Iowa court hears criminal HIV transmi...

Iowa court hears criminal HIV transmission case

There are 13 comments on the The Daily Tribune story from Sep 11, 2013, titled Iowa court hears criminal HIV transmission case. In it, The Daily Tribune reports that:

Arguments over whether an Iowa man can be charged with criminal transmission of HIV, even though he used a condom during sex, unfolded before the Iowa Court of Appeals Wednesday.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Daily Tribune.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#1 Sep 12, 2013
It's a "Failure to Inform" issue.

“Equality First”

Since: Jan 09

St. Louis, MO

#2 Sep 12, 2013
snyper wrote:
It's a "Failure to Inform" issue.
I agree. Anyone with an ounce of brains knows that condoms are not fool-proof. And by the way, the article says he "pleaded". What ever happened to the word "pled"? I noticed news outlets going to "pleaded" a few years back and have wondered why.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#3 Sep 12, 2013
RalphB wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree. Anyone with an ounce of brains knows that condoms are not fool-proof. And by the way, the article says he "pleaded". What ever happened to the word "pled"? I noticed news outlets going to "pleaded" a few years back and have wondered why.
"Pled" is certainly older, but it may be another step along the lines of Webster's work, bringing some rationality to the American language. There's obviously a lot more that could be done. It would certainly be more rational to create a past tense simply by adding the "ed" suffix without need for alteration of the root; especially when so doing doesn't alter any etymological meanings. lol

English is the largest and richest language on the planet, but it can be damn hard to spell and read and, all the moreso, to speak.

We've certainly come a long way the days when word endings were all important, and word order not at all.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#4 Sep 12, 2013
These laws do not take into account that the sex is consensual. It ignores the principles of implied risk and shared liability.

As an HIV+ person I inform. And anyone who isn't HIV+ should accept the risk they have in any sexual encounter.

IMO these laws help demonize HIV and discourage testing.

It galls me that ONE STD is covered by these laws and so many others are not.

FTA:
Rhoades' case is unlike any other heard by another Iowa court, said Christopher Clark, a senior staff attorney with Lambda Legal, an organization that advocates for gays and lesbians that is representing Rhoades. At issue in Clark's arguments were both the protected sex Rhoades had with the man and an oral sex act the man performed on Rhoades where a condom wasn't used.

In a 2006 Iowa Supreme Court case, the court upheld an HIV-positive man's conviction after he exposed a partner to his semen during oral sex. The court's ruling in that case, however, shouldn't be applied to Rhoades' case, Clark said.

Both Rhoades and his partner agree that Rhoades didn't ejaculate during the oral sex act, Clark said. Also, the amount of HIV in Rhoades' blood was so low it couldn't be detected by his doctor, he said.

Those factors combined make the science supporting Rhoades' conviction shaky, Clark told the judges. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has said there's less risk of transmitting the virus through oral sex, and no medical group has ever issued a statement on facts similar to the Rhoades case, he said.

"There's no sort of scientific evidence or consensus around the fact that oral sex without ejaculation could result in the transmission."

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#5 Sep 12, 2013
Syphilis and Gonorrhea are as devastating as HIV if left untreated.

Yet we never hear of anyone being prosecuted for failing to inform consensual sex partners of these possible risks.

IMO these laws are just as stupid as the HIV blood ban.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#6 Sep 12, 2013
But then I live in a nation that makes it mandatory to print in very small letters that peanut butter may contain peanuts and that your coffee at McDonald's might be hot and burn you.

Common sense is becoming more and more uncommon.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#7 Sep 12, 2013
There is no such thing as "shared responsibility".

Individuals can only have individual responsibility.
Sheldon

Alexandria, VA

#8 Sep 12, 2013
DNF wrote:
...Gonorrhea [is] as devastating as HIV if left untreated.
What's your medical basis for this assertion?
Sheldon

Alexandria, VA

#9 Sep 12, 2013
snyper wrote:
There is no such thing as "shared responsibility".
Individuals can only have individual responsibility.
A legalistic distinction. The law would substitute "jointly and severally liable" for shared responsibility. It has the same meaning, ultimately. Parse it as you will, it all comes down to mutual accountability.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#10 Sep 12, 2013
Sheldon wrote:
<quoted text>
A legalistic distinction. The law would substitute "jointly and severally liable" for shared responsibility. It has the same meaning, ultimately. Parse it as you will, it all comes down to mutual accountability.
I believe it is an illusion, a legal fiction with chaotic results.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#11 Sep 13, 2013
Sheldon wrote:
<quoted text>
. Parse it as you will, it all comes down to mutual accountability.
If only ONE of you is certain that you have a communicable disease that can result in death for the other person, and that person makes a conscious choice to keep that info to themselves, then it can't be "mutual" anything.

“Equality First”

Since: Jan 09

St. Louis, MO

#12 Sep 13, 2013
I can't get the page to come up today for some reason. Anyway, I read this the other day, but I don't remember now. Did it mention whether the man who got infected was asked if he had sex with any other people? It seems like a reasonable question to ask, before they find this guy guilty of something. Also, and I don't know anything about this, but is there any differences in the strain of the infection? If so, is it the same one?

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#13 Sep 13, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
If only ONE of you is certain that you have a communicable disease that can result in death for the other person, and that person makes a conscious choice to keep that info to themselves, then it can't be "mutual" anything.
Informed or not, it remains two individual decision sets, and two individual responsibilities.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Same-sex marriage fight turns to clerk who refu... 3 min bite me 177
News Kentucky couples sue clerk who won't issue gay ... 3 min Read the constitu... 11
News Religious liberty is rallying cry after gay mar... 6 min DaveinMass 124
News Conservative churches confront new reality on g... 36 min xplode 45
News Polygamous Montana trio applies for wedding lic... 46 min FYI 56
News Some gay marriage opponents balk, while couples... 1 hr xplode 58
News George Takei Slams Donald Trump's Definition of... 1 hr david traversa 5
News 'You can't have marriage equality without polyg... 1 hr KirkW 35
News Governors vow to fight SCOTUS ruling on gay mar... 2 hr Brian_G 544
News Is Polygamy the Next Gay Marriage? (Sep '14) 5 hr NorCal Native 7,020
News Supreme Court extends gay marriage nationwide 8 hr This And That 425
More from around the web