Yea they deserve equal shaming of how much both parties suck.

Like, I can see making it not a felony for those who understand and are willing to take the risk... But to apply it across the board, including to blood banks? No, abso-fucking-lutely not.

Oh don't give me that. I knew of this outside of this thread. This is the result of progressivism and don't try to pretend that it got humans out of caves. Also, it doesn't represent actual progress or moving things forward. It's just a sales slogan. The political ideology didn't exist until recently. That was created by democrats, passed by and made into law by democrats for a state of democrats. So yes, it's their baby. 

This in no way lifts the stigma of AIDS. If anything it will make it worse by decriminalizing knowingly infecting others which is giving others a death sentence. 

Suddenly in an ironic twist of turn, republicans cutting healthcare doesn't seem so bad in comparison to decriminalizing the spread of an infectious life long and threatening immundeficiency disease ... 

Oh look, already the usuals calling this progressivism and liberalism when most progressive and liberal people would be completley against this, its so fucking sad the way some use their shitty agenda everywhere here.

And while I don't agree with this measure (maybe because I don't have enough info about it), it is true that there is a good point here: "HIV has been the only communicable disease for which exposure is a felony under California law. The current law, Wiener argued, may convince people not to be tested for HIV, because without a test they cannot be charged with a felony if they expose a partner to the infection"

Now, wether this is the best way to solve this, that's more questionable.

wut?

That is highly missleading, you will get punished for intentionally or negligently spreading ebola or any other lethal disease as well. The laws refer to AIDS specifically because is unique in that is nearly 100% lethal in a natural state and has a long incubation period of many years which enables criminals to spread it.

People need to calm the fawk down. Most of you don't even live in California like I do. I'm cool with it. If your not overly promiscuous, you will be fine, and blood banks can easily test for the virus.

Here you go over reacting blaming babies: https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/health-topics/topics/bt/risks

Here is the quote:
"Viruses and Infectious Diseases

Some infectious agents, such as HIV, can survive in blood and infect the person receiving the blood transfusion. To keep blood safe, blood banks carefully screen donated blood.

The risk of catching a virus from a blood transfusion is very low.

HIV. Your risk of getting HIV from a blood transfusion is lower than your risk of getting killed by lightning. Only about 1 in 2 million donations might carry HIV and transmit HIV if given to a patient.
Hepatitis B and C. The risk of having a donation that carries hepatitis B is about 1 in 205,000. The risk for hepatitis C is 1 in 2 million. If you receive blood during a transfusion that contains hepatitis, you'll likely develop the virus.
Variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (vCJD). This disease is the human version of Mad Cow Disease. It's a very rare, yet fatal brain disorder. There is a possible risk of getting vCJD from a blood transfusion, although the risk is very low. Because of this, people who may have been exposed to vCJD aren't eligible blood donors."

Wear a condom or two if you're going to have sex with someone you don't know, and even then you're still not 100% protected to something far more shaming than HIV/AIDS--Herpes. I bet most of you don't even get regularly laid, or have multiple partners withing a given year.

Such babies...

Well, I was actually refereing to the point he makes below that, I just copied the whole paragraph.