# "Healthy, Happy, and Hot" - Planned Parenthood Opposes Mandatory HIV Disclosure Before Sex **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 13, 2010, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthy-happy-and-hot-planned-parenthood-opposes-mandatory-hiv-disclosure-before-sex/535958 "2010-04-13T15:51:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![billfish678](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@billfish678](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/billfish678)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2010, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthy-happy-and-hot-planned-parenthood-opposes-mandatory-hiv-disclosure-before-sex/535958/81 "2010-04-14T18:35:33Z")
> [@brickbacon](#): > > I am not sure I buy the whole informed consent angle either. Yes, I am sure people would want to know a partner’s health history, but in the case where someone doesn’t even bother to ask, or take basic steps to protect themselves, **I would argue they have assumed the risk**. **Just the fact that they might have acted differently had they known should not be the standard in a case like this**. So you wouldn’t care if you happened to get into a cab with a drunk cabbie and you didnt know it? And, even worse, when he crashes and maims your ass you’d be all “hey, I took that risk”…please… ---
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2010, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthy-happy-and-hot-planned-parenthood-opposes-mandatory-hiv-disclosure-before-sex/535958/82 "2010-04-14T18:39:58Z")
> [@Mr.Excellent](#): > > Hold on, though - failing to disclose one’s HIV+ status to one’s partner is pretty darned reckless in the first place. The whole _point_ of mandatory disclosure laws is to control the behavior of (one hopes) a tiny minority of reckless jackasses. The argument that this law might inspire reckless jackasses to engage in _worse_ behavior certainly seems a troubling one. Well it shouldn’t be. The behaviour being discussed is only worse than the status quo in the “being a bigger jerk” sense, not in the “doing more damage” sense. At absolute worst it’s exactly the same as the current situation. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2010, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthy-happy-and-hot-planned-parenthood-opposes-mandatory-hiv-disclosure-before-sex/535958/83 "2010-04-14T18:47:25Z")
> [@brickbacon](#): > > But is it fraud? I will gladly accept your legal interpretation on the matter, but I think the two possible scenarios that would likely play out raise very different moral and legal issues. Those being: > > 1. Someone lying to a potential partner when asked > 2. No discussion at all. > > If a potential partner makes a serious inquiry into the matter, and the infected person lies, I think they are doing something terribly immoral, and likely illegal. Not bringing it up at all, like what might happen during a drunken one-night-stand, has to be weighed against many other compelling interests. > > It seems to me the latter situation would be logically related to one’s right to remain silent, duty of self-preservation, and privacy. I don’t intend to necessarily make a legal argument, but I think the underlying logic and philosophy behind those ideas would apply to the above as well. Obviously, those must be weighted against other societal concerns, but I am not sure we should always come down on the side society. > > I am not sure I buy the whole informed consent angle either. Yes, I am sure people would want to know a partner’s health history, but in the case where someone doesn’t even bother to ask, or take basic steps to protect themselves, I would argue they have assumed the risk. Just the fact that they might have acted differently had they known should not be the standard in a case like this. I mean, an employer probably wouldn’t hire an HIV-infected person either, but it would seem unfair to me to expect people to disclose all their health issues before they are hired. Well, the law reaches both the case of the person who lies about his HIV status if asked, and the person who fails to volunteer it. Are you suggesting you’d be in favor of criminalizing the lie, but giving a passed to the person who is not asked? ---
**Author:** ![billfish678](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@billfish678](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/billfish678)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2010, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthy-happy-and-hot-planned-parenthood-opposes-mandatory-hiv-disclosure-before-sex/535958/84 "2010-04-14T18:53:39Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Well, the law reaches both the case of the person who lies about his HIV status if asked, and the person who fails to volunteer it. Are you suggesting you’d be in favor of criminalizing the lie, but giving a passed to the person who is not asked? Don’t you get it? Its the new “don’t ask, dont tell” but with extra morality added! ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2010, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthy-happy-and-hot-planned-parenthood-opposes-mandatory-hiv-disclosure-before-sex/535958/85 "2010-04-14T19:01:46Z")
> [@billfish678](#): > > Don’t you get it? Its the new “don’t ask, dont tell” but with extra morality added! Aren’t you droll? ---
**Author:** ![billfish678](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@billfish678](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/billfish678)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2010, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthy-happy-and-hot-planned-parenthood-opposes-mandatory-hiv-disclosure-before-sex/535958/86 "2010-04-14T19:03:53Z")
> [@jayjay](#): > > Aren’t you droll? No, I am fabulous, minus the super secret HIV part. ---
**Author:** ![brickbacon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@brickbacon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brickbacon)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2010, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthy-happy-and-hot-planned-parenthood-opposes-mandatory-hiv-disclosure-before-sex/535958/87 "2010-04-14T19:24:19Z")
> [@billfish678](#): > > So you wouldn’t care if you happened to get into a cab with a drunk cabbie and you didnt know it? And, even worse, when he crashes and maims your ass you’d be all “hey, I took that risk”…please… The cab driver is breaking the law, and would be held liable. Having sex as an HIV+ person is not against the law. The two situations are not analogous. Furthermore, there is an understandable assumption that a cab driver is not operating his cab while drunk/high/etc. Can anyone in this day and age say the same about a stranger who you decide to have unprotected sex with? Most people I know operate under the assumption that a stranger you have sex with is carrying some kind of STD. That’s why they either wear condoms, or avoid sleeping with strangers. A closer analogy might be your initial premise coupled with a passenger who decides not to wear a seatbelt despite smelling alcohol on the cabbie’s breath and noticing slurred speech. Also, there is significant media attention and educational material telling everyone about the prevalence of drunk cab drivers, how to avoid them, the dangers of not checking your cab driver’s BAC level, and ubiquitous Breathalyzers available for free. If someone in that situation gets into an accident, after getting in the cab, I think they would bare a lot of the responsibility. > [@Bricker](#): > > Well, the law reaches both the case of the person who lies about his HIV status if asked, and the person who fails to volunteer it. Are you suggesting you’d be in favor of criminalizing the lie, but giving a passed to the person who is not asked? I would be in favor of criminalizing the behavior of a person who knowingly lies as opposed to someone who fails to volunteer the information. Let me be clear, I think the infected person in both situations is doing something wrong and morally disgusting, but I am not sure a person in the latter situation should be criminally prosecuted. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2010, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthy-happy-and-hot-planned-parenthood-opposes-mandatory-hiv-disclosure-before-sex/535958/88 "2010-04-14T19:29:39Z")
> [@brickbacon](#): > > I would be in favor of criminalizing the behavior of a person who knowingly lies as opposed to someone who fails to volunteer the information. Let me be clear, I think the infected person in both situations is doing something wrong and morally disgusting, but I am not sure a person in the latter situation should be criminally prosecuted. Even then, though, it’s pretty clear that Planned Parenthood disagrees; they believe that any attempt to make disclosure mandatory violates the rights of the HIV+ person. They make no distinction between volunteering and responding to a question. ---
**Author:** ![Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimmy_Gibbler)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2010, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthy-happy-and-hot-planned-parenthood-opposes-mandatory-hiv-disclosure-before-sex/535958/89 "2010-04-14T19:39:33Z")
> [@Mr.Excellent](#): > > Really? I mean, I’m not sure that it isn’t, and I freely admit that as a brand-new lawyer, my instincts here may not be so great - but I don’t see a way to frame this as a slam-dunk argument that it’s constitutional. > > How do you work this? “The State has a compelling interest in ensuring that people are not unwittingly exposed to dangerous disease through unprotected sex, which trumps the individual’s right to privacy?” The obvious rejoinder would be that the State’s interest in safe(er) unprotected sex surely can’t be all that great, especially when protection is widely available. > > I suppose you could then say, “The risks involved in sex even with condom use are such that the State’s compelling interest trumps the privacy interest at issue,” but then you get into some really tricky balancing issues. The risks involved in protected sex are much lower than those involved in unprotected sex. Moreover, where do we draw the line? HPV can cause fatal cancers - shall we require sexual partners to disclose their HPV status? > > I think it’s possible a court would agree with you, **Bricker** - but could you talk a bit more about how you see this playing out? Because I just see a giant mess. > > Also, aside from the constitutional issue, there’s a compelling policy argument that criminalizing non-disclosure would be a profoundly bad idea: you can’t disclose information you don’t have. Criminal laws of this sort could discourage testing. Which could cost lives. > > All that being said, I still believe that non-disclosure is immoral, unethical, and sleazy as hell. But criminalizing it, absent deliberate attempts to exposure your partner, is not the way to go. Why would you even think this is anything other than the ordinary use of the state’s police power and which would be reviewed under the rational basis test? ---
**Author:** ![boytyperanma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4491bb/32.png) [@boytyperanma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/boytyperanma)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2010, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthy-happy-and-hot-planned-parenthood-opposes-mandatory-hiv-disclosure-before-sex/535958/90 "2010-04-14T19:44:05Z")
I have nothing to add to this thread just wanted to note I agree with jayjay 100% on this issue. ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2010, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthy-happy-and-hot-planned-parenthood-opposes-mandatory-hiv-disclosure-before-sex/535958/91 "2010-04-14T19:45:39Z")
> [@boytyperanma](#): > > I have nothing to add to this thread just wanted to note I agree with jayjay 100% on this issue. I’m bronzing that post… 😃 ---
**Author:** ![billfish678](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@billfish678](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/billfish678)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2010, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthy-happy-and-hot-planned-parenthood-opposes-mandatory-hiv-disclosure-before-sex/535958/92 "2010-04-14T19:50:34Z")
> [@brickbacon](#): > > The cab driver is breaking the law, and would be held liable. d. And WHY is being a drunk cab driver AGAINST the law? Ughhh…its because his right to get drunk is not as important as the right of his passengers (or other people on the road) to NO HAVE TO take the uninformed risks that his ass is drunk. Or are you saying if it WASNT against the law, because it wasnt against the law it would be ok? ---
**Author:** ![carm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c2a13f/32.png) [@carm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carm)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2010, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthy-happy-and-hot-planned-parenthood-opposes-mandatory-hiv-disclosure-before-sex/535958/93 "2010-04-14T19:51:14Z")
People with HIV should _absolutely_ have to tell anyone they have sex with. Why is this an issue? Willing transmission of a fatal disease for personal pleasure should be considered something akin to manslaughter. I feel kinda strong about this because I know a guy who has herpes, and is still sleeping with tons of women. I seriously doubt that he tells any of them beforehand. ---
**Author:** ![billfish678](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@billfish678](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/billfish678)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2010, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthy-happy-and-hot-planned-parenthood-opposes-mandatory-hiv-disclosure-before-sex/535958/94 "2010-04-14T19:58:42Z")
> [@brickbacon](#): > > A closer analogy might be your initial premise coupled with a passenger who decides not to wear a seatbelt despite smelling alcohol on the cabbie’s breath and noticing slurred speech. Also, there is significant media attention and educational material telling everyone about the prevalence of drunk cab drivers, how to avoid them, the dangers of not checking your cab driver’s BAC level, and ubiquitous Breathalyzers available for free. \*\*If someone in that situation gets into an accident, after getting in the cab, I think they would bare a lot of the responsibility. \*\* And YET the drunk CAB driver would STILL be held criminally liable,even IF I am stupid enough to catch a ride with Tipsy McDrunkenton. I can be a retard when it comes to protecting my house and my valuables. It STILL doesnt absolve the thief from criminal liability when he steals my shit. ---
**Author:** ![billfish678](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@billfish678](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/billfish678)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2010, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthy-happy-and-hot-planned-parenthood-opposes-mandatory-hiv-disclosure-before-sex/535958/95 "2010-04-14T19:59:45Z")
> [@jayjay](#): > > I’m bronzing that post… 😃 Least that post won’t be HIV positive…but I wouldnt count on it. ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2010, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthy-happy-and-hot-planned-parenthood-opposes-mandatory-hiv-disclosure-before-sex/535958/96 "2010-04-14T20:09:23Z")
> [@billfish678](#): > > Least that post won’t be HIV positive…but I wouldnt count on it. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![brickbacon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@brickbacon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brickbacon)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2010, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthy-happy-and-hot-planned-parenthood-opposes-mandatory-hiv-disclosure-before-sex/535958/97 "2010-04-14T20:11:10Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Even then, though, it’s pretty clear that Planned Parenthood disagrees; they believe that any attempt to make disclosure mandatory violates the rights of the HIV+ person. They make no distinction between volunteering and responding to a question. Perhaps. I don’t necessarily agree with PPI. Regardless, I am not sure your analysis gives a complete picture of how they feel about the issue. If you read the link on the first page you quoted from, some arguments are listed why they believe criminalization is [bad](http://www.gnpplus.net/criminalisation/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=382&Itemid=53) (another cite [here](http://www.aidslaw.ca/publications/interfaces/downloadFile.php?ref=1275)). I think your overview is unfair for a few reasons. First, this is the INTERNATIONAL Planned Parenthood. It’s also a pamphlet; hardly the place to present all the intricacies of the situation. If you read some of the linked sites, they talk about problems in Western Africa where women who disclosed to their partners have legitimate fears of physical reprisal (including murder). You better believe disclosure under those circumstances is a violation of one’s rights. The context is very important. Either way, if you really want to know how they feel, why don’t you contact them to get their point of view rather than making an assumption. ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2010, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthy-happy-and-hot-planned-parenthood-opposes-mandatory-hiv-disclosure-before-sex/535958/98 "2010-04-14T20:13:22Z")
As someone who’s generally a PP supporter, I am nonetheless appalled by this stance and frankly, I’d be willing to accept mandatory-disclosure laws for ANY situation (not just HIV+ people) such that - Person A has a currently-incurable disease and - Person A and Person B are about to engage in an activity that will specifically put Person B at risk of contracting said disease. I am also willing to recognize that the problem with this stance is that if ignorance is a valid defense (and it has to be, just to cover the asymptomatic edge cases), the same kind of people who don’t voluntarily disclose now may well simply not get tested so as to be able to plausibly deny knowledge of their condition. I’m not convinced this is a huge risk factor–except in the cases of asymptomatic carriers or men infected with one of the lesser strains of HPV (no symptoms, but can be transmitted), even the biggest jerk is going to notice getting sick and get their genitals checked out on the off chance it CAN be cured. Basically, I do support a right to privacy, but in the specific case of activities with potential to transmit disease, it seems more analogous to bankruptcy laws than anything else–one’s potential partner has a right to INFORMED risk decisions that trumps your privacy right here. On edit: brickbacon raises an excellent point. I’m more willing to accept the position that the privacy right trumps when in a situation where there is legitimate fear of reprisal. My statement above is from a western first world perspective. ---
**Author:** ![brickbacon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@brickbacon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brickbacon)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2010, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthy-happy-and-hot-planned-parenthood-opposes-mandatory-hiv-disclosure-before-sex/535958/99 "2010-04-14T20:16:00Z")
> [@billfish678](#): > > And WHY is being a drunk cab driver AGAINST the law? > > Ughhh…its because his right to get drunk is not as important as the right of his passengers (or other people on the road) to NO HAVE TO take the uninformed risks that his ass is drunk. > > Or are you saying if it WASNT against the law, because it wasnt against the law it would be ok? It’s against the law because we say it is, and because it’s inherently dangerous. Having sex with someone who is HIV+ is not. > [@billfish678](#): > > And YET the drunk CAB driver would STILL be held criminally liable,even IF I am stupid enough to catch a ride with Tipsy McDrunkenton. As I said, it’s a closer analogy, not perfect. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2010, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthy-happy-and-hot-planned-parenthood-opposes-mandatory-hiv-disclosure-before-sex/535958/100 "2010-04-14T23:24:31Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Sure. Just to pick one I happen to know a bit about… Va Code § 32.1-43 provides in pertinent part: When was the last time this was actually enforced? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthy-happy-and-hot-planned-parenthood-opposes-mandatory-hiv-disclosure-before-sex/535958.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthy-happy-and-hot-planned-parenthood-opposes-mandatory-hiv-disclosure-before-sex/535958.md?page=6)