# "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:** 9
**Author:** ![carm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c2a13f/32.png) [@carm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carm)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2010, 1:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthy-happy-and-hot-planned-parenthood-opposes-mandatory-hiv-disclosure-before-sex/535958/161 "2010-04-16T13:15:45Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Virginia: > Quote: > Originally Posted by Va Code § 18.2-67.4:1 > Any person who, knowing he or she is infected with HIV, has sexual intercourse, cunnilingus, fellatio, analingus or anal intercourse without having previously disclosed the existence of his or her HIV infection to the other person shall be guilty of a class 1 misdemeanor. Anyone think it should be more than a misdemeanor? It is fatal after all, should willing transmission not be somewhere up there with rape, or agg assault? Or even murder? I certainly think it could be classed as a serious sex crime. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2010, 1:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthy-happy-and-hot-planned-parenthood-opposes-mandatory-hiv-disclosure-before-sex/535958/162 "2010-04-16T13:33:38Z")
> [@carm](#): > > Anyone think it should be more than a misdemeanor? It is fatal after all, should willing transmission not be somewhere up there with rape, or agg assault? Or even murder? > I certainly think it could be classed as a serious sex crime. Well, it’s distinguished from Va Code § 18.2-67.4:1(A): > [@](#): > > Any person who, knowing he or she is infected with HIV, has sexual intercourse, cunnilingus, fellatio, analingus or anal intercourse with the intent to transmit the infection to another person shall be guilty of a class 6 felony. The felony crime has the element of intent (which of course may be inferred from conduct). The misdemeanor is simply having sex without informing. To me, that’s a reasonable distinction. In Virginia, a Class 1 misdemeanor is punishable by up to a year in jail and a fine of up to $2,500. ---
**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 16, 2010, 1:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthy-happy-and-hot-planned-parenthood-opposes-mandatory-hiv-disclosure-before-sex/535958/163 "2010-04-16T13:33:43Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Don’t want to be nitpicky, but it seems to me that the “rational basis test” is usually formulated a bit differently than the version you’re offering up here. I’m talking about a _rational basis_, not Rational Basis, as it were. It’s a public policy argument, not a legal argument. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2010, 1:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthy-happy-and-hot-planned-parenthood-opposes-mandatory-hiv-disclosure-before-sex/535958/164 "2010-04-16T13:44:33Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > I’m talking about a _rational basis_, not Rational Basis, as it were. It’s a public policy argument, not a legal argument. Gotcha. Well, you’re not wrong. (That is, I mean to say you’re not Wrong). 😃 I think I’d adopt the reasoning of our learned colleague who said: “On the other hand, we are a democracy rather than a technocracy because we think there is some policy wisdom to be gained by taking account the views of all the governed and not just the self-selected cadre of public health experts.” This is the crux of the counterargument, I believe. There are plenty of rules that might be imposed on a rational basis. I refuse to believe that any human being needs to be able to order a Double Quarter Pounder with Cheese and a large fires (1240 calories, 67 grams of fat, 103 g carbs). It’s manifestly unhealthy. And if our legislation were truly based entirely on lower-case-r rational basis examinations, surely McDonald’s would be required to stop offering that kind of food. But I don’t think we’re quite ready to start legislating that way. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2010, 1:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthy-happy-and-hot-planned-parenthood-opposes-mandatory-hiv-disclosure-before-sex/535958/165 "2010-04-16T13:47:33Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > So… your thesis is that current law requires people to tell the truth about being HIV+ if asked, but does not punish mere omission? > > That’s not so. > > Virginia: > > Nothing there about having to tell the truth if asked, but getting a pass if not asked. The law requires disclosure, period. > > Iowa: > > Nothing there about having to tell the truth if asked, but getting a pass if not asked. The law requires disclosure, period – as an affirmative defense, no less. > > Florida: > > Nothing there either about having to tell the truth if asked, but getting a pass if not asked. The law requires disclosure, period. > > Rather than my continue to post state laws, why don’t you tell me what law you were relying upon? I think something isn’t getting through here. I know that mandatory disclosure laws exist, and I know that failing to disclose under those laws constitutes a crime. My point is that outside of these laws, lying about your HIV status, if asked, would be illegal. I contend that it is illegal under general assault and/or assault with deadly weapons statutes. > [@Bricker](#): > > They say they oppose existing laws requiring disclosure. It seems that if your … um… extremely generous interpretation was correct, they’d make it plain. > > Why do you believe they draw this particular distinction? And why, if they do draw this distinction, do you believe they don’t say anything about it? They made a pamphlet, not a nuanced document explaining their position on various legal possibilities. I see no reason to expect to see any distinction beyond what is immediately applicable to that particular pamphlet. Besides, your logical jump is enormous. Just because someone believes that you shouldn’t be legally required to disclose your HIV status doesn’t mean they think its a-ok to lie about being HIV+ to get laid. It’s a perfectly reasonable distinction to make. ---
**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 16, 2010, 1:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthy-happy-and-hot-planned-parenthood-opposes-mandatory-hiv-disclosure-before-sex/535958/166 "2010-04-16T13:50:08Z")
No, but there’s certainly a lot of wiggle room. After all, we currently prohibit the use of non-therapeutic drugs, even if we don’t prohibit Double Quarter Pounders with Cheese\*. We require a certain amount of television programming to be in the public interest, even if we still let broadcasters televise professional wrestling. \*I know what I’m having for lunch. A double quarter pounder, that is, not non-therapeutic drugs. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2010, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthy-happy-and-hot-planned-parenthood-opposes-mandatory-hiv-disclosure-before-sex/535958/167 "2010-04-16T14:07:13Z")
> [@treis](#): > > My point is that outside of these laws, lying about your HIV status, if asked, would be illegal. I contend that it is illegal under general assault and/or assault with deadly weapons statutes. And can you point to a single case that has construed assault or assault with deadly weapons laws in that way? I can’t, and I’ll tell you that I would be stunned to see you find one. At common law, assault is an inchoate crime, an attempted battery, or a completed crime, a threatened battery. The elements of battery are: (1) an intentional, (2) unpermitted, (3) act that causes harm or is offensive contact with (4) the body of another person. Consensual sex fails the “permitted” element. Your speculations about “deadly weapons” enhancements are equally without support. While it’s true that a “dangerous weapon” might be stretched to include the HIV virus, you would still need to intent to infect; someone who lied because he knew they’d be practicing safe sex, for example, could not be convicted under this theory. In short: no, you got nothing. There is NO LAW that would criminalize failure to tell if asked, but permits not telling if not asked, It doesn’t exist. > [@](#): > > They made a pamphlet, not a nuanced document explaining their position on various legal possibilities. I see no reason to expect to see any distinction beyond what is immediately applicable to that particular pamphlet. Besides, your logical jump is enormous. Just because someone believes that you shouldn’t be legally required to disclose your HIV status doesn’t mean they think its a-ok to lie about being HIV+ to get laid. It’s a perfectly reasonable distinction to make. Nor do I claim they think it’s “a-ok.” I claim they oppose the laws requiring mandatory notification. And they do. You claim they oppose some imaginary law that doesn’t exist. ---
**Author:** ![brickbacon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@brickbacon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brickbacon)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2010, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthy-happy-and-hot-planned-parenthood-opposes-mandatory-hiv-disclosure-before-sex/535958/168 "2010-04-16T18:12:46Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > And can you point to a single case that has construed assault or assault with deadly weapons laws in that way? I can’t, and I’ll tell you that I would be stunned to see you find one. Does [this](http://abcnews.go.com/2020/hiv-criminal-busted-women-lied/story?id=8579258) fit? > [@](#): > > Between 2004 and 2007, they – and several other women – managed to cross paths with a man they describe as a serial killer. They say they were given a death sentence by 53-year-old Philippe Padieu, who knowingly infected them with the HIV virus. > > In late May, Padieu was convicted in a Texas court of\*\* aggravated assault with a deadly weapon\*\* for infecting the women. He was later sentenced to 45 years in prison. Another case [here](http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/6915492.html), and more cases listed in [this](http://www.aidsmap.com/en/news/57E118E4-CC57-4C0E-A200-E7709A67AF1F.asp) article involving spitting. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2010, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthy-happy-and-hot-planned-parenthood-opposes-mandatory-hiv-disclosure-before-sex/535958/169 "2010-04-16T22:22:38Z")
> [@treis](#): > > I think something isn’t getting through here. I know that mandatory disclosure laws exist, and I know that failing to disclose under those laws constitutes a crime. My point is that outside of these laws, lying about your HIV status, if asked, would be illegal. I contend that it is illegal under general assault and/or assault with deadly weapons statutes. > [@Bricker](#): > > And can you point to a single case that has construed assault or assault with deadly weapons laws in that way? I can’t, and I’ll tell you that I would be stunned to see you find one. > [@brickbacon](#): > > Does [this](http://abcnews.go.com/2020/hiv-criminal-busted-women-lied/story?id=8579258) fit? No. Becuase that’s not a case of “He lied when asked.” That’s an example of the kind of law you are opposing, where the elements of guilt have nothing to do with whether or not he was asked, and if he lied or not. The law in this story criminalizes his conduct, period. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2010, 3:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthy-happy-and-hot-planned-parenthood-opposes-mandatory-hiv-disclosure-before-sex/535958/170 "2010-04-17T03:47:59Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > And can you point to a single case that has construed assault or assault with deadly weapons laws in that way? I can’t, and I’ll tell you that I would be stunned to see you find one. At common law, assault is an inchoate crime, an attempted battery, or a completed crime, a threatened battery. The elements of battery are: (1) an intentional, (2) unpermitted, (3) act that causes harm or is offensive contact with (4) the body of another person. Consensual sex fails the “permitted” element. It isn’t consensual if it is based on a fraud, thus the hypothetical satifies (2). To make it more clear lets use a hypothetical. Say I lie and tell you a pill is an aspirin, when it is in fact a poison, and you ingest it. Under your interpetation, no assault has taken place because the pill taking was consensual. Clearly that is an absurd outcome. My consent was to take an aspirin, not a poison. Similarly, my consent is to have sex with an HIV- person, not an HIV+ one. > [@Bricker](#): > > Your speculations about “deadly weapons” enhancements are equally without support. While it’s true that a “dangerous weapon” might be stretched to include the HIV virus, you would still need to intent to infect; someone who lied because he knew they’d be practicing safe sex, for example, could not be convicted under this theory. > > In short: no, you got nothing. There is NO LAW that would criminalize failure to tell if asked, but permits not telling if not asked, It doesn’t exist. > [@](#): > > Zuriel Roush, 22, on Wednesday pleaded not guilty in Spokane County Superior Court to charges of first-degree assault. > > Roush, who is HIV-positive, is accused of lying about his HIV status to a married man he had sex with in April. The man later learned Roush had the virus and called police, court documents say. > **[The Seattle Times | Local news, sports, business, politics, entertainment,...](https://www.seattletimes.com)** > > Local news, sports, business, politics, entertainment, travel, restaurants and opinion for Seattle and the Pacific Northwest. The cite isn’t great, and it isn’t particularly clear on the details, but it is an instince of a man being charged under assault laws for lying about his HIV status. > [@Bricker](#): > > Nor do I claim they think it’s “a-ok.” I claim they oppose the laws requiring mandatory notification. And they do. > > You claim they oppose some imaginary law that doesn’t exist. I saw statements such as these: > [@Bricker](#): > > But their right to get laid can’t erase the right of their partners to provide informed consent before fucking. > [@billfish678](#): > > Bingo…their “right to get laid and stay secret about their HIV status” ENDS right RIGHT where the other persons RIGHT to be informed begins. So I posted: > [@treis](#): > > This thread has been operating under a false premise for the last four pages. You have a right to know about your partners HIV status. All you need to do is ask. Lying after being asked about your status is (likely) a crime. To which you posted: > [@Bricker](#): > > Yes, and it’s a crime that IPPF feels should not be a crime. And here we are again. You using the IPPF’s opposition of mandatory disclosure laws to argue that they oppose laws criminalizing lying about your HIV status to get laid. These two are apples and oranges: (1) I legally have to disclose (2) I legally can’t lie if asked Are two completely different things. ---
**Author:** ![Waenara](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/50afbb/32.png) [@Waenara](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Waenara)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2010, 7:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthy-happy-and-hot-planned-parenthood-opposes-mandatory-hiv-disclosure-before-sex/535958/171 "2010-04-17T07:14:46Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No. Becuase that’s not a case of “He lied when asked.” That’s an example of the kind of law you are opposing, where the elements of guilt have nothing to do with whether or not he was asked, and if he lied or not. The law in this story criminalizes his conduct, period. I saw tv coverage about this (IIRC it was Oprah), and Padieu _did_ lie when asked. He was in a multi-year relationship with at least one of the women he infected, and at one point they went to the doctor to get a STD/HIV test done, and when she asked about the results he _lied_ and said the result was negative. That proved that he knew he was HIV positive and still deliberately told women he was HIV negative. According to the coverage I saw, the proof that he was lying was the only thing that allowed him to be convicted. The prosecutor wouldn’t have brought charges without that proof. So maybe that specific law doesn’t say you need to lie, but if they didn’t have proof that he lied, he wouldn’t have been charged. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2010, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthy-happy-and-hot-planned-parenthood-opposes-mandatory-hiv-disclosure-before-sex/535958/172 "2010-04-17T19:32:53Z")
> [@Waenara](#): > > I saw tv coverage about this (IIRC it was Oprah), and Padieu _did_ lie when asked. He was in a multi-year relationship with at least one of the women he infected, and at one point they went to the doctor to get a STD/HIV test done, and when she asked about the results he _lied_ and said the result was negative. That proved that he knew he was HIV positive and still deliberately told women he was HIV negative. According to the coverage I saw, the proof that he was lying was the only thing that allowed him to be convicted. The prosecutor wouldn’t have brought charges without that proof. > > So maybe that specific law doesn’t say you need to lie, but if they didn’t have proof that he lied, he wouldn’t have been charged. The only interpretation that makes sense there is that you, or Oprah, misunderstood what was being alleged. It would be necessary to prove he knew he was HIV+, of course, but there’s no element of the law that makes it relevant that he lied. Now, maybe you (or Oprah) are saying that this particular prosecutor would have declined to charge him without evidence that he lied, but if that’s the case, it’s an exercise of prosecutorial discretion on the part of a solitary prosecutor, NOT a consequence of the law. ---
**Author:** ![Waenara](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/50afbb/32.png) [@Waenara](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Waenara)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2010, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthy-happy-and-hot-planned-parenthood-opposes-mandatory-hiv-disclosure-before-sex/535958/173 "2010-04-17T19:39:58Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Now, maybe you (or Oprah) are saying that this particular prosecutor would have declined to charge him without evidence that he lied, but if that’s the case, it’s an exercise of prosecutorial discretion on the part of a solitary prosecutor, NOT a consequence of the law. Yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying. I guess in the real world it makes little difference to the victims what the law itself says if prosecutors would hesitate to bring charges unless there’s evidence of lying. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2010, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthy-happy-and-hot-planned-parenthood-opposes-mandatory-hiv-disclosure-before-sex/535958/174 "2010-04-17T19:43:27Z")
> [@Waenara](#): > > Yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying. I guess in the real world it makes little difference to the victims what the law itself says if prosecutors would hesitate to bring charges unless there’s evidence of lying. The problem with your theory is the letter ‘s.’ Somehow, you made an inferential leap from one prosecutor to many prosecutor_ **s** _. Given that the initial evidence for even this single prosecutor’s practice is “I sorta remember this Oprah episode,” I’d sure want to see some kind of evidence for this being a common practice. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2010, 4:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthy-happy-and-hot-planned-parenthood-opposes-mandatory-hiv-disclosure-before-sex/535958/175 "2010-04-18T04:11:52Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The problem with your theory is the letter ‘s.’ > > Somehow, you made an inferential leap from one prosecutor to many prosecutor_ **s** _. Given that the initial evidence for even this single prosecutor’s practice is “I sorta remember this Oprah episode,” I’d sure want to see some kind of evidence for this being a common practice. I’ve given you one and you can google for more if you like. What’s the point anyways? You’ve already agreed that 3/4s of an assault charge are there, and your 1 objection is incredibly weak. Though it doesn’t appear as though you are even going to bother to defend that objection. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2010, 10:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthy-happy-and-hot-planned-parenthood-opposes-mandatory-hiv-disclosure-before-sex/535958/176 "2010-04-18T10:18:09Z")
> [@treis](#): > > I’ve given you one and you can google for more if you like. > > What’s the point anyways? You’ve already agreed that 3/4s of an assault charge are there, and your 1 objection is incredibly weak. Though it doesn’t appear as though you are even going to bother to defend that objection. Um… you do understand that a crime has elements, and in order to obtain a conviction, the prosecution must prove each and every one of those elements beyond a reasonable doubt, right? So it’s useless to say that 3/4s of an assault charge are there. There’s no assault conviction possible. I have googled for other examples of a prosecutor insisting on a lie to prosecute, and haven’t found any. So it must be that he’s the only one, as I said. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2010, 11:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthy-happy-and-hot-planned-parenthood-opposes-mandatory-hiv-disclosure-before-sex/535958/177 "2010-04-18T11:35:21Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Um… you do understand that a crime has elements, and in order to obtain a conviction, the prosecution must prove each and every one of those elements beyond a reasonable doubt, right? Um… you do understand that all the elements are there and that your one objection is total bullshit? I’ve noticed this seems to be your MO. Say something incorrect and then ignore arguments against it. > [@Bricker](#): > > I have googled for other examples of a prosecutor insisting on a lie to prosecute, and haven’t found any. So it must be that he’s the only one, as I said. Wow that’s a wonderful exercise in logic. This must be “defense lawyer” Bricker at work. Even if your ridiculous logic is true, you must have found the numerous cases of people being charged with assault for failing to disclose their HIV status. Now tell me, what exactly is the legal difference in terms of an assault charge between lying about being HIV+ and failing to disclose your are HIV+. In other words, if all of the people that have been found guilty of assault for failing to disclose their HIV+ status had simply said, “I’m HIV-”, at some point before intercourse, would they be innocent? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2010, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthy-happy-and-hot-planned-parenthood-opposes-mandatory-hiv-disclosure-before-sex/535958/178 "2010-04-18T16:39:00Z")
> [@treis](#): > > Um… you do understand that all the elements are there and that your one objection is total bullshit? > > I’ve noticed this seems to be your MO. Say something incorrect and then ignore arguments against it. Here’s what you said: > [@tries](#): > > My point is that outside of these laws, lying about your HIV status, if asked, would be illegal. I contend that it is illegal under general assault and/or assault with deadly weapons statutes. I have shown you that there is no element in the law about lying if asked. That’s an element, you claimed was there. I’ve shown you it isn’t. So what the hell are you talking about? > [@](#): > > Even if your ridiculous logic is true, you must have found the numerous cases of people being charged with assault for failing to disclose their HIV status. Now tell me, what exactly is the legal difference in terms of an assault charge between lying about being HIV+ and failing to disclose your are HIV+. In other words, if all of the people that have been found guilty of assault for failing to disclose their HIV+ status had simply said, “I’m HIV-”, at some point before intercourse, would they be innocent? No. You saw the discussion of “affirmative defenses” above, yes? In some states, disclosure is an affirmative defense; in others, _failure to disclose_ is an element of the crime. But there’s no difference between lying and failing to disclose. Both are punishable. In the third paragraph I quoted, you seem to be indignantly affirming the very thing you denied in the second paragraph I quoted. ---
**Author:** ![rock\_party](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e19b73/32.png) [@rock\_party](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rock_party)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2010, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthy-happy-and-hot-planned-parenthood-opposes-mandatory-hiv-disclosure-before-sex/535958/179 "2010-04-18T18:05:23Z")
Hiv is most transmissable during the incubation stage, generally 1-7 months after initial infection. Very few people know that they’re infected during this time. Once someone knows they’re infected and they begin HAART (treatment) transmissability goes way WAY down. This is extremely important because most people transmitting the virus DON’T KNOW they’re infected. And many don’t want to know if they’re infected. Some are young, being wild, playing around and they feel invincible. Some are young, being wild, and they have a sort of death wish, and they feel they’re going to end up Hiv pos. at some point and they’ll deal with it when it happens but they’ll have as much fun till it it does. And some (these days) are clueless…they’ve heard something about Hiv but believe it could never happen in their world and to them. The Hiv pos. person who’s been dealing with it for a while, takes their meds and are at a far lesser chance to transmit the virus (the rate of transmission for someone on meds with a non-detectable viral load is way WAY lower) are the only people mandatory disclosure would even apply to. They would be the ones wearing the “scarlet letter” to make sociaty feel “safe”. The clueless “fuckaroundtown” types who are far more responsible for the actual spread of the virus would’nt be slowed down a bit. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2010, 3:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthy-happy-and-hot-planned-parenthood-opposes-mandatory-hiv-disclosure-before-sex/535958/180 "2010-04-19T03:33:26Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Here’s what you said: > > I have shown you that there is no element in the law about lying if asked. > > That’s an element, you claimed was there. I’ve shown you it isn’t. > > So what the hell are you talking about? All I said was that lying about your HIV status is illegal under assault laws. I never contended that it was the only illegal activity, nor have I ever said that omission has not been punished under assault laws. I simply limited my contention to lying since I don’t think mere omission constitutes a crime, and I did not wish to digress into that argument. > [@Bricker](#): > > No. You saw the discussion of “affirmative defenses” above, yes? In some states, disclosure is an affirmative defense; in others, _failure to disclose_ is an element of the crime. But there’s no difference between lying and failing to disclose. Both are punishable. Great, so we are agreed and can end this silliness. Lying about your HIV status is punishable under existing assault charges. Thus, my originally contention that kicked this off is valid. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthy-happy-and-hot-planned-parenthood-opposes-mandatory-hiv-disclosure-before-sex/535958.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthy-happy-and-hot-planned-parenthood-opposes-mandatory-hiv-disclosure-before-sex/535958.md?page=10)