval-to.html Today, 02:45:13 – Flag – Reply RAYNARD VINSON Why does the school need to be notified? Today, 03:38:08 – Flag – Reply RAYNARD VINSON People with STD's should inform their partners, in a perfect world. We don't live in such world. I tell folks to assume that everyone you meet has a STD and act accordingly. I don't want my tax dollars used to punish people that you willingly had unprotected sex with. If we lock up that person, you'll probably move on to the next smooth talker. In the end, we'll be paying to house, feed and medically care for your ex-sex partners. When you spit or throw bodily fluids on someone in the name of trying to infect them, you deserve some jail time. Anything over a 6-12 months seems excessive to me. Cops seem to get whinier every year. Suck it up. You deal with people in stressful states. Sh*t happens. If you can't take the heat , go be a greeter at Walmart. Today, 01:15:36 – Flag – Reply Curiousjamal What?? Unless you are in a mutually monogamous relationship wherein you were both virgins, YOU ARE AT RISK!!! HIV is a stigmatized desease, You assume women that contract this desease are promiscuous, stupid, druggies. African American Women that contract HIV are our Daughters, Sisters and Mothers. Mr. Vinson we have been fed information that demonizes victims, this desease can be stopped in it's tracks if they would just permit women to buy a self test over the counter...not for them but to use on in your words their smooth talking partner. Today, 05:54:59 – Flag – Reply AegiSite Notorious HIV: The Criminal Prosecution of a Virus: Depending on the state, it may be illegal to expose someone ... Yesterday, 23:17:22 – Flag – Reply via Twitter Liked byCuriousjamal kdog "activists say that there are many reasons some people keep quiet about their." To knowingly infect someone has only one reason...selfishness. Yesterday, 22:38:16 – Flag – Reply Liked bystonepony Curiousjamal RBC These laws have nothing to do with intent to transmit or transmission of HIV. Neither intent to transmit HIV or transmission of HIV is required for prosecution. These laws and prosecutions focus solely on someone knowing their HIV status and ALLEGEDLY not telling their partners. In many cases, the partner that goes to the police knew that the other person was HIV+ but they had a bad break up and want revenge. That scenario has been seen over and over again. Also, if someone is taking their meds they probably have a low or undetectable viral load. An undetectable viral load renders someone noninfectious. The probability of transmitting HIV in when someone has an undetectable viral load is very remote. And condom use is not a defense to prosecution under these statutes. So if someone has HIV and uses a condom they can still be prosecuted and thrown in jail though there is NO risk of transmission or exposure to HIV. The punishment for these crimes is disproportionate to the risk presented. Everyone is responsible for their own sexual health. You cannot rely on someone telling you that he/she has HIV or any other STI - especially since he/she may not even know their status. Today, 11:16:01 – Flag – Reply k.t. The sad truth is that everyone is not responsible for their own sexual health. If a woman or man gets rape how are they responsible? Many men contract the infection in this way. Also women in abusive relationships and in certain cultures do not entirely own their bodies and can not refuse sex from their husbands.