A relevant quote:
> Many of these state laws, then and now, criminalize actions that cannot transmit HIV – such as biting or spitting – and apply regardless of actual transmission, or intent. After more than 40 years of HIV research and significant biomedical advancements to treat and prevent HIV transmission, many state laws are now outdated and do not reflect our current understanding of HIV. In many cases, this same standard is not applied to other infectious, treatable diseases. Further, these laws have been shown to increase stigma, exacerbate disparities, and may discourage HIV testing.
Got I hate this cultural war so much!
Well, it could still fit under consent and rape. Not disclosing such important information before unprotected sex is kind of rapey!
> Generally, the best practice would be for states to reform these laws to eliminate HIV- specific criminal penalties except in two distinct circumstances. First, states may wish to retain criminal liability when a person who knows he/she is HIV positive commits a (non-HIV specific) sex crime where there is a risk of transmission (e.g., rape or other sexual assault). The second circumstance is where the individual knows he/she is HIV positive and the evidence clearly demonstrates that individual’s intent was to transmit the virus and that the behavior engaged in had a significant risk of transmission, whether or not transmission actually occurred.
> For states that choose to retain HIV-specific criminal laws or penalty enhancements beyond these two limited circumstances, the best practice would be to reform and modernize them so that they accurately reflect the current science of risk and modes of transmission, the quality of life and life span of individuals who are living with HIV, account for circumstances where the failure to disclose is directly related to intimate partner violence, and ensure they are the desired vehicle to achieve the states’ intended purpose in enacting them initially or retaining them in modernized form.
[The document continues with specific, scientifically backed advice that would help inform HIV-specific statutes.]
1: https://www.hivlawandpolicy.org/sites/default/files/DOj-HIV-...
---
As for you in particular, I'm not sure who's culture warring here. Maybe this discussion would be more interesting if you provided a tangible argument based in health or science rather than vague political gesturing.
https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/blog/laws/do-i-have-to-tell-a-s...
> A defendant might be negligent for infecting a partner with HIV if:
The defendant knew he or she had AIDS or was HIV-positive;
The defendant was negligent in not disclosing his/her status and/or not using a condom or dental dam; and
As a result of that negligence, the plaintiff acquired the disease through the transmission of HIV and suffered damages (such as medical bills and/or pain and suffering).It might still be a tort, but anything can be a tort.
I really hate in US everything has to be political. Other countries are not like that.