Main Forums > Living With HIV

CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT RULING RE: TRANSMISSION = FELONY

(1/5) > >>

zephyr:
Hi Folks...

Received my Kaiser Network Alert today, and want to report that on Monday, July 3, the Califormia Supreme Court ruled that "Withholding Sexual History Can Be Grounds for Lawsuits Involving HIV Transmission"

 Quote: "The California Supreme Court on Monday ruled 4-3 that an HIV-positive woman can sue the sexual partner from whom she contracted the virus, even if the man did not know he was HIV-positive at the time, the New York Times reports (Liptak, New York Times, 7/4).  The court also ruled that a portion of the man's sexual history must be disclosed in the case (Cooper, Sacramento Bee, 7/4). A California law (SB 705) makes it a felony, punishable by up to eight years in prison, to knowingly expose or infect an unaware person to HIV.  The law also allows a person's HIV status to be disclosed if the person is the subject of a criminal investigation for committing this crime (Kaiser Daily HIV/AIDS Report, 9/10/03)."

Other newspapers covering this story were: Contra Costa Times, 7/4, Los Angeles Times, 7/5), the San Francisco Chronicle, 7/4, and the San Francisco Examiner, 7/3.

To request the Kaiser Daily HIV/AIDS Report, visit www.kaisernetwork.org/email to subscribe.

Thought you'd like to know.

Zephyr

jkinatl2:
Yeah, I wish I didn't see THAT coming.

Man, what will it take before we grow a new batch of activists? Forced tattoing? Searchable database? Quarantine?

Dachshund:

......so what they are saying is....if you are gay, black, brown, poor, women, high school dropout, convicted felon, ex drug user, alcoholic, not knowing is still knowing?

Jonathan I am afraid it just might be too late.

H :'(

The Canuck:
'' The California Supreme Court on Monday ruled 4-3 that an HIV-positive woman can sue the sexual partner from whom she contracted the virus, even if the man did not know he was HIV-positive at the time,...''

How can it be a felony if the person didn't know he was HIV+ ? There are at least 4 judges lacking judgement to say the least... ???

The Canuck
(Who thinks these 4 judges are probably lobotomised)

Lisa:
So.........every time you go on a date with someone, you must first get an HIV testing result notarized aforehand?
This is a VERY dangerous precedent.

How might one go about proving that?  ........   never mind

                    sigh :'( >:(

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Go to full version