As you might know by now, I am taking a spiraling tumble into the world of porno politico. I recently discovered a bill that was brought up in 2004 that died in committee in November of 2006. The bill, AB 2798, was first proposed by Assembly Member Tim Leslie. When Mr. Leslie was termed out of office, the bill was then put into Jackie Goldberg's hands. When Ms. Goldberg was termed out of office it feel into the hands of Kevin De León. The bill has since died in committee. This bill outlined a proposal that would keep HIV/AIDS at bay in the adult entertainment industry. The reason it died was because there were no supporters on file and a lot of opposition. The opposition was absolutely ludicrous in their arguments. One opponent, of which will shock you, had this to say...(taken from an online analysis report)
The AIDS Healthcare Foundation is opposed to any
provision of law that seeks to make HIV testing mandatory and
are particularly concerned that this bill does not recognize
the reality of HIV testing. The American Civil Liberties
Union opposes mandatory testing of individuals for HIV status
based on its infringement of individual liberty and right to
privacy and states that mandatory STD testing gives a false
sense of security because someone may have been infected since
the last time he or she was tested and may be infectious
before being tested again. The Free Speech Coalition
indicates that the current testing program has shown success,
with no HIV positive results in five years until the recent
discovery of current positives. They believe that this bill
reflects a misunderstanding of several critical issues related
to the STDs specified in the bill and a lack of knowledge or
current and more efficient practices already in use within the
industry.
I agree with the fact that the bill had a few unrealistic provisions and restrictions. My question is this: is it possible to re-evaluate a bill and make recommendations to alter certain provisions so that it will be the most beneficial it can be as a whole? It is frustrating to me that the AIDS Healthcare Foundation threw out this bill based on the proposer’s lack of understanding about HIV testing. They were focusing on the messenger rather than the message itself. The ACLU stated that HIV testing gives a "false sense of security". Let me ask this: because condoms are not 100% preventative, does that mean that we should no longer use them? Let me use a scenario. Let us talk about a "false sense of security". A meta-analysis of condom effectiveness from In vivo studies by Dr. Susan Weller suggests a 31% failure rate in preventing HIV transmission. (Weller, Susan, "A Meta-Analysis of Condom Effectiveness in Reducing Sexually Transmitted HIV," Social Science and Medicine, 36:12, 1993)
"It is a disservice to encourage the belief that condoms will prevent sexual transmission of HIV."
Does this mean that condoms should be banished? After all, they do give a false sense of security. Condoms ,according to Dr. Weller's studies, are only about 69% preventative over all against contraction of HIV.
The opposition's side of the argument against such a bill like AB 2798 is weak. What shocks me most is not that someone would make such ludicrous arguments, but that the source of these statements is from a foundation whose sole purpose is AIDS prevention and awareness. One would assume that to fight against an epidemic so ruthless as AIDS, that one would have to go into unknown territory; go down avenues and clean out every crevice in the world. HIV knows no boundaries. AIDS does not care who you are. To be naive enough to think that since someone is in the adult industry that they don't have any other sexual contact is to not know the facts about life in general.
I just want to say something to the AIDS Healthcare Foundation. You are supposed to be about all human life, not just people who you feel deserve it. We are evolved creatures on this planet. Nothing should be able to stop us. Not a plague, not a droughtt, not a flood, not a hurricane, and especially not HIV/AIDS, a preventable disease that has no place in human existence. There is no reason in this universe that we should be giving an open door for our own self-destruction. Leaving the adult industry, particularly the gay market, tainted is self hatred. Even if you do not work in the industry, the mire from it will spread and human existence as we know it will be vanished for good. 
6.07.2007
Opposing Safety... {Opposing bill AB 2798}
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Its crazy how the foundation doesnt create another bill with some revisions and updates so that its safer for the adult industry as well as the community. They are basically saying that condoms bring false hope to canceling hiv, so whats the point. Prevention is a key word for this blog and there needs to be some changes made soon.
Hmmm... interesting read. I must say I agree, that mandatory testing is an infringement on their liberties, and no law should make it mandatory. There are many jobs that test for drug use, and those business owners decided on their own to do so. Should there be a law stating all employers must do so? If an adult studio decides to be proactive and require it, then more power the them. No one has the right to work. If an adult actor prefers bareback, most studios won't hire him. But no law requires condom use. It's the business owners that are looking out for the safety of their employees.
I respect your opinion, since you are looking out for the health of many people, but no law should be in place requiring something that a business owner has the right to decide for themselves.
Here is the thing. According to the Americans with Disabilities Act it would be concidered discrimination if a studio hired or did not hire an actor based on their status. Fine, test for the pure principle of having disclosure. But!, not even disclosure is ok because the American Civil Liberties Union says that HIV should be kept private and disclosure is an infringement on the rights of the actor. There is also a law that states that any person who has a communicable disease willingly and knowingly exposes themselves to another person and puts them at risk for contraction is concidered a felon and can be charged with as much as a misemenor(i know i might have spelled that awfully). Now, we have people unwilling to be tested because "Don't ask, don't tell"... Mobody is held liable if someone is HIV+ and doesn't even know their own status and goes around infecting people. A law put in place would banish the ADA confusion, it would wipe away the dirt caused by the ACLU, and it would make known the HIV status of actors to themselves and only the other actor he works with, therefore causing a door to be open where the actors are liable if they do not disclose their status to the person they are having sex with. Now, if a law is not the best solution for ALL of this... then please tell me something that is.
Post a Comment