Bill Criminalizing STDs Could Turn Oklahomans Into Felons

Saturday, April 13, 2024

House Bill 3098, authored by Senator Jessica Garvin and Representative Toni Hasenbeck, could criminalize common STIs and turn thousands of Oklahomans into felons.

Posted by qcp at 01:30 PM | 18 COMMENTS | permalink | Comment on This Entry |

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

"Instead of reducing the spread of STIs, experts in the field say the bill would make the problem worse."

That's a feature, not a bug.

Just like unplanned pregnancy and no abortion is the punishment for sex.

Getting a sexually transmitted disease is another way to punish people for sex.

#1 | Posted by snoofy at 2024-04-12 10:57 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 5

If signed into law, House Bill 3098 would criminalize the intentional or reckless spread of STIs.

Uhh, yeah. Seems common sense to me. Don't go around spreading your cooties.

#2 | Posted by censored at 2024-04-12 12:17 PM | Reply

How do you enforce this? someone makes an accusation.....goes to the local law enforcement office and files a complaint.

Then what?

#3 | Posted by eberly at 2024-04-12 12:26 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"How do you enforce this?"

Same way you enforce abortion bans.

By inserting the Republican Party into the relationship between a patient and their doctor.

#4 | Posted by snoofy at 2024-04-12 12:41 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 6

How do you enforce this? someone makes an accusation.....goes to the local law enforcement office and files a complaint.
Then what? #3 | POSTED BY EBERLY

"One such case is that of Thomas Guerra, an American landscape architect, who became the first person in the state of California to be convicted for intentionally infecting another individual with HIV. In court, prosecutors presented 11,000 text messages and 36 audio clips to support their case against Guerra. Since then, Guerra has been accused of intentionally exposing dozens of other men to HIV." en.m.wikipedia.org

#5 | Posted by censored at 2024-04-12 01:17 PM | Reply

Thanks.

#6 | Posted by eberly at 2024-04-12 03:08 PM | Reply

I remember that case when it was breaking. It was upsetting to learn someone was spreading the HIV virus on purpose to unsuspecting men.

Thing is it's a very specific case with documentation to prove the host knew he was infected.

But, people can have STDs without realizing they're infected.

How will the law enforce such cases of transmission?

Lacking hospital documentation. Can it be proven that someone knew they were infected and knowingly spread it to others?

I agree with Snoofy, conservatives are trying their best to criminalize unauthorized sex. Like the medieval ages or present day Islamic nations.

#7 | Posted by ClownShack at 2024-04-12 03:26 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#7 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK

I don't believe not knowing is a valid excuse. Ignorance is not a defense.

criminalize unauthorized sex.

Seems to me unauthorized sex should be a crime. In fact in CA, "a current or previous dating or marital relationship shall not be sufficient to constitute consent".

#8 | Posted by oneironaut at 2024-04-12 04:11 PM | Reply

I don't believe not knowing is a valid excuse.

I'm in favor of responsible sexual interactions. But, I don't agree with criminalizing the unintentionally spreading STDs/STIs.

This in nothing more than Republicans policing what happens in the bedroom between consenting individuals.

unauthorized sex should be a crime.

So, you believe people need government approval before having sex?

That's a very extreme viewpoint and unhealthy for society.

But, you're entitled to your opinion.

#9 | Posted by ClownShack at 2024-04-12 04:45 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

OneTinyNut better get rid of that raging gonorrheal infection in his throat.

#10 | Posted by LegallyYourDead at 2024-04-12 05:49 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Cringeworthy headline.
Do some people really think like this?

#11 | Posted by fatboomboom at 2024-04-13 03:08 PM | Reply

So, you believe people need government approval before having sex?

"Criminalize unauthorized" sex isn't the government saying what is and isn't authorized. It would just "criminalize" any unauthorized sex.

For instance if the law states I cannt do something, I am already unauthorized to do it. No authorization is available.

Your statement was clear, it's about the people authorizing sexual relations between themselves.

And criminalizing it if "unauthorized".

ei criminalizing it if one side doesn't consent.

Which is what people define as rape.

Clearly You are saying the government shouldn't get between a rapist and their victim.

#12 | Posted by oneironaut at 2024-04-13 03:25 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

But, I don't agree with criminalizing the unintentionally spreading STDs/STIs
- clownshack

nice butt, negating the principle.

It would be irresponsible to have sexual relations and not know if you have an STD. Or at least know as far as is medically possible.

#13 | Posted by oneironaut at 2024-04-13 03:29 PM | Reply

This in nothing more than Republicans policing what happens in the bedroom between consenting individuals.
- clownshack

Seems to me this legislation is to STOP the SPREAD.

Do we now only stop the spread for some things and not others?

What's your guiding principle? Republican proposed bad, Democrats good?

#14 | Posted by oneironaut at 2024-04-13 03:31 PM | Reply

Typical okie repug.

tulsaworld.com

#15 | Posted by reinheitsgebot at 2024-04-13 04:12 PM | Reply

Expectingreign:
have you hired a lawyer yet?

#16 | Posted by e1g1 at 2024-04-13 08:03 PM | Reply

@#14 ... Seems to me this legislation is to STOP the SPREAD.

Do we now only stop the spread for some things and not others? ...

Not stop the spread, but stop the intentional or reckless spread.

From the cited article...

... If signed into law, House Bill 3098 would criminalize the intentional or reckless spread of STIs. ...

So, what's the point of your current alias?

#17 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-04-13 09:05 PM | Reply

@#17

OK, now that I read that again, I note I could have worded it better....

So, what's the point of your current alias's comment that ...

Do we now only stop the spread for some things and not others? .?

#18 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-04-13 09:08 PM | Reply