Gale Encyclopedia Of American Law 3Rd Edition Volume 1 P9 pot

Examples of acknowledgments Short forms of acknowledgment The forms of acknowledgment set forth in this section may be used and are sufficient for their respective purposes under any law of this State. The forms shall be known as "Statutory Short Forms of Acknowledgment" and may be referred to by that name. The authorization of the forms in this section does not preclude the use of other forms. [1969, c. 364 (new).] 1. Individual. For an individual acting in his own right: State of County of The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this (date) by (name of person acknowledged). (Signature of person taking acknowledgment) (Title or rank) (Serial number, if any) [1969, c. 364 (new).] 2. Corporation. For a corporation: State of County of The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this (date) by (name of officer or agent, title of officer or agent) of (name of corporation acknowledging) a (state or place of incorporation) corporation, on behalf of the corporation. (Signature of person taking acknowledgment) (Title or rank) (Serial number, if any) [1969, c. 364 (new).] 3. Partnership. For a partnership: State of County of The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this (date) by (name of acknowledging partner or agent), partner (or agent) on behalf of (name of partnership), a partnership. (Signature of person taking acknowledgment) (Title or rank) (Serial number, if any) [1969, c. 364 (new).] 4. Principal. For an individual acting as principal by an attorney in fact: State of County of The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this (date) by (name of attorney in fact) as attorney in fact on behalf of (name of principal). (Signature of person taking acknowledgment) (Title or rank) (Serial number, if any) [1969, c. 364 (new).] Acknowledgments [ continued ] 68 ACKNOWLEDGMENT GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION ACCOUNTING of the new company’s profits for the years it has been using the label. A court will refuse the accounting, because by its acquies- cence the competitor tacitly approved the use of the label. The competitor, however, might be entitled to an injunction barring the new company from further use of its trademark if it is so similar to the competitor’s label as to amount to an infringement. Similarly, the INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE (IRS) may acquiesce or refuse to acquiesce to an adverse RULING by the U.S. TAX COURT or another lower federal court. The IRS is not bound to change its policies due to an adverse ruling by a federal court with the exception of the U.S. Supreme Court. The chief counsel of the IRS may determine that the commissioner of the IRS should acquiesce to an adverse decision, however, thus adopting the ruling as the policy of the IRS. The decision whether to acquiesce to an adverse ruling is published by the Internal Revenue Service as an Action on Decision. Acquiescence is not the same as LACHES, a failure to do what the law requires to protect one’s rights, under circumstances mis- leading or prejudicing the person being sued. Acquiescence relates to inaction during the performance of an act. In the example given above, the failure of the competitor’s general counsel to object to the use of the label and to the registration of the label as a trademark in the Patent and Trademark Office is acquies- cence. Failure to SUE the company until after several years had elapsed from the first time the label had been used is laches. ACQUIRED IMMUNE DEFICIENCY SYNDROME A disease caused by the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) that produces disorders and infections that can lead to death. Acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS), a fatal dis ease t hat atta cks the body ’s immune system making it unable to resist infec- tion, is caused by the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), which is communicable in some bodily fluids and transmitted primarily through sexual be havior and i ntravenous drug u se. The United States struggled to cope with AIDS from the early 1980s until the late 1990s, when new drug therapies started to extend the length and quality of life for many people with 5. Public officer. By any public officer, trustee or personal representative: State of County of The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this (date) by (name and title of position). (Signature of person taking acknowledgment) (Title or rank) (Serial number, if any) [1969, c. 364 (new).] Section History: PL 1969, Ch. 364, § (NEW). The Revisor's Office cannot provide legal advice or interpretation of Maine law to the public. If you need legal advice, please consult a qualified attorney. Office of the Revisor of Statutes 7 State House Station State House Room 108 Augusta, Maine 04333-0007 This page created on: 2003-03-13 Acknowledgments Examples of acknowledgments (continued) ILLUSTRATION BY GGS CREATIVE RESOURCES. REPRODUCED BY PER- MISSION OF GALE, A PART OF CENGAGE LEARNING. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3 RD E DITION ACQUIRED IMMUNE DEFICIENCY SYNDROME 69 AIDS. Since the beginning, AIDS and its resulting epidemic in the United States have raised a great number of legal issues, which are made all the more difficult by the nature of the disease. AIDS is a unique killer, but some of its aspects are not: epidemics have been seen before; other sexually transmitted diseases have been fatal. AIDS is different because it was discovered in—and in the United States still predominantly afflicts—unpopular social groups: gay men and drug users. This fact has had a strong impact on the shaping of AIDS law. Law is often shaped by politics, and AIDS is a highly politicized disease. The challenge in facing an epidemic that endangers everyone is complicated by the stigma attached to the people most likely to be killed by it. Epidemics have no single answer beyond a cure. Because no cure for AIDS exists, the law continues to grapple with a vast number of problems. The federal government has addressed AIDS in two broad ways: by spending money on research and treatment of the disease and by prohibiting unfairness to people with HIV or AIDS. It has funded medical treatment, research, and public education, and it has passed laws prohibiting DISCRIMINATION against people who are HIV-positive or who have developed AIDS. States and local municipalities have joined in these efforts, sometimes with federal help. In addition, states have criminalized the act of knowingly transmitting the virus through sexual behavior or blood donation. The courts, of course, are the decision makers in AIDS law. They have heard a number of cases in areas that range from employment to education and from crimes to torts. Although a body of CASE LAW has developed, it remains relatively new with respect to most issues, and controversial in all. AIDS and the Federal Government Political attitudes towar d AIDS have gone through dra matically different phases. In the early 1980s, it was dubbed “the gay disease” and as such was easy for lawmakers to ignore. No one hurried to fund research into a disease that seeme d to be killing only members of a historically unpopular group. When it was not being ignored, some groups dismissed AIDS as a problem that homosexuals deserved, perhaps brought on them by divine intervention. Discriminatory action matched this talk as gay men lost jobs, housing, and medical care. AIDS activists complained bitterly about the failure of most U.S . citizens to be concerned. Public opinion only began to shift in the late 1980s, largely through awareness of highly publicized cases. As soon as AIDS had a familiar or more mainstream face, it became harder to ignore ; when it became clear that heterosexuals were The AIDS quilt, on display in Washington, D.C., has become a well- known symbol of support for AIDS victims and their families. Families and supporters of AIDS victims create a panel to commemorate a person’s life; each panel is then joined with others from around the country. LEE SNIDER/CORBIS. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 70 ACQUIRED IMMUNE DEFICIENCY SYNDROME also contracting the disease, the epidemic acquired higher priority. By the late 1980s much of the harshness in public debate had diminished. Bot h liberals and conservatives lined up to support LEGISLATIVE solutions. President RONALD REAGAN left office recommending increases in federal funding for medical research on AIDS. Already the amount spentinthisareahadrisenfrom$61millionin 1984 to nearly $1.3 billi on in 198 8. President GEORGE H.W. BUSH tookamoreactiveapproachand in 1990 signed two new bills into law. One was the Ryan White C omprehensive AIDS Resources Emergency (CARE) Act (Pub. L. No. 101-381, 104 Stat. 576), which provides much-needed money for states to spend on treatment. The other wa s the groundbreaking Americans wi th Disabilities Act (ADA) (42 U.S.C.A. §§ 12112– 12117), which has proved to be the mos t effective weapon against the disc riminat ion that indivi dua ls with the disease routinely suffer. Bush also hurried approval by the FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTR ATION for AIDS-related drugs. Though he supported A mer- icans with the disease, Bush agreed to a contro- versial ban by Congress on travel an d IMMIGRATION to the United States for people with HIV. Like his predecessors, President BILL CLINTON called for fighting the disease itself, rather than the people afflicted with it. In 1993 he appointed the first federal AIDS policy coordinator. He fully funded the Ryan White Care Act, increasing government support by 83 percent, to $633 million, and also increased funding for AIDS research, prevention, and treatment by 30 percent. These measures met most of his campaign promises on AIDS. He reneged on one: despite vowing to lift the ban on HIV-positive ALIENS,he signed LEGISLATION continuing it. In addition, he met a major obstacle on another proposal: Congress failed to pass his health care reform package, which would have provided health coverage to all U.S. citizens with HIV, delivered drug treatment against AIDS, on demand, to intravenous drug users, and prohibited health plans from providing lower coverage for AIDS than for other life-threatening diseases. President GEORGE W. BUSH also passed initiatives that allocated federal funds toward fighting the aids epidemic. In 2003 he an- nounced the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), in which he called upon congress to pass legislation that would appro- priate $15 billion over five years to support international AIDS prevention and the purchase of anti-viral drugs. The largest share of the money was contributed directly by the United States to other countries, such as through programs sponsored by the U.S. Agency for International Development. The proposal accounted for almost half the money in a global fund committed to fight HIV and AIDS. As the initial plan expired in the 2008 fiscal year, Congress approved, and President George W. Bush signed into law legislation that extended the plan another five years and authorized an additional $48 billion in funding. Specifically, the funds from PEPFAR are designated to help provide treatment to at least 3 million individuals with HIV, prevent approximately 12 million new infections, and provide care for 12 million people infected. President BARACK OBAMA in his 2008 presi- dential campaign pledged to develop and Total Male Femal e New AIDS Cases Reported, 1993 to 2007 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 9,579 26,355 35,954 2007 10,744 29,766 40,540 2005 11,211 30,851 42,062 2003 11,082 31,901 42,983 2001 10,780 35,357 46,137 1999 13,105 47,056 60,161 1997 13,764 59,616 73,380 1995 16,824 89,165 105,990 1993 Year Number of AIDS cases SOURCE: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral He p atitis, STD, and TB Prevention. ILLUSTRATION BY GGS CREATIVE RESOURCES. REPRODUCED BY PERMISSION OF GALE, A PART OF CENGAGE LEARNING. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3 RD E DITION ACQUIRED IMMUNE DEFICIENCY SYNDROME 71 implement a comprehensive national HIV/ AIDS strategy designed to not only reduce HIV infections, but also to increase access to care and treatment and reduce HIV-related health disparities. He specifically pledged to expand funding for research and prevention of HIV, including a vaccine and a microbicide product for women to apply topically to prevent the transmission of HIV and other infections. He has further pledged to work toward improv- ing the quality of life for those living with HIV and supports increased funding for adequate and safe housing for individuals living with HIV. In April 2009 President Obama’s Administration announced it was implementing a five-year national communication campaign with the DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES (HHS) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), known as Act Against AIDS, that would refocus the national attention of the HIV crisis in the United States. The campaign was in part a response to data released by the CDC in 2008, which estimated that approximately 56,000 Americans become infected with HIV each year and more than 14,000 Americans die with AIDS each year. AIDS and Public Life Having HIV is not a sentence to remove oneself from society. It does not limit a person’sphysical or mental abilities. Only later, when symptoms develop—as long as ten years from the time of infection—does the disease become increasingly debilitating. In any event, people who are HIV- positive and AIDS-symptomatic are fully able to work, play, and participate in daily life. Moreover, their rights to do so are the same as anyone else’s. The chief barrier to a productive life often comes less from HIV and AIDS than from the fear, SUSPICION, and open hostility of others. Because HIV cannot be transmitted through casual contact, U.S. law has moved to defend the CIVIL RIGHTS of those individuals with the disease. AIDS in the Workplace The workplace is a common battleground. Many people with AIDS have lost their jobs, been denied promotions, or been reassigned to work duties that remove them from public contact. During the 1980s this discrimination was fought through lawsuits based on older laws designed to protect the disabled. Plaintiffs primarily used the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C.A. § 701 et seq.), the earliest law of this type. But the Rehabilitation Act has a limited scope: it applies only to federally funded work- places and institutions and says nothing about those who do not receive government money. Thus, for example, the law was helpful to a California public school teacher with AIDS who sued for the right to resume teaching classes (Chalk v. United States district court, 840 F.2d 701 [9th Cir. 1988]), but it would be of no use to a worker in a private business. With passage of the ADA in 1990, Congress gave broad protection to people with AIDS who work in the private sector. In general, the ADA is designed to increase access for disabled persons, and it also forbids discrimination in hiring or promotion in companies with 15 or more employees. Specifically, employers may not discriminate if the person in question is otherwise qualified for the job. Moreover, they may not use tests to screen out disabled persons, and they must provide reasonable accommodation for disabled workers. The ADA, which took effect in 1992, quickly emerged as the primary means for bringing AIDS-related discrimination law- suits. From 1992 to 1993, more than 330 complaints were filed with the U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION (EEOC), which investigates charges before they can be filed in court. Given the lag time needed for EEOC investigations, those cases started appear- ing before federal courts in 1994 and 1995. AIDS and Health Care Closely related to w ork is the issue of health care. In some cases, the two overlap: HEALTH INSURANCE, SOCIAL SECURITY, and DISABILITY benefits for people with AIDS were often hard to obtain during the 1980s. Insur- ance was particularly difficult because employ- ers feared rising costs, and insurance companies did not want to pay claims. To avoid the costs of AIDS, insurance companies used two traditional industry techniques: they attempted to exclude AIDS coverage from general policies, and they placed caps (limits on benefits payments) on AIDS-related coverage. State regulations largely determine whether these actions were permissi- ble. In New York, for example, companies that sell general health insurance policies are for- bidden to exclude coverage for particular diseases. Caps have hurt AIDS patients because their treatment can be as expensive as that for cancer or other life-threatening illnesses. Insur- ance benefits can be quickly exhausted—in fact, AIDS usually bankrupts people who have the disease. The problem is compounded when GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 72 ACQUIRED IMMUNE DEFICIENCY SYNDROME employers serve as their own health insurers. In McGann v. H&H Music Co., 946, F.2d 401 (5th Cir. [1991]), a federal court ruled that such employers could legally change their policies to reduce coverage for workers who develop expensive illnesses such as AIDS. In January 1995 the SETTLEMENT in a lawsuit brought by a Philadelphia construction worker with AIDS illustrated that the ADA could be used to fight caps on coverage. In 1992 the joint union-management fund for the Laborers’ District Council placed a $10,000 limit on AIDS benefits, in stark contrast to the $100,000 allowed for other catastrophic illnesses. At that time, the fund said the cap on AIDS benefits was designed to curb all health costs. In 1993 the EEOC ruled that the fund violated the ADA, and, backed by the AIDS Law Project of Philadelphia, the worker sued. Rather than fight an expensive lawsuit, the insurance fund settled: under the agreement, it extended coverage for all catastrophic illnesses to $100,000. Hailing the settlement as a major blow against wide- spread discrimination in insurance coverage, the law project’s executive director, Nan Feyler, told the Philadelphia Inquirer, “You can’t single out someone based on a stereotype.” In other respects, health care is a distinct area of concern for AIDS patients and health professionals alike. Discrimination has often taken place. State and federal statutes, including the Rehabilitation Act, guarantee access to health care for AIDS patients, and courts have upheld that right. In the 1988 case of Doe v. Centinela Hospital, 57 U.S.L.W. 2034 (C.D. Cal.), for example, an HIV-infected person with no symptoms was excluded from a federally funded hospital residential program for drug and alcohol treatment because health care providers feared exposure to the virus. The case itself exposed the irrationality of such discrimi- nation. Although its employees had feared HIV, the hospital argued in court that the lack of symptoms meant that the patient was not disabled and thus not protected by the Rehabil- itation Act. A federal trial court in California rejected this ARGUMENT, RULING that a refusal to grant services based solely on fear of contagion is discrimination under the Rehabilitation Act. Other actions during the 1990s have relied upon the ADA. In 1994 the U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE reached a settlement in a lawsuit with the city of Philadelphia that ensures that city employees will treat patients with AIDS. The first settlement in a health care–related ADA suit, the case arose out of an incident in 1993, when an HIV-positive man collapsed on a Philadelphia street. Emergency medical workers not only refused to touch him but told him to get on a stretcher by himself. The man sued. In settling the case, the city agreed to begin an extensive training program for its 900 emergen- cy medical technicians and 1,400 firefighters. In addition, officials paid the man $10,000 in COMPENSATORY DAMAGES and apologized. The Department of Justice viewed the suit as an important test of the ADA. Assistant Att orney General James Turner said the settlement would “send a clear message to all cities across the nation that we will not tolerate discrimination against persons with AIDS.” Health care professionals are not the only ones with concerns about HIV transmission. Patients may legitimately wonder whether their doctors are infected. During the early 1990s, the medical and legal communities debated whether HIV-positive doctors have a duty to inform their patients of the illness. According to the CDC, the risk of HIV transmission from health care workers to patients is very small when recommended infection-control procedures are followed, yet this type of transmission has occurred. The first cases of patients contracting HIV dur ing a medical PROCEDURE were reported in 1991: Dr. David J. Acer, a Florida dentist with AIDS, apparently transmitted HIV to five patients. One was Kim berly Bergalis, age twenty-three, who died as a result. Before her death, Bergalis brought a CLAIM against the dentist’s professional LIABILITY insurer, contend- ing that it should have kno wn that Acer had AIDS and effectively barred him from operating by refusing to issue him a MALPRACTICE insurance policy. Bergalis’s claim was settled for $1 million. A second claim by Bergalis, against the insurance company that recomme nded Acer to her, was settled for an undisclosed amount. SincetheBergaliscase,manyU.S.dentists, physicians, and surgeons with AIDS have begun disclosing their status to their patients. Faya v. Almaraz, 329 Md. 435, 620 A.2d 327 (Md. 1993), illustrates the consequences of not doing so. In Faya th e court held that an HIV-positive doc tor has the legal duty to disclose t his medical condition to patients and that a failure to inform can lead to GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION ACQUIRED IMMUNE DEFICIENCY SYNDROME 73 a NEGLIGENCE action, even if the patients have not been infected by the virus. The doctor’spatient did not contract HIV but did suffer emotionally from a fear of having done so. The unanimous decision held that patients can be compensated for their fears. Although this case dealt specifical- ly with doctor-patient relationships, others have concerned a variety of relationships in which the fear of contracting AIDS can be enough for a PLAINTIFF to recover damages. Routine HIV-testing in healthcare facilities also raises legal issues. Most people who are HIV- positive want this information kept confidential. Facilities are free to use HIV testing to control the infection but in most states only with the patient’s INFORMED CONSENT. Some states, such as Illinois, require written consent. The level of protection for medical records varies from state to state. California, for example, has broad protections; under its statutes, no one can be compelled to provide information that would identify anyone who is the subject of an HIV test. However, every state requires that AIDS cases be reported to the CDC, which tracks statistics on the spread of HIV. Whether the name of an HIV-infected person is reported to the CDC depends on state laws and regulations. AIDS and Educati on Issues in the field of education include the rights of HIV-positive students to attend class and of HIV-positive teachers to teach, the confide ntiality of HIV records, and how best to teach young people about AIDS. A few areas have been settled in court: for example, the right of students to attend classes was of greater concern in the early years of the epidemic and later ceased to be a matter of dispute. Certain students with AIDS may assert their right to public education under the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 (EAHCA), but the law is only relevant in cases involving special education programs. More commonly, students’ rights are protected by the Rehabilitation Act. Perhaps the most important case in this area is Thomas v. Atascadero Unified School District, 662 F. Supp. 376 (C.D. Cal. 1986), which illustrates how far such protections go. Thomas involved an elementary school student with AIDS who had bitten another youngster in a fight. Based on careful review of medical evidence, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California concluded that biting was not proved to transmit AIDS, and it ordered the school district to readmit the girl. Similarly, schools that excluded teachers with AIDS have been successfully sued on the ground that those teachers pose no threat to their students or others and that their right to work is protected by the Rehabilitation Act, as in Chalk. Confidentiality relating to HIV is not uniform in schools. Some school districts require rather broad dissemination of the information; others keep it strictly private. In the mid-1980s the New York City Board of Education adopted a policy that no one in any school would be told the identities of children with AIDS or HIV infection; only a few top administrators outside the school would be informed. The policy inspired a lawsuit brought by a local school district, which argued that the identity of a child was necessary for infection control (District 27 Community School Board v. Board of Education, 130 Misc. 2d 398, 502 N.Y. S.2d 325 [N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1986]). The trial court rejected the argument on the basis that numer- ous children with HIV infection might be attending school, and instead noted that universal precautions in responding to blood incidents at school would be more effective than the revelation of confidential information. Schools play a major role in the effort to educate the public on AIDS. Several states have mandated AIDS prevention instruction in their schools. But the subject is controversial: It evokes personal, political, and moral reactions to sexuality. Responding to parental sensitivi- ties, some states have authorized excused absences from such programs. The New York State EDUCATION DEPARTMENT faced a storm of controversy over its policy of not allowing absences at parental discretion. Furthermore, at the local and the federal levels, some conserva- tives have opposed certain kinds of AIDS education. During the 1980s those who often criticized liberal approaches to sex education argued that AIDS materials should not be explicit, encourage sexuality, promote the use of contraceptives, or favorably portray gays and lesbians. In Congress lawmakers attached amendments to appropriations measures (bills that authorize the spending of federal tax dollars) that mandate that no federal funds may be used to “promote homose xuality.” In response the CDC adopted regulations that prohibit spending federal funds on AIDS GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 74 ACQUIRED IMMUNE DEFICIENCY SYNDROME education materials that might be found offen- sive by some members of certain communities. Despite the controversy, some communities have taken radical steps to halt the spread of AIDS. In 1991 and 1992 the school boards of New York City, San Francisco, Seattle, and Los Angeles voted to make condoms available to students in their public high-school systems. AIDS and Private Life Although epidemics are public crises, they begin with individuals. The rights of people who have AIDS and those who do not are often in contention and seldom more so than in private life. It is no surprise that people with HIV continue having sex, nor is it a surprise that this behavior is, usually, legal. Unfortunately, some do so without knowing they have the virus. Even more unfortunately, others do so in full knowl- edge that they are HIV-positive but without informing their partners. This dangerous behav- ior has opened one area of AIDS law that affects individuals: the legal duty to warn a partner before engaging in behavior that can transmit the infection. Courts recognized a similar duty long before AIDS ever appeared, with regard to other sexually transmitted diseases. A failure to inform in AIDS cases has given rise to both civil and criminal lawsuits. One such case was brought by Mark Christian, the lover of actor Rock Hudson, against Hudson’s estate. Christian won his suit on the ground that Hudson had concealed his condition and contin- ued their relationship, and the jury returned a multi-million-dollar VERDICT despite the fact that there was no evidence that Christian had been infected. Another case was brought in Oregon in 1991, when criminal charges were filed against Alberto Gonzalez for knowingly spreading HIV by having sex with his girlfriend. After Gonzalez pleaded NO CONTEST to third-degree ASSAULT (a felony) and to two charges of recklessly endan- gering others, he received an unusual sentence: the court ordered him to abstain from sex for five years and placed him under HOUSE ARREST for six months. Although such convictions are increas- ingly common, courts have also recognized that not knowing one has HIV can be a valid defense. In C. A. U. v. R. L., 438 N.W.2d 441 (1989), for example, the Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court’s finding that the plaintiff could not recover damages from her former fiancé, who had unknowingly given her the virus. State Legislation and the Courts To stem transmission of HIV, states have adopted several legal measures. Two states attempted to head off the virus at the pass: Illinois and Louisiana at one point required HIV blood testing as a prerequisite to getting a MARRIAGE license. Both states ultimately repealed these statutes because they were difficult to enforce; couples simply crossed state lines to be married in neighboring states. Several states have taken a less stringent approach, requiring only that applicants for a marriage license be informed of the availability— and advisability—of HIV tests. More common- ly, states criminali ze sexual behavior that ca n spread AIDS. Michigan l aw mak es it a felony for an HIV- or AIDS-infected person to engage in sex without first informing a partner of the infection. Florida law provides for the prosecution of any HIV-positive person com- mitting PROSTITUTION,anditpermitsRAPE victims to demand that their attackers undergo testing. Indiana imposes penalties on persons who recklessly or knowingly donate blood or semen with th e knowledge that they are HIV- positive. Older state laws have also been applied to AIDS. Several states have statutes that make it a criminal of fense for a person with a contagious disease—including a sexually transmitted disease—to willfully or knowingly expose anoth- er person to it, and some have amended these laws specifically to include AIDS. In addition, in many states, it has long been a crime to participate in an act of SODOMY. The argument that punishing sodomy can stem HIV transmis- sion was made in a case involving a Missouri sodomy statute specifically limited to homosex- ual conduct. In State v. Walsh, 713 S.W.2d 508 (1986), the Missouri Supreme Court upheld the statute after finding that it was rationally related to the state’s legitimate interest in protecting public health. Other AIDS-related laws have been invalidated in court challenges: for exam- ple, in 1993 a U.S. district judge struck down a 1987 Utah statute that invalidated the marriages of people with AIDS, ruling that it violated the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act. Sex is only one kind of be havior that has prompted criminal prosecution related to AIDS. Commonly, de fendants i n AIDS cases have been prosecuted for assault. In United St ates v. Moor, 846 F.2d 1163 (8th Cir., 1988), U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit upheld the conviction of an GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION ACQUIRED IMMUNE DEFICIENCY SYNDROME 75 HIV-infected prisoner found guilty of assault with a deadly weapon —his teeth—for biting two prison guards during a struggle. T eeth were also the subject of a trial in Brock v. State, 555 So. 2d 285 (1989), but the Alabama CourtofCriminal A ppeals refused to regard them as a dangerous weapon. In State v. Haines, 545 N.E. 2d 834 (2d Dist. 1989), the Indi ana Court of Appeals affirmed a conviction of attempte d MURDER against a man with AIDS who had slash ed his wrists to commit SUICIDE; when police officers and paramedics refused to let hi m die, he began to spit, bite, scratch, and throw blood. Civil Litigat ion TORT LAW has seen an explo- sion of AIDS-related suits. This area of law is Reading, Writing, and AIDS T eaching young people about AIDS is an enormously popular idea. Since the late 1980s, Gallup Polls have revealed that over 90 percent of respondents think public schools should do so. Agreement ends there, however. In the 1990s more angry debate focused on AIDS education than on any issue facing schools since court-ordered busing in the 1970s. The core question of the debate is simple: What is the best way to equip students to protect themselves from this fatal dis- ease? The answers may be miles apart. For one side, “equipping” means advo- cating the only sure means of protection, sexual and drug abstinence. For the other, it means supporting abstinence along with knowledge of sexual practices, the use of clean drug needles, and the use of prophylactics (condoms), which are distributed in some schools. Between these positions lie a great many issues of disagreement that have bitterly divided school districts, provoked lawsuits, and cost high-ranking Washington, D.C., officials their jobs. Sex is an old battleground in public education. Liberals and conservatives argued over it in the decade following the sexual revolution of the 1960s, initially over whether sexual issues should be discussed in schools. After all, earlier generations who went to public schools learned mainly about reproductive organs. As new classes began appearing in the late 1970s, children learned about the sexual choices people make. If liberals appeared to win the “sex ed.” debate, growing social problems helped: rises in teen pregnan- cies and sexually transmitted diseases secured a place for more explicit school health classes. The much greater threat of AIDS pushed state legislatures into action. By the mid-1990s AIDS preven- tion classes had been mandated in at least 34 states and recommended in 14. But the appearance of even more explicit teaching has reinvigorated the sex ed. debate. Supporters of a comprehensive ap- proach say AIDS demands frankness. Originating in comprehensive sex ed. theory, their ideas also came from pacesetting health authorities such as former SURGEON GENERAL C. Everett Koop. Arguing in the mid-1980s that AIDS classes should be specific and detailed and taught as early as kindergarten, Koop countered conservative arguments by saying, “Those who say ‘I don’t want my child sexually educated’ are hiding their heads in the sand.” This position holds that educators are obligated to teach kids everything that can stop the spread of the disease. “What is the moral responsibility?” Jerald Newberry, a health coordinator of Virginia schools, asked the Washington Times in 1992. “I think it’s gigantic.” Abstinence is a part of this approach, but expecting teens to refrain from having sex was considered by many to be unrealistic given some studies that show that nearly three out of four high school students have had sex before graduation. Thus, the comprehensive curriculum might well include explaining the proper use of condoms, discussing homosexual prac- tices, describing the STERILIZATION of drug needles, and so on. Abstinence-only adherents think be- ing less frank is being more responsible. They view sexuality as a moral issue properly left for parents to discuss with their children and one that lies beyond the responsibilities of schools. The con- servative columnist Cal Thomas spoke for this viewpoint when he argued that parents “have lost a significant right to rear their children according to their own moral standards.” Other objections come from religious conservatives who oppose any neutral or positive discussion of homosexuality. Koop, for example, was blasted for allegedly “sponsoring homosexually oriented curricula” and “teaching BUGGERY in the 3rd grade.” In addition to voicing moral objections, critics say comprehensive sex ed. is generally a failure because it encourages a false sense of security among teens that leads to experimentation with sex or drugs. “We have given children more information presumably because we think it will change their behavior, and yet the behavior has gotten worse, not better,” said Gary Bauer, president of the Family Research Council. Each side accuses the other of deepening the crisis. Comprehensive approach supporters think abstinence- only backers are moral censors, indiffer- ent to pragmatic solutions. The liberal GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 76 ACQUIRED IMMUNE DEFICIENCY SYNDROME used to discourage individuals from subjecting others to unreasonable risks and to compensate those who have been injured by unreasonably risky behavior. The greatest number of AIDS- related liability lawsuits has involved the receipt of HIV-infected blood and blood products. A second group has concerned the sexual transmission of HIV. A third group involves AIDS-related psychic distress. In these cases, plaintiffs have successfully sued and recovered damages for their fear of having contracted HIV. Advances in Treatment Though the search for an AIDS vaccine has occupied many researchers, no significant breakthroughs have appeared. However, other researchers have concentrated on ways of controlling AIDS People for the American Way attacked “a growing wave of CENSORSHIP ravaging sexuality education” that promotes only “narrow” curricula. It mocked such abstinence-only programs as Teen Aid and Sex Respect, both of which have brought THREATS of legal action from the AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION and Planned Parenthood. The conservative American Enterprise Institute asserted that liberal programs only prod students toward bad choices: “There has been a transition from protection to prepara- tion.” Neither side can agree on any data, other than to point out that the problems of AIDS and teen sexuality have appeared to worsen. Nowhere are the two sides more split than on the issue of condoms. Schools in at least 23 cities sought to distribute condoms during the mid- to late-1990s. The assumption was that since students will have sex anyway—despite warnings not to—they had better be protected. Conservatives see this position as a cop- out in two ways: it sells values short and it undermines parental authority. In 1992, in Washington, D.C., critics erupted over a decision by the Public Health Commission to hand out con- doms in junior and senior high schools without parental consent. William Brown, president of the D.C. Congress of Parents and Teachers, complained: “We are looking to build and reinforce and establish family values where they have been lost, and here we have an agency of our government that totally ignores those things we are working for.” Dr. Mary Ellen Bradshaw, the commis- sion’s chief, replied: “Our whole focus is to save the lives of these children, stressing abstinence as the only sure way to avoid [AIDS] and making con- doms available only after intensive education.” In other cities, upset parents simply sued. By 1992, CLASS ACTION law- suits had been brought against school districts in New York City, Seattle, and Falmouth, Massachusetts, arguing that condom distribution violated parents’ right to PRIVACY. AIDS education in schools is not merely a local issue. While most deci- sions are made by states and school boards the federal government plays two important roles. First, it funds AIDS prevention programs: abstinence-based programs receive funding under the Adolescent Family Life Act of 1981, and programs that promote contraceptive use among teenagers are supported through the Family Planning Act of 1970. How these funds are spent is a matter of local control, but conservatives have sought to put limits on program content. During the early 1990s, Senator JESSE HELMS (R-NC) twice tried to ban funding for programs that were perceived to promote homosexuality or that did not continu- ously teach abstinence as the only effective protection against AIDS. In response, one federal agency, the Center for Disease Control, adopted regulations that prohibited the use of funds on any materials that are found offensive by some members of communities. The second role of the federal government is largely symbolic but no less controversial. It is to guide school efforts through advice, sponsorship, and public speeches, and primarily involves the offices of the surgeon general and of the federal AIDS policy coordinator. Koop, who was a Reagan appointee, roused a fair degree of controversy, yet it was nothing compared to the upheaval that greeted statements by appointees of the Clinton administration. AIDS policy czar Kristine Gebbie and surgeon general M. Joycelyn Elders were forced from their posts after making statements that conservatives found appalling—Gebbie promoting attitudes toward pleasurable sex and Elders indicating a willingness to have schools talk about masturbation. Thereafter, the administration frequently stressed abstinence as its top priority for school AIDS programs. Problems surrounding AIDS educa- tion are unlikely to go away. Communi- ties frequently disagree on sex education itself, and compromise is often difficult on such a divisive issue of values. As the experience of the Clinton administration suggested, Washington, D.C., could easi- ly exacerbate an already contentious area, with policy coordinators becoming lightning rods for criticism. On the matter of what to say to kids about AIDS, poll data have been misleading. U.S. citizens are of three minds: say a lot, say a little, and do not say what the other side thinks. FURTHER READINGS Kelly, Pat. 1998. Coping When Your Friend Is HIV-Positive. New York: Rosen Publish- ing Group. National Commission on Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome. 1993. National Commission on AIDS: An Expanding Tragedy: The Final Report of the National Commission on AIDS. Washington, D.C.: National Commission on Acquired Im- mune Deficiency Syndrome. World Health Organization. 1989. Legislative Responses to AIDS. Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. CROSS REFERENCES Civil Rights Acts; Schools and School Districts. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION ACQUIRED IMMUNE DEFICIENCY SYNDROME 77 . Reported, 19 93 to 2007 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 10 0,000 12 0,000 9,579 26,355 35,954 2007 10 ,744 29,766 40,540 2005 11 , 211 30,8 51 42,062 2003 11 ,082 31, 9 01 42,983 20 01 10,780 35,357 46 ,13 7 19 99 13 ,10 5 47,056 60 ,16 1 19 97 13 ,764 59, 616 73,380 19 95 16 ,824 89 ,16 5 10 5,990 19 93 Year Number. 12 0,000 9,579 26,355 35,954 2007 10 ,744 29,766 40,540 2005 11 , 211 30,8 51 42,062 2003 11 ,082 31, 9 01 42,983 20 01 10,780 35,357 46 ,13 7 19 99 13 ,10 5 47,056 60 ,16 1 19 97 13 ,764 59, 616 73,380 19 95 16 ,824 89 ,16 5 10 5,990 19 93 Year Number of AIDS cases SOURCE: Centers for Disease Control and. number, if any) [19 69, c. 364 (new).] Acknowledgments [ continued ] 68 ACKNOWLEDGMENT GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION ACCOUNTING of the new company’s profits for the years