To my pea-sized brain, this makes no sense. I assume the law was meant to discourage HIV positive individuals from spreading the disease. If that is not the intent, which reducing the penalty suggests, why not just repeal the law completely? I wonder how far off the California legislature is from making it illegal to obey the law?
I assume the law was meant to discourage HIV positive individuals from spreading the disease
= = =
Safe assumption.
Now who will get sued if someone gets HIV from a transfusion?
It will be the blood bank.