Another Gay Rights Victory: Sentence for Man Who Exposed Other Man to HIV Thrown Out

1380836729.png.CROP.promo-medium2

I’m not sure how a ruling that frees gay men to expose their sex partners to a deadly virus is a gay rights victory, but clearly I’m not keeping pace with the frenzied rush of liberalism through the gates of madness.

If gay marriage was marriage equality, what’s this? Viral equality?

State Sen. Matt McCoy of Des Moines cut off Nick Rhoades’ ankle bracelet at a gathering in Grinnell. The crowd was cheering. People were crying.

“It was totally moving and made all the work worthwhile,” said Terry Lowman, who attended the event. “To me, the drama played like Jesus washing the feet of the poor. I was so totally moved.”

Sure. Except the “poor” in this case was a man with HIV who had sex with another man without telling him he had it. In his defense, the other man didn’t actually come down with it.

So clearly he’s the innocent victim here.

In Cedar Falls, Rhoades and A.P. engaged in consensual unprotected oral and protected anal sex. Several days later, A.P. learned Rhoades was potentially HIV positive. A.P. contacted the police, and subsequently the State charged Rhoades with criminal transmission of HIV in violation of Iowa Code section 709C.1

Rhoades knew he had HIV since 1998 but he described himself as HIV-negative on the social network website where he met A.P. in 2008.

Any jury in the case would have heard evidence that “A.P. performed unprotected oral sex on Rhoades, that there was a possibility of failed protection during anal sex, and that Rhoades later apologized to the victim,” he added.

The complaint was made by a gay man against Rhoades. Rhoades was not the victim here, he was the perpetrator.

The Des Moines Register stories on this are a mix between propaganda and crazy lies.

In 2009 Rhoades pleaded guilty to criminal transmission of HIV, and while his 25-year prison sentence was later reduced to probation for five years, he still has a felony criminal record and is required to be on the state’s sex-offender registry. In the meantime, advocates of equal rights for gays and lesbians took up his cause, the Iowa Legislature this year changed the state law on which he was convicted and Gov. Terry Branstad recently signed the bill into law.

Good news for gay men with HIV. Not so much for gay men without HIV. But the latter category should probably rethink their HIV-free privilege.

This Iowa man had consensual sex with another adult who didn’t contract HIV, yet he was prohibited from being around minors without supervision. The punishment imposed on Rhoades was horrific, and state lawmakers knew it.

That’s not a horrific punishment. A horrific punishment is knowingly exposing someone else to a deadly virus.

Liberals are obsessed with rape culture. They have defined rape down quite a bit. But when it comes to gay men, suddenly this is considered consensual sex.

But gay activists are still unhappy with any legal ban for knowingly infecting someone else.

HIV transmission should not be criminalized—ever. HIV criminalization laws do absolutely nothing to prevent the spread of the virus. They stigmatize HIV-positive people, dissuade people from getting tested, and undermine public health goals. They are exceedingly difficult to enforce and based on junk science. They should all be repealed, entirely, immediately.

There you have liberalism in all its glory.

All of this is certainly progress. But LGBTQ activists should resist the urge to ballyhoo Iowa’s new law as a model for the other 34 states that criminalize HIV exposure or transmission. The revised Iowa law may have removed the bizarrely harsh, unscientific penalty that Rhoades initially faced, which slapped him with a 25-year prison sentence for theoretically exposing a partner to HIV without actually transmitting the virus. But an HIV-positive person who knows he’s positive and transmits the virus to a partner “with reckless disregard” still faces five years in prison.

When there’s real progress, then gay men will be able to spread AIDS as much as they like without ever being prosecuted. Disagreeing will be a hate crime… because this is liberalism.

  • Pete

    I had to get a syphilis test before I could get marriage certificate.

    But I guess that is a strictly hetero hang up, gays can do what ever they damn well please and everyone else has to pick up the pieces and pay higher taxes to boot.

    Welcome to the Brave New Gay World!

  • Webb

    Judge: You boys feel free to infect each other all night long.

  • Pete

    Let’s say I agree with people who say Daniel Greenfield a little that he is a hack, his essays are crap and If I agree with too much of what he write I am drinking the Kool-Aid.

    Consider the following 2 statements:

    (A) “HIV transmission should not be criminalized—ever.”
    (B) They are exceedingly difficult to enforce and based on junk science.

    Andrew M. Francis & Hugo M. Mialon of the Emory University – Department of Economics wrote 2 papers together. These papers are The Optimal Penalty for Sexually Transmitting HIV (Emory Law and Economics Research Paper No. 08-29) and “Tolerance and HIV”.

    The latter paper was much ballyhooed by the LGBT community. It featured on the popular gay blog Joe My God at blogspot. They thought this was good stuff. It was scientific. It was statistically sound. Well if the latter paper was statistically sound and scientifically valid why would the former not be so? How could the former be junk science? Statement (B) is obviously false.

    If Statement (B) is false a person must question whether statement (A) is false aside from the fact the it is a broad sweeping generalization.

  • Phillip Davidson

    i am sorry the HIV+ person feels denigrated, but no one should be exposed without foreknowledge of their partners status! This is a horrible game of Russian roulette, but at least before you put the gun in your mouth, you know it is loaded with a bullet and you play the game with that foreknowledge! So the same should be with anyone exposing anyone to VD or HIV! I have heard too many horror stories of young individuals catching something on their first hookup……….

    • Norman Dostal

      I agree the infected guy should be held liable in some respect

      • Chavi Beck

        Why only in some respect?

        • Norman Postal

          Because you are suppose to treat a gay guy gently, because he is part of a victim class.

  • thisoldspouse

    Moral criminals.

    And shame on Governor Branstad for signing this despicable piece of legislation. He’s no longer a conservative of any flavor.

  • hrwolfe

    The same people force motorcycle helmet laws on riders for there own good and to supposedly save taxpayers $$$ but this is responsible? Who’s gonna pay for all the AIDs treatments? Oh I am sure the perp will pay for it right? John Q. Taxpayer on the hook for more social engineering.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      Sure.

      We’re arresting kids for pop tarts that look like guns, but decriminalizing deliberate transmission of a deadly virus

      liberalism is a moral illness

      • http://www.whale.to/ John Wantling

        Daniel Greenfield, you say deadly virus but as I state in another post, there is no test able to detect this so-called deadly virus, so as this is so, then your belief in a deadly virus is not a reality. So-called ‘hiv’ is a mere translation of a non-specific test into a specific test with an added dose of discrimination and magical thinking. This test is based on infection but the initial illness circa 1980s/90s was based on toxicology, an experimental lifestyle, not infectious. Science made a monumental blunder translating a poison based disease into an infectious disease but this they do all the time. Its a big problem in science as you then have to propagate a lie to feed the infectious beast. John Wantling, Rochdale, UK

      • Pete

        From Yahoo

        “Texas man gets at least 75 years in jail after infecting girl with HIV”

        http://health.yahoo.net/news/s/nm/texas-man-gets-at-least-75-years-in-jail-after-infecting-girl-with-hiv

    • Norman Dostal

      hrwolfe-careful, hillbilly, your bigotry is showing. Straight peopel get HIV too. But I do agree this is wrong

      • hrwolfe

        Care to point out my bigotry? Showing inconsistency in practice is hillbilly bigotry? Pointing out that the Taxpayer will most likely pay for both of their AIDS treatments. The responsible thing is to tell the truth! but that is just my hillbilly bigotry.

  • WhiteHunter

    Next step: Sue the BSA to accept adult gays with AIDS as Scoutmasters. Oops–the first part of that is already in the works. When they win that one in court–or the Scouts’ Board of Directors surrenders to it without objection, as they are about to do under the leadership of Board members like the CEO of AT&T and now Gates–it’s on to Part 2.

    Part 3 will be when a 15-year-old Scout gets infected by his gay, HIV-positive Scoutmaster. That’ll be a REAL victory for “the LGBT community” to celebrate, the “final barrier” to “full equality” to come down.

    Just wait and see.

    • Foolish Pride

      Upvoted for truth, it sounds horrific.

    • JackSpratt

      NAMBLA is a democrap constituency. Remember too, some years ago one of the so-called Psychiatric Associations came out in favor of man/boy love. They backtracked when it was met by a strong chorus of protest, but that’s what they think and I have no doubt still promote.

  • glpage

    So, if someone were to catch a very virulent strain of flu, refuse treatment, and then go to a gay pride event coughing and hacking and puking and possibly infecting others it would be okay…

    • http://www.whale.to/ John Wantling

      glpage, you adhere to a theory of germ, that infection is transmitted through coughing and sneezing. This is popular but in reality this does not really happen. Yes, we cough and sneeze and microbes are involved but there is no reality to an infectious process. So your comment is based on germ theory which is deeply flawed. Concerning so-called ‘hiv’, let us not forget that after 30 years of aids science, we still do not have a manufactured ‘hiv’ test. These tests are non-specific and then ‘translated’ into ‘hiv language’. These tests do not test for ‘hiv’ and so no one is ‘hiv positive’ unless we have a test, and as yet, we do not, so all this hysteria about ‘hiv’ has no reality. Watch ‘House of Numbers’ on youtube. Educate yourself. John Wantling, Rochdale, UK

      • Pete

        Personally, I believe in the theory of humors, spontaneous generation or the wrath of G-d.

        I also believe in cleanliness. Lots & lots of cleanliness. Once I left some dirty rags in a barn and when I came back the next day there were rats and other vermin!

        • JackSpratt

          Be careful about leaving dirty rags together, if certain compounds or chemicals were used, these rags will spontaneously combust. Many a school house has burned down because of that.

      • Pete
      • glpage

        I have to assume you are either being extremely facetious or, well, I’m not sure what to believe if you are not being facetious. Leung’s movie has been slammed by just about everyone in the medical community. I believe pseudo-science is a good description of Leung’s theories. There are test that can identify certain antibodies the body manufactures in response to HIV. The HIV virus has been isolated, it really does exist and it has led to the death of millions of people.

        Disease is spread by aerosol (coughing and sneezing), by contact, by ingestion, and other means.

        If you truly believe “hysteria about ‘hiv’ has no reality” I would suggest you explain to a good friend of mine how her son did not die of AIDS caused by HIV.

        • Pete

          I went to his google page. He means well, but he is as serious as a heart attack. For example the extra energy release by the radiation of Fukushima caused hurricanes or caused them to be more intense.

          Replying to John in some quarters would not be considered to be sporting.

        • http://www.whale.to/ John Wantling

          glpage, the manufacturers of so-called ‘hiv testing kits’ always add a disclaimer stating that their tests should not be used alone to test for ‘hiv’; to use a confirmatory test, but these confirmatory tests also carry a disclaimer. There has never been a manufactured test for ‘hiv’ and there never will. Response to the article titled ‘PHE support for HIV testing week’

          http://www.rochdaleonline.co.uk/news-features/129/letters-to-the-editor/83831/response-to-the-article-titled-%E2%80%98phe-support-for-hiv-testing-week

        • http://www.whale.to/ John Wantling

          glpage, the idea that coughs and sneezes spread diseases is based on germ theory. This is a theory that has become popular but it basically states that coughs and sneezes spread diseases but I do not see any process of infection in this. Yes, there are a plentiful supply of microbes but this does not translate into a so-called virus jumping out of the nasal cavity and infecting another. This is a bizarre theory but it has caught on with the masses. Look at wolves and kangaroos, they lick each other on the mouth but they are not sick with wolf aids or kangaroo aids. This is because there is no infectious mechanisms by this pathway. We may well believe that there is, but in reality it just does not happen. Gallo lied in the 1980s about ‘hiv’ and he was guilty of scientific misconduct because he had lied before. He was a willing victim of the corrupt politics at that time and then the propaganda ruled the waves, and you, with respect, are merely a victim of that. You see the world through the image and this is clear to see but it is also your downfall. Find a testing kit with no disclaimer and you will be searching until the cows come home. It is in black and white. It is not what I say, the writing is on the wall. If you want to translate a non-specific test into a specific test, then go ahead but you will be suffering from self deception. John Wantling, Rochdale, UK

      • ThomasER916

        You sound like a typical, indoctrinated, know-nothing, Useful Idiot from an ethno-masochistic nation.

  • Anukem Jihadi

    “They stigmatize HIV-positive people, dissuade people from getting tested, and undermine public health goals”

    Maybe I’m being silly but what’s the public health goal benefit of being tested if it doesn’t stop you transmitting the disease?

    • Daniel Greenfield

      So the amount of government money to groups that claim to help people with HIV increases

      • Anukem Jihadi

        LOL, of course. Why didn’t I think of that?

        • Daniel Greenfield

          With lib activism, always follow the money

  • JackSpratt

    And thus one is forced to take the law into their own hands!

  • JackSpratt

    Remember that years ago, the nation’s blood supply became contaminated, because it was a violation of the queer’s rights to require an AIDS test before giving blood. Many innocent people, including children became infected with AIDS, through blood transfusions.

    • Pete

      And they are very upset about the ban on gay men giving blood. Very upset. They are indignant.

      • Norman Dostal

        Pete-because its ridiculous, dumdum-ALL blood gets tested these days for HIV

        • laura r

          thats what im saying. if they find too many gay men have HIV then its best just to not take the blood. who cares what gayrights people have to say?

        • Daniel Greenfield

          No test is 100 percent. There are reasonable precautions to take, such as not accepting blood from populations with a statistically high percentage of deadly diseases

        • Pete

          As DG said no test is 100%. If a gay person infected with HIV but does not yet have antibodies to HIV, then it would have provided false negatives.

          My understanding is that for at least the 1st decade if not linger HIV test for blood looked for antibodies formed in reaction to the HIV infection.

          It is also my understanding that in the 1st 3 to 6 months there would not be antibodies or detectable antibodies to in an infected person’s blood in many cases.

          So because of this there was a ban for people who had MSM zex giving in blood in the 1990s and into the 2000s and judging form the JMG blog they were indignant about it.

        • Pete

          Okay according to you, Norman Dostal, I am a dumdum and you are not, because you would not be silly or vain enough to pull a kettle calling a pot black type of trick.

          From the FDA

          http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/BloodBloodProducts/QuestionsaboutBlood/ucm108186.htm

          “HIV tests currently in use are highly accurate, but still cannot detect HIV 100% of the time. It is estimated that the HIV risk from a unit of blood has been reduced to about 1 per 2 million in the USA, almost exclusively from so called “window period” donations. The “window period” exists very early after infection, where even current HIV testing methods cannot detect all infections. During this time, a person is infected with HIV, but may not have enough virus or have developed sufficient antibodies to be detected by available tests”

          I added this extra because I found it fascinating. I learned a lot such as the screening for Leukemia and Chagas disease

          “One window-period donation in two years of individual donor-nucleic acid test screening for hepatitis B, hepatitis C and human immunodeficiency virus”

          http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3728127/

    • laura r

      this is not about blood transfusions. apples & oranges.

      • JackSpratt

        Sorry, but it’s apples and apple juice.

        • laura r

          someone gets aids. hes not giving blood. anyone giving blood has to be healthy.

          • ThomasER916

            You obviously don’t understand the word “scandal.”

          • laura r

            any blood lab that uses blood that hasnt been tested should be sued for a billion dollars.

          • Pyotr

            Please, please understand what a “window period” is.

            “HIV tests currently in use are highly accurate, but still cannot detect HIV 100% of the time. It is estimated that the HIV risk from a unit of blood has been reduced to about 1 per 2 million in the USA, almost exclusively from so called “window period” donations. The “window period” exists very early after infection, where even current HIV testing methods cannot detect all infections. During this time, a person is infected with HIV, but may not have enough virus or have developed sufficient antibodies to be detected by available tests”
            I concluded a while back that although we have pills for many things, and we have many tests and our surgical interventions & other therapies get better all the time,
            There may never be a time that we have a pill for everything or a test for everything
            The Bible is still operable. Just because we get away with a lot of crap, may just mean that we were lucky and not that we should live that way.
            I heard of a teenage that got syphilis more than once. It was not a superbug type of syphilis either. This was 40 years ago. It was too far along. so where is the pill in that case?
            I was taught in science class (the school had no formal zex ed course) that some STD infections are asymptomatic. So is it possible that they get far enough along that they are entrenched and a pill won’t work? Or barring that they are found eventually and cured, because it is only a bacteria, but on the other hand the damage is done. Such as an increased propensity for strokes (look it up). It is all fun and games until someone gets hurt.

            http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/BloodBloodProducts/QuestionsaboutBlood/ucm108186.htm

          • Chavi Beck

            Whereas an individual who knowingly spreads an actual disease, is fine because… because personal responsibility?

          • ThomasER916

            Yeah! Gazillions of dollars!

            OK, you’re an idiot.

          • laura r

            ok take the blood enjoy.

          • ThomasER916

            OK, enjoy feeding the lawyers.

      • Jack o’ all trades

        True the original article/blog was not about blood transfusions.
        But this story brings up pent up frustration with gays, who want special dispensation in criminal law, public safety and everything else.
        Their lifestyle choice is a hazard to other people and so laws are made to contain the damage. So they rail against the laws. they want special treatment. IF a hetero guy who had HIV did not tell a woman, who he was having unprotected zex of his HIV + status, would the hetero community be all indignant and start campaign to over turn the law?
        This is the same sh_t they pulled with blood donation about 4 years ago.
        Both the HIV status notification and the blood donation laws were to protect the public at large. who is trying to overturn them? The gays.
        There is an effing pattern here!
        Start see the pattern!

    • UCSPanther

      It happened in Canada too. The Tainted Blood Scandal was big news in the 1990s when they found themselves flooded with people suffering from various bloodborne illnesses like HIV/AIDS, Hepatitis, etc.

    • Norman Dostal

      Jackspratt-wow, youre quite the ignorant, religiously brainwashed hillbilly redneck! Hows life in the trailer park?

  • truebearing

    If liberal morons and gays don’t want to follow laws that prevent the spread of aids, people should stop donating to charities that fund research for new medicines or a cure. The virus will just mutate and come back stronger and harder to treat.
    From a Darwinistic standpoint, those infected with the disease would do the human race a big favor by dying…and the Left shouldn’t mind because the individual means nothing to collectivists, right?

    • laura r

      aids became a business, especially w/africa. thats another story.

      • Daniel Greenfield

        every disease is a business

  • James Patterson

    I read the article on Slate website. Here’s a quote from the article:

    “HIV-negative people should have the burden of defending themselves from the virus. If they refuse to do so, their irresponsibility shouldn’t land their partner in jail.”

    These people are insane. Whatever pity one used to have for them is now gone. They are pure evil. And whoever tolerates or enables or defends evil, is evil.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      That is the left. It’s inherently vicious and destructive.

      • laura r

        for the first time slate sounds like the “right”. cant figure out this one. the left usually wants to test the limits, them blame. like the imagined rape culture. kind of similar. certain behaviors create what they do.

        • Daniel Greenfield

          Personal responsibility means that if you consciously harm another person, there’s a criminal penalty for it.

          • laura r

            i know there were people like the infected man running around infecting, read about this years ago. it was discussed in the gay community & publicized. if this was a one night stand w/a stranger then someone had a dealth wish. if it was someone he knew before & trusted i see the point. but still, very foolish behavior.

  • laura r

    this is not a gay issue. there are women who get infected by men. whats next? suing your friend who let you use his dirty needle? yes i know he said he was healthy, now you have hep b & aids. sue the junkies.

    • UCSPanther

      Yes, there have been a couple cases that I know of where men have been sent to prison for recklessly infecting women with HIV.

      • laura r

        slate mag sounds liberartian. TR sounds tyannical. live & let live. let people make their own informed choices, epsecially over 18.

        • Daniel Greenfield

          He couldn’t make an informed choice since the gentleman in question told him he was clean

  • Norman Dostal

    Pretty sure most gay men are pretty disgusted by this-this man should be jailed for this crime

    • Daniel Greenfield

      They should lobby for those laws then instead of letting gay rights groups speak for them.

  • Norman Dostal

    Laura-good point, but this man should still be held liable for not disclosigng a deadly virus sinse he knew he had it

    • laura r

      there comes a point where the courts & govt should stay out of personal affairs. then again thats only my opinion.

  • Norman Dostal

    youre a dumb bigot with no point…

    • DaCoachK

      And you’re just a queer with no disease–yet.

    • Ian Nairn

      Sarcasm is not your best suit.

  • Jeremy Hodder

    Boy I got dropped in the middle of the no thought, no reason, blame the lefties for everything we do zone.. I see frontpagemag is a pander page. Sensational headlines that don’t focus on the real issue, so you can demonize what you don’t like. This ruling Is an atrocity. Because no human should be free to infect another. Btw straight people are probably worse simply because how many of you only think of condoms to prevent pregnancy, and even then judging by the overgrowth of humanity, it matters very little. Hypocrisy and lies are your only currency.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      What is the real issue, besides straight people being evil?

  • Daniel Greenfield

    Few libertarians think that you have the right to hurt someone else.

  • Chavi Beck

    Can I spray anthrax in the NYC subway system and not get arrested, too? Lots of my friends are female like me.

  • ThomasER916

    Keep blathering.

    John “the Useful Idiot” Twatling.

    • http://www.whale.to/ John Wantling

      ThomasER916, if you
      disagree with what I say, then make your own case in a rational manner, but by
      calling names and being rude, you only say more about yourself than about
      anything else. If you have something to say, then say it and lets then take a
      look at it. As yet, you have said nothing but called me an idiot. When I made a
      comment on ‘hiv’, I was merely stating what is on the manufacturers package
      inserts. I did not make this up in my own head, it is the manufacturers who
      say this. If you think that they are idiots for saying that, then go tell them
      all about it. You see, you have probably grown up in a culture of ‘hiv’ and you have formed an image, and now you look through that image. When someone questions this, you defend your image regardless if you are right or wrong. Its the nature of the beast, my hiv friend. John Wantling, Rochdale, UK

  • MannieP

    If the GLBT community is going to continue being enemies of America, then maybe they need to be treated like The Enemy. I have long supported GLBT issues, including gay marriage, and have a number of close GLBT friends. This is not about how you play with your plumbing, or who you marry, or how you relate to your gender.

    This is about murder. It is about the Gay Mafia’s vicious, hateful, intolerant, hypocritical attacks on anyone who doesn’t toe their political line. It is about their Totalitarian Liberalism. Liberalism is a cult of hate and violence, just like the Nazis, and they are among the biggest haters. Not everyone gay, but the activist community. And thyey don’t give a sjit whether you live or die, so long as they can screw. But the rank and file apparently support that, so maybe they are just as bad.

    It’s not that they are gay. It is that they are damned Liberal scum.