US Justice Department sues over Tennessee law targeting HIV-positive people convicted of sex work
The U.S. Justice Department on Thursday sued the state of Tennessee over its decades-old felony aggravated prostitution law, arguing that it illegally imposes tougher criminal penalties on people who are HIV positive.
The lawsuit, filed in western Tennessee, follows an investigation completed in December by the Justice Department that warned that the statute violates the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case heads to court separately from another federal lawsuit filed in October by LGBTQ+ and civil rights advocates over the aggravated prostitution law.
Tennessee is the only state in the United States that imposes a lifetime registration as a “violent sex offender” if convicted of engaging in sex work while living with HIV, regardless of whether the person knew they could transmit the disease.
That's a lot of trust to put on something so deadly.
Here's an example. I work in a restaurant setting. If I have a virius that can kill people, and it can be transmitted by food that I touch, but I'm taking treatments and it's not transmittable, should I be hired to work in restaurants? If I am, should I inform every customer that what they eat may kill them? Or do we just take my word for it and hope that a) I'm honest, or if you don't trust that, that b) the doctors got it 100% correct and not 99.9999999%? Would you eat at that restaurant? Would you let your loved ones?
That’s a lot of nines. A failure rate of one in one billion? I’d definitely roll those dice for some Five Guys.
Be as glib about it as you want, but I wouldn't take the chance.
1/1,000,000,000 is probably safer than driving to the store, and I do that every few days.
The number isn't important, I just pulled a bunch of nines out of my ass to illustrate my point that there is a life and death difference in 100 and 99.99999.
But the number is important, and the number in this case is probably work to get that number closer to one by handing out prep and condoms to the prostitutes and Johns.
Instead they're prosecuting the only people involved who are likely to be victims.
Yeah, along with the rest of your argument. You are free to not participate in *checks notes* the consumption of illegal prostitution if you are uncomfortable with the inherent risks associated with *double-checks notes, just to be sure* the consumption of illegal prostitution.
You take that chance a thousand times a day.
You should probably never drive a car, take a bath, or be near weather. Your car, shower, and lightning are all far more likely to kill you.
Considering that any customer might choke on the food or get an allergic reaction from something in the food and die, I'd say the chance of one of your customers dying is a higher percentage than you think.
So yes, I would eat at a restaurant where there is such a low risk of dying because that means almost no one ever chokes or gets an allergic reaction and this must be a very special restaurant.
You know something interesting? The pathogens you can spread as a restaurant employee are SIGNIFICANTLY more transmissible than HIV. You can give someone hepatitis just by not washing your hands well after you poo. Your example doesn't work here because the danger of a restaurant is actually greater than of getting an STI.
Ahh you are talking about Mary Mallon aka Typhoid Mary
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Mallon
I see what you're trying to get at but I'd say your argument is disingenuous at best. As far as I know such an illness does not exist. More importantly you're using an industry that, in most locales, is highly regulated and has laws for food safety.
What you do do is raise a great argument for why sex work should be legalized and regulated.