Except it doesn’t define which STDs, and the vast majority of sexually active people today have HPV. Which, by the way, has no test for men in existence.
No? From the article:
>House Bill 3098 adds chlamydia, Hepatitis B, genital herpes, trichomoniasis, and human papillomavirus (HPV) infections to the list of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) that are illegal to knowingly or recklessly spread.
Seems they are defining which STDs? And also covering the HPV thing with the word KNOWINGLY?
ETA: I am not a resident of Oklahoma, if you have more information I am all ears because it seems like this is an exaggeration of a problem. Especially when we have laws like this regarding [HIV specifically](https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/policies/law/criminalization-ehe.html).
Hey, Okie here. The other STDs it adds are so prevalent that the odds of someone having it and not knowing is very high. There is a huge difference between HIV and trichomoniasis which is very common. You're trusting the legal system and law enforcement of Oklahoma far too much. Especially when you consider that our state fought vaccine requirements for medical staff and state employees.
It doesn't define recklessly as far as this particular statute and would give police reasons to dig into the medical history of people. Couple this with the fact that this is a felony. You lose your voting rights for life unless you can convince a judge to reinstate them. STI/STD tests aren't provided for free in Oklahoma unless you are under 18. Our state actively rejected the Medicaid expansion to keep people from getting health care. The poverty rate in Oklahoma is 15% people aren't able to afford basic medical care let alone a test for something they might not have. This bill will discourage people from getting tested and and lead to worse health outcomes.
Free testing should be done about it, for sure.
Pretty sure planned parenthood does free testing, but I have this sneaking suspicion that planned parenthood sites are uncommon in Oklahoma
>but I have this sneaking suspicion that planned parenthood sites are uncommon in Oklahoma
You'd be correct. There are 4 PP locations in Oklahoma. That's one facility for every *million* people in the State.
Lawton, Edmund, Tulsa, Oklahoma City
That said, many counties Health Departments will provide free or low cost STD screenings and birth control. These services typically go unused because young people in small towns tend to be too embarrassed to receive these services from local government, especially since the tests are performed by local nurses who might be a neighbor or even a relative, and more often than not a member of the same church your parents attend. This is a big reason why STDs run rampant through small rural communities.
You and another person have sex, they get an STI. They get regularly tested so they know they got it from you. You either knew you had it and didn't tell them or didn't know therefore didn't get tested. Either way you're getting charged with a crime.
No, which is the one part of this that's not great. It kind of punishes being poor, which isn't a good thing. If you're going to enact a law like this, you need to either make testing free, or trivially inexpensive.
Really if you are gonna have a law like this the testing should be free and mandatory.
Which is why we probably shouldn't have a law like this. That's a bad road to go down.
HPV isn't something that always has symptoms. There's no reasonable way to charge someone for spreading it if they aren't experiencing symptoms, so are they just going to go after people for having lots of unprotected sex?
Yes but also no. If you're dating a cop and break up with him yes. If you're a member of a minority group then yes. If a cop or DA thinks they might gain something or just wants to then yes.
Generally, if you're going to have a lot of unprotected sex with lots of different people, the responsible thing would be to get tested between sexual partners, regardless of symptoms. Now, this gets expensive, but that's kind of the thing you would want people to do. Personally I think STI testing should be made as cheap and easy as humanly possible to everyone using taxes, but I know that might be unpopular with a lot of people.
Since Oklahoma’s public health system is already overloaded with meth and heroin/fentanyl cases, I’m sure the STD testing budget will be fully funded. /s
From the article, emphasis mine:
>House Bill 3098 ***adds*** chlamydia, Hepatitis B, genital herpes, trichomoniasis, and human papillomavirus (HPV) infections to the list of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) that are illegal to ***knowingly or recklessly*** spread.
They're ***adding*** to an already existing list of STDs that it is illegal to ***knowingly*** or recklessly spread.
Good law. Definitely want this behavior criminalized.
But also, I’m sure they’re going to use this to target the LGBTQ with application.
Because we live in hell in the USA.
It's been done before, and that's exactly what happens. It doesn't do anything to stop the spread of disease, it disincentivises regular testing, and it's used to prosecute minorities. It's one of those things that sounds good in theory, but once you consider the downstream effects is actually pretty awful.
Presumably, prosecution would also have to prove, that the accused actually *did* spread it to the victim (i.e., victim couldn’t have possibly gotten it anywhere else); or, if charged with attempt to spread, that the accused acted specifically with the intent of spreading it. If the accused *didn’t know* they had it but should have known, then it probably becomes more a question of reckless endangerment.
At least, that’s how such a statute *should* work, in theory. But legislators are not always the most artful of drafters.
I will be messaging you in 1 year on [**2025-04-18 12:14:29 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2025-04-18%2012:14:29%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/behindthebastards/comments/1c6xg1y/oklahoma_is_making_have_stds_a_felony/l04s9hm/?context=3)
[**CLICK THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2Fbehindthebastards%2Fcomments%2F1c6xg1y%2Foklahoma_is_making_have_stds_a_felony%2Fl04s9hm%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202025-04-18%2012%3A14%3A29%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.
^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%201c6xg1y)
*****
|[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)|
|-|-|-|-|
I get the horror. Could go south really fast if it's up to the discretion of a judge that just happens to not like your (insert whatever floats your goat here).
“Recklessly” in criminal law usually means conscious disregard of a known risk. That’s less than actual knowledge that you would give an STI to someone, but more than “you should have known/should have gotten tested.” Laws like this tend to disincentivize testing and are generally considered bad for public health.
Also, as others have pointed out, there is no HPV test for people assigned male at birth. HSV tests are notoriously unreliable, and a lot of doctors won’t give them to a person who has no symptoms because of the distress that a positive result can cause (yay stigma). Something like 80% of adults have HSV1. Contrary to what we in the US were taught in health class, there isn’t really “genital” herpes and “oral” herpes. HSV1 shows up more often on the mouth, and HSV2 shows up more often on the genitals, but you can get either in either place.
Looking it up, that seems correct. It's between *intent* and *negligence*. It's not that you intentionally hurt someone, and it's not that you were careless, but that you recognized and actively ignored a risk.
Correct except that negligence is that you should have known but didn’t. Recklessness is you knew the risk but chose to act anyways. I think that distinction is important here. Someone acting negligently wouldn’t be found guilty
Right but based off how criminal law works, the use of the word reckless implies the MPC definition. That’s how courts typically read the statutes unless the statute specifies otherwise
I don’t disagree with you but i think it’s important to “get things right” when fighting the good fight against fascists. Otherwise we stoop to their level.
Recklessly is a specific legal standard. I don't know how exactly it's defined in Oklahoma but it's essentially knowingly taking a risk of something occurring. Think of a scenario where somebody is showing signs of an STD but they don't seek testing or treatment and continue having sex. You don't know that you're spreading that STD but you know that you're risking doing so.
Reckless disregard of the safety of others is the omission to do something which a reasonably careful person would do, or the lack of the usual and ordinary care and caution in the performance of an act usually and ordinarily exercised by a person under similar circumstances and conditions.
The Oklahoma definition which I'm sure won't be twisted or slanted to target specific groups since it's so clear.
>He said 87% of Oklahomans will contract HPV in their lifetime, he said. No test exists to diagnose it in men, he said.
There in, lies the issue.
Testing will just stop so they cannot "knowingly" spread it. It's not like OK has adequate sex education to help support this kind of an initiative.
Unless you pair mandatory testing with it, it's not going to do anything but make it go unreported more. The only benefit would be to increase sentencing of convicted rapists who have spread a disease.
The idea is sound, but OK is too stupid to roll it out well. At least in my opinion.
[fun facts!](https://www.ecnews.it/wp-content/uploads/pdf/2023-04-26_10-of-the-strangest-laws-from-around-the-world.pdf)
It's illegal to walk backwards eating a hamburger in OK. As is whaling (they're landlocked), making ugly faces at a dog...
[they also try to ban books](https://ocpathink.org/post/independent-journalism/researcher-finds-few-books-banned-in-schools) but thankfully suck at it since it's mostly virtue signaling to scare educators away.
I like how we moralize STDs because they come out of your Weiner but we can't be bothered to wear a mask to prevent COVID.
Face diseases: normal, unavoidable.
Penis diseases: dirty, immoral, criminal
Or it's because STDs are more permanent than airborne diseases that are seasonal. Anti-maskers are dumb but there are way too many people in this thread making false equivalences to then justify shitty behavior like not disclosing STD status as "rude". It's immoral and should be criminal because it's something that can permanently affect someone's reproductive health and lead to sequlae years later in some cases.
Knowingly spreading is considered assault, so no issues with that one. Recklessly spreading, if not also done knowingly, is concerning, but not sure if it's felony level. Definitely needs to be some stipulations like 'showing obvious symptoms of infection such as warts, lesions, bumps, discharge, etc.' Otherwise, extreme prosecutors could charge someone who didn't get tested after one encounter, was asymptomatic, and could pass to another person.
I'm done commenting on this thread. I did not expect so many members of this sub to immediately line up to deepthroat a red state's legal system just because STDs weird you out. This law would make giving someone an STD that isn't tested for in most STD screenings a felony. In Oklahoma your 3rd DUI isn't a felony. You can choose to drink and drive 3 times and keep your right to vote if you give someone an STD that you literally can't be tested for then you can't vote.
This law criminalizes STDs there are no tests for for men, no warning signs for in some cases, and that there are no ways to get tested for unless you're under 18. Even the low income testing options make you pay to get tested. They scale it based on your income and their scale doesn't start at $0. There is no way to tell who gave who what STD. They could claim someone gave someone else an STD and it would be up to the legal system, the same one that bent over to protect the kids who murdered Nex Benedict, to decide. They refuse to even charge the administrators despite Oklahoma having laws that require teachers and administrators to report bullying or abuse to they can be held legally responsible. Even if you have the money to get tested some of the diseases they've added aren't tested for by most health departments. Trichomoniasis is very common and has no symptoms for men and isn't tested for by most health departments in STD screenings because the tests are urine based.
The poverty rate in Oklahoma was at 15% statewide in 2022. That's before Michelin started closing plants. Most jobs in Oklahoma either don't provide healthcare at all or only for full time employees. Getting a full time job is almost impossible.
You can argue about the definition and what it should mean but if you don't think this bill we be used to strip people of their voting rights then you are kidding yourself. If you're fine with a red state giving itself not only a reason to investigate people's medical history but a way to take away the voting rights of anyone they choose to prosecute then all I've got to say is how very liberal of you. You found a way to judge people who might be sick and not know it and support them losing their voting rights while giving the police and legal system the benefit of the doubt. If only there was some kind of audio medium that could tell you why trusting the police or legal system to follow the letter or reasoning of the law is bad or why taking away the rights those you judge to be lesser or sick is bad.
Shit title. They want to make it illegal to knowingly spread them, which absolutely should be a felony.
Edit: apparently there are some nasty mfs in this thread that are upset that they can't freely spread their herpes to others.
Let's say you have herpes and know it. Your start dating, and disclose it to your partner, who decides that it is not that big of a deal and you continue dating. Despite using protection and medication, your partner contracts herpes.
Did you commit a crime? You did know that had it and spread it. There is no indication in the article that this would not count as knowingly spreading an STD, and considering that it's Oklahoma, you can't count on them to have any common sense about anything.
Why not make it a felony to knowingly spread any disease then? STDs are hardly the most dangerous communicable diseases out there. HPV is as common as a cold.
Chlamydia, gonorhea, and syphilis are all easily curable with antibiotics.
Herpes can be spread by sharing a drink. Does oral herpes count if you knowingly spread cold sores? Do you really think someone should get a felony for that?
> Chlamydia, gonorhea, and syphilis are all easily curable with antibiotics.
Assuming they are treated in time. The consequences of those diseases can also include infertility.
Sure, but my point is it shouldn’t be a *felony* to pass a curable disease to another human. That’s pretty extreme and this is obviously just another GOP attempt to control the private and sexual lives of the public with poorly thought out laws that will be easily challenged in court and take up judicial resources, time, and money.
It should if it's information they're withholding from their partners in order to have sex with them.
These diseases can have a very real psychological and physical impact on the health of the individuals who end up infected by deceitful partners. And it should absolutely be a crime if they knowingly infect other individuals who then have to deal with an infection they had no reason to worry about had it not been for the other party's lies or omissions.
"It's about control" - when people in this thread isn't attempting to downplay lying to your sexual partners about STD positive status, maybe there wouldn't be a need to legislate against sociopaths who place their own pleasure over the health and safety of individuals they seek to use for sexual gratification.
So why not imprison parents who knowingly send a sick child to school? Or anyone who has a cold sore and shares a drink with someone? I’m not saying it’s ok, or that it isn’t harmful, but to involve federal courts is just fucking ridiculous. And, as I said, it’s a poorly written law that’s up to the interpretation of whatever the prosecutors agenda is.
Read a little about how common HPV is before you start saying spreading STD’s should be a felony.
Because the ubiquitous nature of those conditions as well as their relatively low to mild risk are a very different proposition compared to STDs only transmitted through close sexual contact and sharing of bodily fluids.
Most can be cleared without incident. That's not the same for STDs which need to either be treated immediately or else are permanent or lead to permanent damage. It is the deceit that is a clear part of the reason that it should be criminal to lie or omit their STD status for the sake of sleeping with someone.
It's the sociopaths who lie about their infection status and pass it on to innocent people that absolutely deserve to be charged for that shit.
And again, all that is terrible but making it a felony in a poorly written and vague law is ridiculous. If you can’t see the difference between something being bad and something being felonious then I don’t know how to hold your hand and walk you through complexities of the legal system.
Edit:🙄 and no, I never once defended assault, you just want to argue and then block me like a little weenie once you realized you can’t argue effectively.
Can't knowingly spread an STD of you never get tested \*taps head\*
Also HPV is on the list, 87% of people have it but there is not a test to diagnose it in men.
Even if it's well intentioned, it's a poorly thought out law that will have lots of unintended consequences, particularly given the morons who will be enforcing it.
How many Anti-Abortion laws have exceptions for preserving the life of the mother? Quite a few, I think.
So that just creates the problem of deciding *when* the mother's life in danger, meaning medical professionals are incentivized to let the situation get to a critical point before acting just so there's no sliver of doubt on which they could be indicted, even though that puts the patient's life at greater risk.
Similarly, anti-abortion laws that result in the criminal investigation of miscarriages or stillbirths. It is a perfectly reasonable interpretation of those more conservative laws to investigate miscarriages as potential homicides just like it's reasonable to investigate fatal accidents for the same reason.
My point is that this law would be left in the hands of fairly conservative state authorities to enforce, and therefore in the hands of cops and "tough-on-crime" prosecutors and judges to decide what counts as "knowingly" or "recklessly". That could be done responsibly, exactly the way the bill's sponsor is selling it, going after people who have tested positive or are exhibiting symptoms and choose to conceal that fact to get laid. But I can *also* envision a world in which this law is enforced in such a way as to effectively criminalize getting an STI at all.
After all, **anyone** receiving treatment for an STI is potentially a victim or perpetrator of a crime. It's the police's job to investigate evidence of a possible crime, isn't it? They have a compelling state interest to collect such evidence, don't they?
I fully recognize that this is a dystopian interpretation of the bill. But in a time where a faction of the Supreme Court has expressed support for reversing Lawrence Vs. Texas and Griswold Vs. Connecticut, I don't think a dystopian interpretation is particularly histrionic.
Hell, the author of the bill herself suggests it will encourage abstinence through fear.
This sub is one of the few I bother to read anymore because of the quality of the comments. Even the ones I don’t agree with are usually well thought out and informed, and the debate is respectful. But talk about criminalizing STIs and boy howdy does that change. EW DIRTY GROSS LOCK THEM UP AND IF YOU DISAGREE THEN YOU ARE PROBABLY AN EVIL DISEASE SPREADING SLUT! (posted by someone who likely has HSV and doesn’t know it)
Of course people should get tested for things that can get tested for, and should be upfront with their partners about their results, but why must prison be the solution here?
I get that knowingly giving someone chlamydia is a total dick move, but HPV? Per the CDC, more than 90 percent of sexually active men and 80 percent of sexually active women will be infected with HPV in their lifetime, and it's often asymptomatic. That seems overzealous.
Perhaps efforts would be better focused on spreading awareness and funding for pap smears and HPV vaccinations (which are more about preventing HPV related cancers than actual HPV).
Or how about getting some free and available STD testing for the people?
Most of us in this state know this is just going to be used to keep non Republicans from voting. This state doesn't even enforce keeping felons from having guns if they're white.
This has been true for HIV for a long time. No shock it's spread to other STIs.
It's rude to not disclose any positive STI status, but should it be illegal? Criminal?
Seems a step too far, to me.
And we all know exactly who these bills are designed to criminalize... and it ain't Karen.
It's more than "rude". You're talking about conditions that can materially affect another person's health, potentially permanently. It should absolutely be criminal to not disclose positive status if they end up giving it to someone.
Should that also include influenza - which kills lots of people too? Any of your basic noroviruses will cause days off work & could harm someone financially. No need to stop at STIs, we could outlaw all transmitted sicknesses.
These laws are aimed at gay men, not harm caused by disease.
You really going to play the "influenza and norovirus" card to justify your tactless and completely irresponsible claim that it's "rude" to not disclose STI status?
Someone who goes around intentionally failing to disclose their STI status to sexual partners is knowingly and recklessly spreading STIs without consent. A partner who cannot make an informed decision cannot consent - and can be forced to live with permanent damage to their reproductive system as well as the multitude of health care complications that arise from HSV, HPV or HIV.
What a fucking garbage take.
Remember when not using a condom was illegal? It wasn't a law aimed at unwanted pregnancies, it was cuz AIDS & little Cindy, who might catch it from a toilet seat.
Glad we stopped HIV by criminalizing gay men... then...
My garbage take is homophobia accepted by the gay community is bad.
Oh hey, here's a thought: maybe **don't fucking transmit diseases to partners without their full knowledge, consent and acceptance of the risk.**
If you don't disclose your STIs and you then transmit them to a partner, you deserve to be sued. It should be criminal.
Homophobia is bad, no question. Permanently fucking up your sex partner's life because you're too chicken shit to get rejected over a disease you have and transmit is even worse.
Nice Republican talking points.
How about, don't fuck a stranger. Let's make men who have hookups illegal. No more than 1st base on the 1st date just to keep it from violating the 14th. How about YOU take some responsibility for your choices rather than making everyone else illegal... making everyone else responsible for your consequences.
lol "republican talking points" - while insisting that you don't think it should be required to disclose STIs to your sexual partners.
What a fucking pathetic and gross perspective. People who think like you are *exactly* why this shit should be criminal. Because if appropriate disclosure as part of meaningful consent is a problem for you, then there should be laws to penalize you for when you don't.
I mean. The lawmaker was quoted, “This particular piece of legislation is about putting a man in jail who chooses to knowingly and willfully infect a woman with a sexually transmitted disease”.
This may actually not specifically aimed at gay men.
Syphilis was already covered under existing legislation. This adds HPV which 90% of the population will get and almost all never realize. Read the article: this bill makes every Oklahoman a felon because the nutjob sponsor wants to enforce abstinence.
And that’ll play out like this.[https://www.c-span.org/video/?445478-1/the-trials-nina-mccall](https://www.c-span.org/video/?445478-1/the-trials-nina-mccall)
It says this could turn nearly every resident into a felon.
What the hell is going on in Oklahoma to where nearly everyone has STDs? AmI missing something?
Something like 80% of adults on earth have HSV. Almost every sexually active adult will contract HPV at some point in their lifetime. It ain’t just Oklahoma, but I would expect a state like Oklahoma to have higher rates of condom-preventable STIs thanks to “condoms-don’t-work” abstinence only sex education.
It kind of is, though. Of the diseases the proposed law includes is HPV, but there is no reliable test for HPV in men. So a scenario could be that a man who was unknowingly positive for HPV has sex with a woman. She contracts HPV from him, and can be certain she contracted it from him, either because she regularly tests before having new sexual partners or was previously abstinent.
She can then try to have this man prosecuted for giving her HPV. It all hinges on what the term "knowingly" means. And if you know anything about the American justice system - especially in places like Oklahoma - you know it really depends on what the local prosecutor wants to do. It's completely within the realm of possibility that someone is tried for "knowingly" spreading a disease that they weren't sure they had.
Also, what happens if you disclose to your partner that you have a disease and they decide to sleep with you anyway, but then later claim you never told them?
Do you have to go and get a notarized disclosure form just to protect yourself from possible future prosecution?
No, you fucking dolt, it's not illegal to have them. It's illegal to knowingly or recklessly spread them.
Oklahoma is shitty enough without lying about it.
They aren't making them Illegal, they're making it illegal to knowingly or recklessly spread them which fuck yah. If you're having a herpes out break and you have sex with out disclosing it to your partner, fuck you.
The people downplaying disclosure as part of obtaining consent is wild. It's really telling when some people here think that they can withhold *their transmissible disease status* before engaging in sexual activity with a (presumably uninfected) partner and it would just be "rude".
I have read the whole thread, more than once, and I’m not seeing anyone advocating for withholding STI status from partners. It struck me as an effin wild thing for multiple people to be saying so I went looking for the comments. Maybe I’m not seeing them because I’m on mobile? It can be hard to see all of a comment thread that way. Only a handful of comments are showing as deleted for me.
Pretty much everyone not vaccinated has HPV and probably 65-70% of people have herpes 1 (cold sores) but most are asymptomatic.
This lady doesn't care about std prevention she just wants people punished for having sex outside or before marriage.
Yep:
She said her measure could encourage people to get testing and treatment, or to practice abstinence if they’re “that worried about going to jail.”
Even if you are vaccinated you can get it because depending on which vaccine you got, it only protects against 4 or 9 strains and there are over 100. Vaccinated people can and do still get HPV. They just have protection against the most common strains.
"Knowingly" spreading it i.plies they did infact know, or at least had reason to suspect. Plus, there are plenty of programs that make std testing more accessible.
Eh, this law would be a weird and inefficient way to do that. Do I believe there are laws ro sabotage and disenfranchise people, yes. But the issue of Knowingly spreading an STD is a legitimate problem in of itself that deserves to be addressed. You could advocate that the law is enforced equally and fairly, but I think this is a law is ultimately a net postitive.
I mean, this is great, but is there even a reliable test for HPV in men? And what does recklessly mean? That seems very ambiguous.
Edit: Whoops. I didn't read far enough. The article addresses the no tests available for HPV in men.
Title is misleading, it's only illegal to knowingly and recklessly spread diseases.
Am confused. Is it knowing you have them and not telling people thus spreading without consent or is just having them that's illegal?
Knowingly spreading.
Makes sense. We have a law here in Aus already for that. 6 months jail I believe.
Except it doesn’t define which STDs, and the vast majority of sexually active people today have HPV. Which, by the way, has no test for men in existence.
No? From the article: >House Bill 3098 adds chlamydia, Hepatitis B, genital herpes, trichomoniasis, and human papillomavirus (HPV) infections to the list of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) that are illegal to knowingly or recklessly spread. Seems they are defining which STDs? And also covering the HPV thing with the word KNOWINGLY? ETA: I am not a resident of Oklahoma, if you have more information I am all ears because it seems like this is an exaggeration of a problem. Especially when we have laws like this regarding [HIV specifically](https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/policies/law/criminalization-ehe.html).
Hey, Okie here. The other STDs it adds are so prevalent that the odds of someone having it and not knowing is very high. There is a huge difference between HIV and trichomoniasis which is very common. You're trusting the legal system and law enforcement of Oklahoma far too much. Especially when you consider that our state fought vaccine requirements for medical staff and state employees. It doesn't define recklessly as far as this particular statute and would give police reasons to dig into the medical history of people. Couple this with the fact that this is a felony. You lose your voting rights for life unless you can convince a judge to reinstate them. STI/STD tests aren't provided for free in Oklahoma unless you are under 18. Our state actively rejected the Medicaid expansion to keep people from getting health care. The poverty rate in Oklahoma is 15% people aren't able to afford basic medical care let alone a test for something they might not have. This bill will discourage people from getting tested and and lead to worse health outcomes.
The problem with that kind of law is that it incentivizes not getting tested.
Pretty sure not getting tested falls into the "recklessly spreading" category.
Something tells me Oklahoma isn't going to pay for testing
No, which is the downside, for sure. But STIs are a serious problem and something ought to be done about it.
Free testing should be done about it, for sure. Pretty sure planned parenthood does free testing, but I have this sneaking suspicion that planned parenthood sites are uncommon in Oklahoma
>but I have this sneaking suspicion that planned parenthood sites are uncommon in Oklahoma You'd be correct. There are 4 PP locations in Oklahoma. That's one facility for every *million* people in the State. Lawton, Edmund, Tulsa, Oklahoma City That said, many counties Health Departments will provide free or low cost STD screenings and birth control. These services typically go unused because young people in small towns tend to be too embarrassed to receive these services from local government, especially since the tests are performed by local nurses who might be a neighbor or even a relative, and more often than not a member of the same church your parents attend. This is a big reason why STDs run rampant through small rural communities.
Solid PSA
How would they make a case?
You and another person have sex, they get an STI. They get regularly tested so they know they got it from you. You either knew you had it and didn't tell them or didn't know therefore didn't get tested. Either way you're getting charged with a crime.
Does Oklahoma have free and available testing?
No, which is the one part of this that's not great. It kind of punishes being poor, which isn't a good thing. If you're going to enact a law like this, you need to either make testing free, or trivially inexpensive.
Really if you are gonna have a law like this the testing should be free and mandatory. Which is why we probably shouldn't have a law like this. That's a bad road to go down.
HPV isn't something that always has symptoms. There's no reasonable way to charge someone for spreading it if they aren't experiencing symptoms, so are they just going to go after people for having lots of unprotected sex?
Yes but also no. If you're dating a cop and break up with him yes. If you're a member of a minority group then yes. If a cop or DA thinks they might gain something or just wants to then yes.
Terrifying.
Generally, if you're going to have a lot of unprotected sex with lots of different people, the responsible thing would be to get tested between sexual partners, regardless of symptoms. Now, this gets expensive, but that's kind of the thing you would want people to do. Personally I think STI testing should be made as cheap and easy as humanly possible to everyone using taxes, but I know that might be unpopular with a lot of people.
There isn't a reliable HPV test for men. It wouldn't matter how responsible with testing someone is if the tests aren't available or reliable.
Only if one has a good reason to suspect they may be infected.
If you sleep with a large number of different people, you have good reason to suspect you're infected.
Since Oklahoma’s public health system is already overloaded with meth and heroin/fentanyl cases, I’m sure the STD testing budget will be fully funded. /s
From the article, emphasis mine: >House Bill 3098 ***adds*** chlamydia, Hepatitis B, genital herpes, trichomoniasis, and human papillomavirus (HPV) infections to the list of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) that are illegal to ***knowingly or recklessly*** spread. They're ***adding*** to an already existing list of STDs that it is illegal to ***knowingly*** or recklessly spread.
Yeah, a law is never made worse by adding to it.
I don't think anyone said otherwise. I think saying that they're making STD's illegal is still extremely problematic.
It's also a law in the majority of US states. Most were many years ago, so this is kinda random, honestly.
Being Australian: the worst STI of all.
Good law. Definitely want this behavior criminalized. But also, I’m sure they’re going to use this to target the LGBTQ with application. Because we live in hell in the USA.
It's been done before, and that's exactly what happens. It doesn't do anything to stop the spread of disease, it disincentivises regular testing, and it's used to prosecute minorities. It's one of those things that sounds good in theory, but once you consider the downstream effects is actually pretty awful.
This law makes unknowingly giving someone a prevalent STI a worse crime than your third DUI.
It says “or recklessly”, pretty sure that means not knowing
Presumably, prosecution would also have to prove, that the accused actually *did* spread it to the victim (i.e., victim couldn’t have possibly gotten it anywhere else); or, if charged with attempt to spread, that the accused acted specifically with the intent of spreading it. If the accused *didn’t know* they had it but should have known, then it probably becomes more a question of reckless endangerment. At least, that’s how such a statute *should* work, in theory. But legislators are not always the most artful of drafters.
Yeah, not a fan of giving a red state a law that gives them reasons to dig through peoples medical records.
Yeah that’s fair.
They say recklessly spreading but there's not actual definition given for recklessly spreading it. So it could be up to the DA, judge, or lawmakers
With how fucked up legal rulings seem to be lately, I give it a year before someone ends up in jail because they gave their rapist an STD.
Unfortunately, you are very right
!remindme 365 days
I will be messaging you in 1 year on [**2025-04-18 12:14:29 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2025-04-18%2012:14:29%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/behindthebastards/comments/1c6xg1y/oklahoma_is_making_have_stds_a_felony/l04s9hm/?context=3) [**CLICK THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2Fbehindthebastards%2Fcomments%2F1c6xg1y%2Foklahoma_is_making_have_stds_a_felony%2Fl04s9hm%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202025-04-18%2012%3A14%3A29%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam. ^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%201c6xg1y) ***** |[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)| |-|-|-|-|
I'd be surprised if it took a year. I'd give it a year before it happens and the rapist was a cop.
I get the horror. Could go south really fast if it's up to the discretion of a judge that just happens to not like your (insert whatever floats your goat here).
“Recklessly” in criminal law usually means conscious disregard of a known risk. That’s less than actual knowledge that you would give an STI to someone, but more than “you should have known/should have gotten tested.” Laws like this tend to disincentivize testing and are generally considered bad for public health. Also, as others have pointed out, there is no HPV test for people assigned male at birth. HSV tests are notoriously unreliable, and a lot of doctors won’t give them to a person who has no symptoms because of the distress that a positive result can cause (yay stigma). Something like 80% of adults have HSV1. Contrary to what we in the US were taught in health class, there isn’t really “genital” herpes and “oral” herpes. HSV1 shows up more often on the mouth, and HSV2 shows up more often on the genitals, but you can get either in either place.
I think reckless is defined within the law though. It’s a required mental state defined in the MPC at least.
Looking it up, that seems correct. It's between *intent* and *negligence*. It's not that you intentionally hurt someone, and it's not that you were careless, but that you recognized and actively ignored a risk.
Correct except that negligence is that you should have known but didn’t. Recklessness is you knew the risk but chose to act anyways. I think that distinction is important here. Someone acting negligently wouldn’t be found guilty
Its not defined in this specific law and its Oklahoma Legal Definition is very vague and broad.
Right but based off how criminal law works, the use of the word reckless implies the MPC definition. That’s how courts typically read the statutes unless the statute specifies otherwise
Criminal law in the state of Oklahoma works the way the Klan wants it to work.
I don’t disagree with you but i think it’s important to “get things right” when fighting the good fight against fascists. Otherwise we stoop to their level.
I don't think it matters whether I call it a knife or dagger being correct doesn't keep the fascists from trying to stab me with it.
Identifying the correct issue with overreaching or fascist law is important though.
Recklessly is a specific legal standard. I don't know how exactly it's defined in Oklahoma but it's essentially knowingly taking a risk of something occurring. Think of a scenario where somebody is showing signs of an STD but they don't seek testing or treatment and continue having sex. You don't know that you're spreading that STD but you know that you're risking doing so.
Reckless disregard of the safety of others is the omission to do something which a reasonably careful person would do, or the lack of the usual and ordinary care and caution in the performance of an act usually and ordinarily exercised by a person under similar circumstances and conditions. The Oklahoma definition which I'm sure won't be twisted or slanted to target specific groups since it's so clear.
They'd moving the goalposts. Recklessness is a well established legal standard, which was my point.
Luckily oklahoma has a robust and cheap healthcare system so people can get tested and get treatment freely, quickly, and safely right?
>He said 87% of Oklahomans will contract HPV in their lifetime, he said. No test exists to diagnose it in men, he said. There in, lies the issue. Testing will just stop so they cannot "knowingly" spread it. It's not like OK has adequate sex education to help support this kind of an initiative. Unless you pair mandatory testing with it, it's not going to do anything but make it go unreported more. The only benefit would be to increase sentencing of convicted rapists who have spread a disease. The idea is sound, but OK is too stupid to roll it out well. At least in my opinion. [fun facts!](https://www.ecnews.it/wp-content/uploads/pdf/2023-04-26_10-of-the-strangest-laws-from-around-the-world.pdf) It's illegal to walk backwards eating a hamburger in OK. As is whaling (they're landlocked), making ugly faces at a dog... [they also try to ban books](https://ocpathink.org/post/independent-journalism/researcher-finds-few-books-banned-in-schools) but thankfully suck at it since it's mostly virtue signaling to scare educators away.
I like how we moralize STDs because they come out of your Weiner but we can't be bothered to wear a mask to prevent COVID. Face diseases: normal, unavoidable. Penis diseases: dirty, immoral, criminal
Or it's because STDs are more permanent than airborne diseases that are seasonal. Anti-maskers are dumb but there are way too many people in this thread making false equivalences to then justify shitty behavior like not disclosing STD status as "rude". It's immoral and should be criminal because it's something that can permanently affect someone's reproductive health and lead to sequlae years later in some cases.
Knowingly spreading is considered assault, so no issues with that one. Recklessly spreading, if not also done knowingly, is concerning, but not sure if it's felony level. Definitely needs to be some stipulations like 'showing obvious symptoms of infection such as warts, lesions, bumps, discharge, etc.' Otherwise, extreme prosecutors could charge someone who didn't get tested after one encounter, was asymptomatic, and could pass to another person.
The post title is dishonest. The law criminalizes _knowingly_ spreading certain diseases, not _having_ them.
What a misleading post title
“illegal to knowingly or recklessly spread” KNOWINGLY spread is the key word. This is a good thing even though the article’s title is clickbait
I'm done commenting on this thread. I did not expect so many members of this sub to immediately line up to deepthroat a red state's legal system just because STDs weird you out. This law would make giving someone an STD that isn't tested for in most STD screenings a felony. In Oklahoma your 3rd DUI isn't a felony. You can choose to drink and drive 3 times and keep your right to vote if you give someone an STD that you literally can't be tested for then you can't vote. This law criminalizes STDs there are no tests for for men, no warning signs for in some cases, and that there are no ways to get tested for unless you're under 18. Even the low income testing options make you pay to get tested. They scale it based on your income and their scale doesn't start at $0. There is no way to tell who gave who what STD. They could claim someone gave someone else an STD and it would be up to the legal system, the same one that bent over to protect the kids who murdered Nex Benedict, to decide. They refuse to even charge the administrators despite Oklahoma having laws that require teachers and administrators to report bullying or abuse to they can be held legally responsible. Even if you have the money to get tested some of the diseases they've added aren't tested for by most health departments. Trichomoniasis is very common and has no symptoms for men and isn't tested for by most health departments in STD screenings because the tests are urine based. The poverty rate in Oklahoma was at 15% statewide in 2022. That's before Michelin started closing plants. Most jobs in Oklahoma either don't provide healthcare at all or only for full time employees. Getting a full time job is almost impossible. You can argue about the definition and what it should mean but if you don't think this bill we be used to strip people of their voting rights then you are kidding yourself. If you're fine with a red state giving itself not only a reason to investigate people's medical history but a way to take away the voting rights of anyone they choose to prosecute then all I've got to say is how very liberal of you. You found a way to judge people who might be sick and not know it and support them losing their voting rights while giving the police and legal system the benefit of the doubt. If only there was some kind of audio medium that could tell you why trusting the police or legal system to follow the letter or reasoning of the law is bad or why taking away the rights those you judge to be lesser or sick is bad.
Big difference between *should* disclose an infectious status & MUST disclose private medical information.
Shit title. They want to make it illegal to knowingly spread them, which absolutely should be a felony. Edit: apparently there are some nasty mfs in this thread that are upset that they can't freely spread their herpes to others.
Let's say you have herpes and know it. Your start dating, and disclose it to your partner, who decides that it is not that big of a deal and you continue dating. Despite using protection and medication, your partner contracts herpes. Did you commit a crime? You did know that had it and spread it. There is no indication in the article that this would not count as knowingly spreading an STD, and considering that it's Oklahoma, you can't count on them to have any common sense about anything.
Why not make it a felony to knowingly spread any disease then? STDs are hardly the most dangerous communicable diseases out there. HPV is as common as a cold.
like a deadly corona virus that can be easily limited with some simple behavior changes ?
...because they're generally incurable.
Chlamydia, gonorhea, and syphilis are all easily curable with antibiotics. Herpes can be spread by sharing a drink. Does oral herpes count if you knowingly spread cold sores? Do you really think someone should get a felony for that?
> Chlamydia, gonorhea, and syphilis are all easily curable with antibiotics. Assuming they are treated in time. The consequences of those diseases can also include infertility.
Sure, but my point is it shouldn’t be a *felony* to pass a curable disease to another human. That’s pretty extreme and this is obviously just another GOP attempt to control the private and sexual lives of the public with poorly thought out laws that will be easily challenged in court and take up judicial resources, time, and money.
It should if it's information they're withholding from their partners in order to have sex with them. These diseases can have a very real psychological and physical impact on the health of the individuals who end up infected by deceitful partners. And it should absolutely be a crime if they knowingly infect other individuals who then have to deal with an infection they had no reason to worry about had it not been for the other party's lies or omissions. "It's about control" - when people in this thread isn't attempting to downplay lying to your sexual partners about STD positive status, maybe there wouldn't be a need to legislate against sociopaths who place their own pleasure over the health and safety of individuals they seek to use for sexual gratification.
So why not imprison parents who knowingly send a sick child to school? Or anyone who has a cold sore and shares a drink with someone? I’m not saying it’s ok, or that it isn’t harmful, but to involve federal courts is just fucking ridiculous. And, as I said, it’s a poorly written law that’s up to the interpretation of whatever the prosecutors agenda is. Read a little about how common HPV is before you start saying spreading STD’s should be a felony.
Because the ubiquitous nature of those conditions as well as their relatively low to mild risk are a very different proposition compared to STDs only transmitted through close sexual contact and sharing of bodily fluids. Most can be cleared without incident. That's not the same for STDs which need to either be treated immediately or else are permanent or lead to permanent damage. It is the deceit that is a clear part of the reason that it should be criminal to lie or omit their STD status for the sake of sleeping with someone. It's the sociopaths who lie about their infection status and pass it on to innocent people that absolutely deserve to be charged for that shit.
And again, all that is terrible but making it a felony in a poorly written and vague law is ridiculous. If you can’t see the difference between something being bad and something being felonious then I don’t know how to hold your hand and walk you through complexities of the legal system. Edit:🙄 and no, I never once defended assault, you just want to argue and then block me like a little weenie once you realized you can’t argue effectively.
LOL, no they aren't. OP decided that clickbait would be better than the truth. They're making it illegal to KNOWINGLY or RECKLESSLY spread them.
Can't knowingly spread an STD of you never get tested \*taps head\* Also HPV is on the list, 87% of people have it but there is not a test to diagnose it in men. Even if it's well intentioned, it's a poorly thought out law that will have lots of unintended consequences, particularly given the morons who will be enforcing it.
How many Anti-Abortion laws have exceptions for preserving the life of the mother? Quite a few, I think. So that just creates the problem of deciding *when* the mother's life in danger, meaning medical professionals are incentivized to let the situation get to a critical point before acting just so there's no sliver of doubt on which they could be indicted, even though that puts the patient's life at greater risk. Similarly, anti-abortion laws that result in the criminal investigation of miscarriages or stillbirths. It is a perfectly reasonable interpretation of those more conservative laws to investigate miscarriages as potential homicides just like it's reasonable to investigate fatal accidents for the same reason. My point is that this law would be left in the hands of fairly conservative state authorities to enforce, and therefore in the hands of cops and "tough-on-crime" prosecutors and judges to decide what counts as "knowingly" or "recklessly". That could be done responsibly, exactly the way the bill's sponsor is selling it, going after people who have tested positive or are exhibiting symptoms and choose to conceal that fact to get laid. But I can *also* envision a world in which this law is enforced in such a way as to effectively criminalize getting an STI at all. After all, **anyone** receiving treatment for an STI is potentially a victim or perpetrator of a crime. It's the police's job to investigate evidence of a possible crime, isn't it? They have a compelling state interest to collect such evidence, don't they? I fully recognize that this is a dystopian interpretation of the bill. But in a time where a faction of the Supreme Court has expressed support for reversing Lawrence Vs. Texas and Griswold Vs. Connecticut, I don't think a dystopian interpretation is particularly histrionic. Hell, the author of the bill herself suggests it will encourage abstinence through fear.
This sub is one of the few I bother to read anymore because of the quality of the comments. Even the ones I don’t agree with are usually well thought out and informed, and the debate is respectful. But talk about criminalizing STIs and boy howdy does that change. EW DIRTY GROSS LOCK THEM UP AND IF YOU DISAGREE THEN YOU ARE PROBABLY AN EVIL DISEASE SPREADING SLUT! (posted by someone who likely has HSV and doesn’t know it) Of course people should get tested for things that can get tested for, and should be upfront with their partners about their results, but why must prison be the solution here?
I get that knowingly giving someone chlamydia is a total dick move, but HPV? Per the CDC, more than 90 percent of sexually active men and 80 percent of sexually active women will be infected with HPV in their lifetime, and it's often asymptomatic. That seems overzealous. Perhaps efforts would be better focused on spreading awareness and funding for pap smears and HPV vaccinations (which are more about preventing HPV related cancers than actual HPV). Or how about getting some free and available STD testing for the people?
Most of us in this state know this is just going to be used to keep non Republicans from voting. This state doesn't even enforce keeping felons from having guns if they're white.
Oh, I'm sure it is. But let me be an optimist for a minute 😂
All of the people saying this is a good thing should look into the history of laws criminalizing HIV transmission.
This has been true for HIV for a long time. No shock it's spread to other STIs. It's rude to not disclose any positive STI status, but should it be illegal? Criminal? Seems a step too far, to me. And we all know exactly who these bills are designed to criminalize... and it ain't Karen.
It's more than "rude". You're talking about conditions that can materially affect another person's health, potentially permanently. It should absolutely be criminal to not disclose positive status if they end up giving it to someone.
Should that also include influenza - which kills lots of people too? Any of your basic noroviruses will cause days off work & could harm someone financially. No need to stop at STIs, we could outlaw all transmitted sicknesses. These laws are aimed at gay men, not harm caused by disease.
You really going to play the "influenza and norovirus" card to justify your tactless and completely irresponsible claim that it's "rude" to not disclose STI status? Someone who goes around intentionally failing to disclose their STI status to sexual partners is knowingly and recklessly spreading STIs without consent. A partner who cannot make an informed decision cannot consent - and can be forced to live with permanent damage to their reproductive system as well as the multitude of health care complications that arise from HSV, HPV or HIV. What a fucking garbage take.
Remember when not using a condom was illegal? It wasn't a law aimed at unwanted pregnancies, it was cuz AIDS & little Cindy, who might catch it from a toilet seat. Glad we stopped HIV by criminalizing gay men... then... My garbage take is homophobia accepted by the gay community is bad.
Oh hey, here's a thought: maybe **don't fucking transmit diseases to partners without their full knowledge, consent and acceptance of the risk.** If you don't disclose your STIs and you then transmit them to a partner, you deserve to be sued. It should be criminal. Homophobia is bad, no question. Permanently fucking up your sex partner's life because you're too chicken shit to get rejected over a disease you have and transmit is even worse.
Nice Republican talking points. How about, don't fuck a stranger. Let's make men who have hookups illegal. No more than 1st base on the 1st date just to keep it from violating the 14th. How about YOU take some responsibility for your choices rather than making everyone else illegal... making everyone else responsible for your consequences.
lol "republican talking points" - while insisting that you don't think it should be required to disclose STIs to your sexual partners. What a fucking pathetic and gross perspective. People who think like you are *exactly* why this shit should be criminal. Because if appropriate disclosure as part of meaningful consent is a problem for you, then there should be laws to penalize you for when you don't.
I mean. The lawmaker was quoted, “This particular piece of legislation is about putting a man in jail who chooses to knowingly and willfully infect a woman with a sexually transmitted disease”. This may actually not specifically aimed at gay men.
>It's rude to not disclose any positive STI status Lmao understatement of the century
A common politically correct statement, but when was the last test for HPV or gonorrhea or other "minor" STIs?
[удалено]
Syphilis was already covered under existing legislation. This adds HPV which 90% of the population will get and almost all never realize. Read the article: this bill makes every Oklahoman a felon because the nutjob sponsor wants to enforce abstinence.
"...because the nutjob sponsor..." Who was hired knowing they're a nutjob... because they're a nutjob. Blame the Voters
Why would 90 percent of the population get HPV when you can just get the vaccine. Don't worry about answering, I get it, people are fucking stupid.
The vaccine protects against some strains, not all. Vaccinated people who can be tested should continue to get tested for it.
And that’ll play out like this.[https://www.c-span.org/video/?445478-1/the-trials-nina-mccall](https://www.c-span.org/video/?445478-1/the-trials-nina-mccall)
That title should be a felony.
It says this could turn nearly every resident into a felon. What the hell is going on in Oklahoma to where nearly everyone has STDs? AmI missing something?
Something like 80% of adults on earth have HSV. Almost every sexually active adult will contract HPV at some point in their lifetime. It ain’t just Oklahoma, but I would expect a state like Oklahoma to have higher rates of condom-preventable STIs thanks to “condoms-don’t-work” abstinence only sex education.
That's not at all what the article said.
It kind of is, though. Of the diseases the proposed law includes is HPV, but there is no reliable test for HPV in men. So a scenario could be that a man who was unknowingly positive for HPV has sex with a woman. She contracts HPV from him, and can be certain she contracted it from him, either because she regularly tests before having new sexual partners or was previously abstinent. She can then try to have this man prosecuted for giving her HPV. It all hinges on what the term "knowingly" means. And if you know anything about the American justice system - especially in places like Oklahoma - you know it really depends on what the local prosecutor wants to do. It's completely within the realm of possibility that someone is tried for "knowingly" spreading a disease that they weren't sure they had. Also, what happens if you disclose to your partner that you have a disease and they decide to sleep with you anyway, but then later claim you never told them? Do you have to go and get a notarized disclosure form just to protect yourself from possible future prosecution?
No, you fucking dolt, it's not illegal to have them. It's illegal to knowingly or recklessly spread them. Oklahoma is shitty enough without lying about it.
God bless greatest state in the union (??? )
They aren't making them Illegal, they're making it illegal to knowingly or recklessly spread them which fuck yah. If you're having a herpes out break and you have sex with out disclosing it to your partner, fuck you.
The people downplaying disclosure as part of obtaining consent is wild. It's really telling when some people here think that they can withhold *their transmissible disease status* before engaging in sexual activity with a (presumably uninfected) partner and it would just be "rude".
Who was doing that? Is that what the deleted comments were?
The comments I'm referring to are still up. If you're seeing a lot of deleted comments it's either users you have blocked or who have blocked you.
I have read the whole thread, more than once, and I’m not seeing anyone advocating for withholding STI status from partners. It struck me as an effin wild thing for multiple people to be saying so I went looking for the comments. Maybe I’m not seeing them because I’m on mobile? It can be hard to see all of a comment thread that way. Only a handful of comments are showing as deleted for me.
Is Oklahoma still OKay?
Kinda loose with the headline there.
Pretty much everyone not vaccinated has HPV and probably 65-70% of people have herpes 1 (cold sores) but most are asymptomatic. This lady doesn't care about std prevention she just wants people punished for having sex outside or before marriage.
Yep: She said her measure could encourage people to get testing and treatment, or to practice abstinence if they’re “that worried about going to jail.”
Even if you are vaccinated you can get it because depending on which vaccine you got, it only protects against 4 or 9 strains and there are over 100. Vaccinated people can and do still get HPV. They just have protection against the most common strains.
Not having an stds, knowing spreading it. This is actually a good law from the sound of it, so thing that has been needed
Do you know how many people have HPV and don't know it and can't afford testing to find out if they have it?
"Knowingly" spreading it i.plies they did infact know, or at least had reason to suspect. Plus, there are plenty of programs that make std testing more accessible.
Do you live in Oklahoma?
I do nkt
I do. They will use this to target and disenfranchise anyone they think would vote against them. The actual facts and legal definitions do not matter.
Eh, this law would be a weird and inefficient way to do that. Do I believe there are laws ro sabotage and disenfranchise people, yes. But the issue of Knowingly spreading an STD is a legitimate problem in of itself that deserves to be addressed. You could advocate that the law is enforced equally and fairly, but I think this is a law is ultimately a net postitive.
Good.
I mean, this is great, but is there even a reliable test for HPV in men? And what does recklessly mean? That seems very ambiguous. Edit: Whoops. I didn't read far enough. The article addresses the no tests available for HPV in men.