POZ Community Forums
Main Forums => Living With HIV => Topic started by: SANJUANDUDE on July 19, 2013, 12:01:42 pm
-
:) There are approximately 2/3 of the US states which require an HIV+ person to inform his or her sexual partner of their status. Does this include even oral sex? It seems that in some states, Florida for example, that the law is subject only to intercourse. :-\ Also, I met two positive persons who swore up and down that if someone's viral load was "undetectable" that this did negate the person from having to inform his or her partner. I wasn't sure what to think about that.
-
There are states where the duty to inform is strict and furthermore, open to interpretation depending on the D.A. and the individual situation. And it doesn't matter if there is undetectable viral loads, if you have safesex, and if there is no transmission.
Some places in this world, one could do an obviously risk free sex act and be considered a criminal... For not disclosing.
Your friends are misinformed... Some places don't have these laws, some places do. That's the reality.
Maybe they are well aware of the laws where they are having sex and not disclosing... If so, fine for them, I guess.
The message is - their behavior and moral code does NOT apply everywhere.
-
very true, it varies from state to state. Florida's law is pretty much defined as "intercourse" whereas Pennsylvania has one of the most strict laws that I have ever read, including North Dakota, and New Mexico, Arizona, Wyoming, New Hampshire, and Vermont do not have laws at all. Alabama has a law against it, but the maximum is a misdemanor charge, but across the state line in Mississippi it is a felony.
-
Well its sounds like you are informed.... So what is unclear in your thinking? Why this post?
Here in Switzerland the judges are starting to consider undetectable status in such court cases.
But a bad law on the books - you can't rely on getting a good judge. Right. 8)
-
my point in this post is where does oral sex fit into this equation? or does it.
-
Instead of trusting forums answers, I'd search for specific revised codes pertaining to HIV and criminalization in the state you're inquiring about. This borders on asking for legal advice. (IMO)
Wolfie
-
As wolfie says, one would have to refer to state laws where one is having sex. A local ASO should be able to inform a bit.
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/policies/law/states/index.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_transmission_of_HIV
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_transmission_of_HIV_in_the_United_States
_________
A lot of people do not want to bother figuring out what laws might actually apply where they are having sex.
Its wilful ignorance.
It may be wishful thinking and self-rationalization to say that one's own undetectable status "exempts" one from disclosure, for this sex act or that sex act.
There's either a law and a history of prosecutions, or there aren't...
Just better know the facts and figure out your personal code of conduct in relation to the facts, not wishful thinking.
-
http://www.unaids.org/en/media/unaids/contentassets/documents/document/2013/05/20130530_Guidance_Ending_Criminalisation.pdf
http://data.lambdalegal.org/publications/downloads/fs_hiv-criminalization.pdf
-
it came up in conversation last night with someone else, and I knew very very little about it. Fortunately, I am not opening up this discussion for personal knowledge or advice. Since I am +, it is best to just not have intimate relations unless the other person is also +.
-
One thing to point out in such conversations is to discuss that one's personal code of behavior is not the same thing as the laws that apply.
Its possible your friends were referring only to their own morality. As in "I don't feel the need to disclose, according to my own moral code" is such and such a situation.
Thats different than saying I am exempt from a law that might apply....
-
my point in this post is where does oral sex fit into this equation? or does it.
In Geogia there's a guy in prison right now for giving oral sex to men and not informing. Despite the impossibility of transmission.