Posted on 08/05/2024 2:02:16 PM PDT by fwdude
Eighteen people living with HIV in Indiana were arrested between 2001 and 2019 for donating plasma, though, thanks to effective screening methods, none of them posed a risk of transmitting the virus, found a new report by the Williams Institute.
The Williams Institute is a research center focusing on law and public policy as they pertain to sexual orientation and gender identity; it is part of the University of California, Los Angeles School of Law.
HIV criminalization refers to the use of unfair laws to target people with HIV—notably African-American, Latinos, LGBTQ people, and women—and punish them because of their HIV status, not because of their actions. Under outdated laws, people with HIV can be sentenced to prison in cases where HIV was not transmitted and their only crime was allegedly not disclosing their status.
(Excerpt) Read more at poz.com ...
Did they know they had it?
If they didn't know they had HIV they knew that they were at high risk of it.
Most likely. A little money ya know.
Either they didn’t know or they didn’t care. Probably both.
(unfair laws)
I guess it’s only “fair” if they get to pass on
deadly and contaminated blood to others.
Terrific logic the writer has.
I don’t understand the science. Is the author saying HIV absolutely cannot be transmitted through donated plasma? No risk involved?
No crime because no injury resulted is the argument.
I throw cinderblocks off a bridge, where there is a net to catch debris, because wicked idiots drop things on the road below. No one gets hurt, because the net catches the cinderblocks. So it is not criminal for me to throw cinderblocks.
Don't even try to understand. Their "science" believes in the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus.
Whoever decided to let f@ggots donate blood, needs to go to prison.
Another example of how stupid the legal system is.
Firing a gun into the air only matters if you hit someone? Reckless endangerment should be a charge.
Exactly what they are trying to argue here. Gay activists have been quoted as encouraging the practice on the grounds that if their STDs get inflicted sufficiently in the mainstream population, there will be political support to spend any amount to cure it.
= Exactly why they need to be charged. Their "logic" is little different from suicide bombers setting themselves off in crowded market places except that they are too cowardly to off themselves in the process.
No argument from me on that.
In the Constitution where is the:
1. Right to donate blood?
2. Right not to be discriminated against on the basis of what a person does on Saturday night?
3. Right to force another person not to think unkindly of such a person?
Exactly. It’s at the very least an attempted assault.
https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/the-fda-relaxes-restrictions-on-blood-donation-202305192936
I happen to have insider information and can tell you that there have been LGBTQ+ activists inside the blood collection agencies who have been pushing this agenda for at least 5 years, if not longer. I personally became aware of it in 2019.
If y'all knew what kind of people they were hiring at the ARC and others, and how much they hate you and all conservatives, and what kind of scum and villainy they retain on their boards of directors, you'd never donate blood again unless you went straight to the hospital or military base to do it.
And I really hate to say that, because there are so many people, cancer patients, children, etc., who desperately need blood — clean, unvaccinated blood from people who do not make a habit of regularly engaging in deviant, filthy, vile, and dangerous sexual practices that 10x their chances of getting a disease that they can pass along to someone with an already damaged immune system.
Oh, and here's another fun fact about the people who work at the ARC, et al. You're paying off their college debt. They brag about it and I was in meetings where they were telling each other how to do it. It was a "talking point" in a department meeting. If they work in a "nonprofit," Biden has been paying of their debt right and left the past four years, even though the SCOTUS said it was illegal.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.