Posted on 10/07/2017 11:22:56 AM PDT by BenLurkin
Remind me to never go to LA and hire a crack whore.
That’s how one goes from The Greatest Place on Earth
To a sewer in a matter of years
apparently being called names is much more hurtful than a death sentence by aids
Unfortunately for Harvey Weinstein, knowingly exposing oneself to others is still illegal ...
Why not? They’re heavy contributers it takes money for democratic legislators to circulate their 2018 renewal license to steal applications.
Why not? They’re heavy contributers it takes money for democratic legislators to circulate their 2018 renewal license to steal applications.
>>amp up punishment for you exposing someone with HIV to diseases like TB
I bet you’re right. Absolutely logical jump.
pretty soon the state will be nothign but criminals as they will be the only ones protected from prosecution- only the innocent law abiding citizens will face ‘justice’
>>They don’t want any questions about HIV
The only way that flies is if the blood testing after donation can easily catch HIV and the screening eliminates the donation. That still leaves the wasted time for the volunteers taking the donations, but maybe someone wants to make a large money donation to make up for the wasted time.
“I see. But, you can still get a Dui...”
Only if you are not illegal
Reinforcing the mantra that liberalism is a disease.
Going forward, all blood should be labled as to whether the donor disclosed or didn't disclose if they had HIV.
>>Supporters of the bill said women engaging in prostitution are disproportionately targeted with criminal charges, even in cases where the infection is not transmitted.<<
To use a VERY apt analogy, this is like saying “no need to lock up people who shoot into crowds if they don’t hit very many people.”
My experience was about the same time. For all they knew, AIDS could be an airborne disease, so anyone going into the patient’s room wore surgical masks. I imagine they’ve have donned hazmat suits if they had ‘em.
Decent people who care are outraged. People who don’t care just sign the bill and damn the consequences. But then what can be said about the people who keep electing uncaring, apathetic politicians?
Or, it’s okay to eat dog shit if you only eat a little.
So let me get this straight..no someone can KNOWINGLY give blood containing HIV and its fine, no worries..Thank God I already got my blood transfusion in 2006 and dont have to deal with this crap(Had severe anemia) California unfortunately was finished a long time ago..now you can go around spreading AIDS and its all good
Doesn’t hurt Jerry. He can’t get it up anyway.
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?
California is truly insane!
There! Fixed it!
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.