Shouldn't it be the individual choice if they want to associate with someone with AIDS? Isn't that part of our freedoms? Freedom of association?
This analysis is shamefully below your normal standard. First, this is not an issue of freedom of association. It is a Public Health Bill which attempts to expand the safety net to contain communicable diseases. By including HIV positive individuals in that category, there should be some science which justifies that expansion. It is a scientific question, not a constitutional question where some people who want the freedom to associate with others of their choosing can now categorize people and have them quarantined. I prefer not to associate with stupid people.....that is my right....but my right ends when I quarantine you. There must be a firm constitutional basis for such action.
The only constitutional question would be is the scientific classification for quarantine a denial of Equal Protection of the law guaranteed under the 5th and 14th amendments. It most certainly is on the face unconstitutional because to make that classification the state would need to prove a compelling state interest in the need to quarantine HIV positive folks. There is no scientific basis and therefore no constitutional basis.
I think that the concern for emergency workers and their exposure to HIV is a legitimate concern, but with the protocols in place by first responders and EMT, it is not only the HIV virus, but numerous other diseases which require safe protocols when dealing with patients. This is simple bigotry and it is embarrassing as a Republican to see my party passing such an obvious attack on the HIV positive community which has a large proportion of gay Americans, and others potentially being a victim of this state action.