Monday, July 03, 2006

Something to (not) pass along...BY PENALTY OF LAW

From Reuters: A person who has reason to believe he or she has HIV may be sued by sexual partners if they become infected, the California Supreme Court ruled on Monday, broadening the state's view of when liability arises from the disease.
***

A good idea in theory -- if a man has to pay child support for a one night stand that turns into an eighteen year nightmare, so should reckless individuals who are going around knowingly spreading a deadly virus. That said, it seems like the states would be spending their money on prosecuting people in addition to treating them.

Another shortsighted move in the face of death by our Republican powers-that-be. Once again, the government is looking for a quick fix instead of a longterm solution to the AIDS crisis...No sex ed in classrooms? No condom distribution? Abstinence all the way? Looks like California is going to be in dire need of lawyers in addition to doctors very soon.

2 comments:

Adam said...

Of the four Justices in the majority, one is only nominally Republican (Corrigan, who switched her party identity from Democrat solely so she could be appointed by Grey Davis to an earlier post and is very moderate), one was appointed by Pete Wilson and was re-appointed by Grey Davis (Democrat), the last two, Baxter and Chin, were appointed by Pete Wilson. Considering their political leanings (as only deducted from those who appointed them, which isn't a very good measure to begin with), it's difficult to argue that their decision was "Another shortsighted move in the face of death by our Republican powers-that-be." I only mention this because it seems there is more than enough evidence to show the heartless nature and overall incompetence of the Republican leadership of the country without dragging the California Judiciary through the mud unneccessarily. Moreover, for every false charge leveled against the Republicans, it makes it increasingly difficult for the real arguments to gain traction.

Also, I could be wrong about this, but states wont spend any money prosecuting people. This decision allows individuals to sue other individuals who infect them. Nowhere does it say the state will have the ability to prosecute someone for infecting someone.

GayConservativeLiberal said...

Good points, thanks for enlightenming me, Adam.