Wednesday, February 24, 2010

HIV+ Man Didn't Warn Up to 100 Partners

Law Requires People Who Could Have AIDS To Warn Sexual Partners

From WLKY.com - Louisville News

Greenwood, Ind. -- Police said an Indiana man may have infected dozens of women with the AIDS virus.

Tony Perkins was arrested for not warning the women.

Police near Indianapolis said Perkins had unprotected sex with dozens of women without telling them he has AIDS.

State health records showed he knew he was HIV positive.

Perkins faces multiple criminal charges -- two counts of failing to warn a sexual partner that he has AIDS and one count of intimidation. The Johnson County Prosecutor said if more of Perkins’ sexual partners are discovered, more charges could be filed.

"The state law states that if you do have AIDS, you have to disclose it to any of your sexual partners. He has admitted, and he actually was somewhat remorseful about it, but at the same time, he blames a woman for giving it to him," said Greenwood police Chief Joe Pitcher.

Court documents showed Perkins met most of the women on a dating Web site.

Investigators said it's impossible to know exactly how many people Perkins had sex with without telling them he is HIV-positive, but there could be as many as 100.

What Perkins has done IS horrible, but I don't particularly like that law either: there is so much stigma about HIV/AIDS: if I'm wearing a condom, it isn't any business of the man I'm fucking what my HIV status is!

But, I guess that doesn't really apply here: Perkins seemed to be out to get as many women as possible.

Here is the Indiana State Law that covers the Perkins case:

Indiana law requires that persons infected with HIV who know of their status, warn past and present sexual or needle sharing partners of their HIV status and of the need to seek health care, such as counseling and testing. (IC 16-41-7-1) Persons with HIV are considered serious and present dangers to the health of others if they engage repeatedly in behavior that has been shown to transmit HIV, if they indicate a careless disregard for the transmission of HIV to others, or if they indicate they will engage in the future in behavior that has been shown to transmit HIV. (IC 16-41-7-2) If a court decides that a person presents a serious and present danger to public health and that irreparable harm may result to others, the court shall order the least restrictive limitations that are necessary to protect the public’s health. (IC 16-41-9-1)

From HIV/AIDS Fact Sheet from Planned Parenthood of Greater Indiana Inc.

Picture source.

5 comments:

Sean said...

That news article is really badly written. They use HIV and AIDS as if they're the same thing and they never say if the sex was protected or not.

Writer said...

Sean, third paragraph in says that it was unprotected.

And, yes, I hate that they use HIV/AIDS interchangeably. But for white heterosexual culture it is. Just another part of the stigma. Here in Kentucky, a lot of gay men do the same thing. Fuckers!

Breeding Jock said...

I have to agree Writer. I hate the stigma as well here in the South. It sucks...for lack of a better word.

And if I am wearing a condom, so what if he is HIV+ or not. We are having safe sex. And I am doing this as a consenting adult. I am aware of the risks. I guess these women are acting as if they went into this not believing they are consenting adults. They made a choice to have sex without a condom. They are at fault as much as he is in my opinion.

WannabeVirginia W. said...

My two cents: - there is a huge need to educate the what HIV and AID's is and what is not.

Last summer here, a man was charged with attempted murder (I believe)for not disclosing to his sexual partner that he had Aids and his partner consequently became ill.

It is very sad. I have to admit that I need to be more informed with HIV and Aids.

WannabeVirginia W. said...

When I said earlier, "it is sad" what I meant was the misperceptions surrounding HIV and Aids is sad. Jus sayin.