Quantcast

Subscribe to:
POZ magazine
Newsletters
Join POZ: Facebook MySpace Twitter Pinterest
Tumblr Google+ Flickr Instagram
POZ Personals
Sign In / Join
Username:
Password:
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
May 29, 2015, 08:48:13 AM

Login with username, password and session length


Members
  • Total Members: 25552
  • Latest: peachy
Stats
  • Total Posts: 665770
  • Total Topics: 51207
  • Online Today: 203
  • Online Ever: 585
  • (January 07, 2014, 02:31:47 PM)
Users Online

Welcome


Welcome to the POZ/AIDSmeds Community Forums, a round-the-clock discussion area for people with HIV/AIDS, their friends/family/caregivers, and others concerned about HIV/AIDS.  Click on the links below to browse our various forums; scroll down for a glance at the most recent posts; or join in the conversation yourself by registering on the left side of this page.

Privacy Warning:  Please realize that these forums are open to all, and are fully searchable via Google and other search engines. If you are HIV positive and disclose this in our forums, then it is almost the same thing as telling the whole world (or at least the World Wide Web). If this concerns you, then do not use a username or avatar that are self-identifying in any way. We do not allow the deletion of anything you post in these forums, so think before you post.

  • The information shared in these forums, by moderators and members, is designed to complement, not replace, the relationship between an individual and his/her own physician.

  • All members of these forums are, by default, not considered to be licensed medical providers. If otherwise, users must clearly define themselves as such.

  • Forums members must behave at all times with respect and honesty. Posting guidelines, including time-out and banning policies, have been established by the moderators of these forums. Click here for “Am I Infected?” posting guidelines. Click here for posting guidelines pertaining to all other POZ/AIDSmeds community forums.

  • We ask all forums members to provide references for health/medical/scientific information they provide, when it is not a personal experience being discussed. Please provide hyperlinks with full URLs or full citations of published works not available via the Internet. Additionally, all forums members must post information which are true and correct to their knowledge.

  • Product advertisement—including links; banners; editorial content; and clinical trial, study or survey participation—is strictly prohibited by forums members unless permission has been secured from POZ.

To change forums navigation language settings, click here (members only), Register now

Para cambiar sus preferencias de los foros en español, haz clic aquí (sólo miembros), Regístrate ahora

Finished Reading This? You can collapse this or any other box on this page by clicking the symbol in each box.

Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 10
41
I was reading the comments to a column on the NYT, when a side discussion started concerning SC nominees.  Many comments reflected the fears, that even if the SC approves marriage equality, all it takes is one more conservative judge, who votes their religion to take it all away.  This SC has already demonstrated its ability to ignore it own precedents and rule however they might feel.

How did we ever allow this to happen?

Joe

Well -- this is true of any SCOTUS ruling -- and can work for us or against us.  The SC has "changed" rulings before and not just this court.  If they didn't, sodomy would still be illegal.  I will spend no time worrying about any undoing (assuming the ruling is for marriage equality).  I find the likelihood of undoing a favorable ruling to be highly unlikely. 

Who is the "we" that allowed "this" to happen??  The SCOTUS is run as it's always been run.  I would bet religious viewed rulings are less prevalent today than in the past.  The press loves to stir up fears, now THAT is an institution where the "how did we ever allow this happen" applies!   Rather than report news, the "press" makes and shapes news -- every day (and not just FOX either).

M
42
Living With HIV / Re: criminalization in the news
« Last post by Richie_R2 on Yesterday at 08:11:07 PM »
Quote
It is a defense to exposing another to HIV or hepatitis if the victim:

    knew of the defendant’s infection
    knew that the behavior could result in transmission, and
    consented to the behavior.

I can't help but note that, under these laws (MO is same), even if they 1. knew, 2. knew, and 3. consented.... they're still a "victim". FFFFFFFFFFF the Volunteers!
43
Living With HIV / Re: criminalization in the news
« Last post by Richie_R2 on Yesterday at 08:02:34 PM »
Ah.. nope, TN statute doesn't prevent all sex. There's an Affirmative Defense, meaning you have to actively prove it to prevail, the way the Prosecution usually does to attain a conviction (beyond reasonable doubt to jury). The same is true in Missouri. The statute's page says at the bottom:

Usually, people who do not know that they are infected with an STD cannot be convicted of criminal exposure.

Generally, condom use is not a defense to criminal exposure.

It is a defense to exposing another to HIV or hepatitis if the victim:

    knew of the defendant’s infection
    knew that the behavior could result in transmission, and
    consented to the behavior.

(Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-109.)
Punishment

Exposing another to an STD is a Class C misdemeanor, punishable by up to 30 days in jail and a fine of up to $50.

Exposing another to HIV and aggravated prostitution are Class C felonies, punishable by three to 15 years’ imprisonment a fine of up to $10,000.

Exposing another to hepatitis is a Class A misdemeanor, punishable by up to eleven months, 29 days in jail and a fine of up to $1,000 and restitution (repayment of expenses occurred as a result of the crime) to the victim. The victim can also sue for expenses and loss of services.

Escaping from quarantine in a secure facility is a Class E felony, punishable by one to six years’ imprisonment a fine of up to $3,000.
44
This changes my perception of HIV completely..





and do they eat veggies, just wondering.
45
Living With HIV / Re: criminalization in the news
« Last post by Joe K on Yesterday at 07:58:24 PM »
Mike Huckabee is only pandering to the Evangelicals with talk like this.  I wish someone would do to him, what Dan Savage did to Rick Santorum.  They both make my skin crawl.

Joe
46
Living With HIV / Re: criminalization in the news
« Last post by Richie_R2 on Yesterday at 07:53:20 PM »
Wow, Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-109 does indeed prohibit all sex by positive persons. I read several side-site explanations. Sorry. One site clarifies "particularly" if you don't use a condom, but it's not necessary to the charge. That's why I've always said, since my parents attended grad school at Louisiana Tech University when I was a kid, "F the Volunteers!!!"

What a messed up state/statute. And I thought Missouri was bad. Actually, I didn't know anything about Missouri until they brought me here and said I did bad things in this state (didn't... never had been here... I was in Kansas with the Ex... but ok).
47
Living With HIV / Re: criminalization in the news
« Last post by Richie_R2 on Yesterday at 07:41:09 PM »
I can tell you definitively that when you're dealing with something that causes fear and hatred, Science Does Not Matter. He heard all the evidence, but all he listened to was the fact that I was being accused by a Negatoid. I might as well have been a black man in Mississippi being accused of raping a white woman in 1952.

That's exactly the problem. It was written in 1990, based on a fear in the late 80s that we'd go around intentionally spreading it because we're angry. The law specifically says that condoms are irrelevant, though, so it makes me wonder if they really care about anything other than finding an excuse to put us "away". Or, as a politician, ex-Governor of a state about 30 miles from me, once put it, steps should be taken to "isolate the carriers of this plague"-- quote:

Mike Huckabee once advocated isolating AIDS patients from the general public, opposed increased federal funding in the search for a cure and said homosexuality could "pose a dangerous public health risk." ... "If the federal government is truly serious about doing something with the AIDS virus, we need to take steps that would isolate the carriers of this plague."

In other words, they were trying to build concentration camps, so afraid they were back in the early 90s. That's why I got this HIV+ tattoo with a symbol (red triangle) from Dachau around it. When asked about the statement in his 2008 bid for President, he refused to retract and apologize. I will put the link below.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/2007/12/08/mike-huckabee-advocated-isolation-aids-patients-in-12-senate-race.html
48
Living With HIV / Re: criminalization in the news
« Last post by Joe K on Yesterday at 07:34:41 PM »
A sad reality about many laws, is they generally lag, by several years, any progress in the area that they control.  Look how long it took the Red Cross to allow gay men to donate blood, but they still refuse any blood from a man who had sex with another man, within the past year.  HIV science tells us that a 3 month negative result is conclusive, that unprotected intercourse with a UD poz is safer than unprotected with a person of unknown status, but old hatreds die hard.

If we could strip away the "gay" part of HIV, the laws may be very different.  I firmly believe that many HIV transmission laws are meant as a rebuke to how gays have sex, and not about preventing infections.  If it was all about curtailing the spread of disease, HIV would be far down on the list as it's much harder to contract that most STIs and the laws of disclosure would involve Hep C and Herpes.

Joe
49
Living With HIV / Re: criminalization in the news
« Last post by JimDublin on Yesterday at 07:32:14 PM »
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/dad-bitten-hiv-sufferer-left-5740863http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/man-hiv-jailed-vicious-bite-9313862

The above case is from the UK and was not related to sex but to biting (Don't get me wrong the guy deserved punishment for biting, biting is just plain nasty)

Spot a few cases in UK/Ireland of GBH/ABH and/or assault that if the person in question had HIV it seems to way in the the length or weight of the punishment.

However to does show the level of ignorance at times from the justice system & Joe public regarding the risks. The man in this story was convicted for Actual bodily harm and reading the reports I would say he is guilty but the HIV worry seemed to way in on the judges mind and the victim impact statement read into evidence more then the facts of the case simply being the assault itself and the actual damage caused.

Judge Stephen Hopkins QC told him: "Mr Pickles does not seek severe punishment. "He is merely seeking an apology and recognition from you that you bit him knowing you had HIV and that you could have infected him with a terminal illness.

"It is lucky he was not here today because he would not have heard such an apology."

Guidance from HIVaware states that just four of more than 60 million recorded cases of HIV in the last 25 years have come through biting.

Mr Pickles said the effects of the attack had left his life in ruins.
In a victim impact statement to the court he said: "Over the months I have had regular feelings of anxiety and panic. "There are regular worries about contracting and passing on HIV to my wife or children and I have recurring dreams of not being able to hug my wife or children for fear of infecting them.
50
Living With HIV / Re: criminalization in the news
« Last post by initforlife on Yesterday at 07:31:34 PM »
Wow I was just reading some of the Tn laws about hiv . Can anyone tell me if this means what I think it does and that even having sex with someone can get you  jail time?  This Is what I found...Exposing Another to HIV or Hepatitis

It is a felony in Tennessee for a person who knows that he or she is infected with HIV, hepatitis B, or hepatitis C to:
•engage in sexual contact with another
•donate blood, semen, organs in a way that risks transmission, or
•share needles.

Neither actual transmission of the disease nor actual contact with infected bodily fluids is required. All that is required is that the defendant places the victim at risk of contacting infected bodily fluids. For example, people who know that they are infected with HIV and commit sex crimes can be convicted of criminal exposure even if there is no evidence of semen on the victim’s body.

(Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-109; State v. Bonds, 189 S.W.3d 24 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2005).)
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 10

Terms of Membership for these forums
 

© 2015 Smart + Strong. All Rights Reserved.   terms of use and your privacy
Smart + Strong® is a registered trademark of CDM Publishing, LLC.