Is it okay to ask someone to get tested before we meet

[BootmanLA]

1 minute ago, Close2MyBro said:

You know nothing about California. If California law cannot supersede federal law, then how can they be a sanctuary state when federal immigration is clearly illegal without federal approval? States have NO right under The Constitution to decide immigration matters, but yet many do. As a past California resident, I know first hand that California does what they want even when the Federal Government challenges them.

With respect, I do know quite a bit about California (and other places, too).

Yes, states often challenge federal laws, and sometimes refuse to follow them until forced to by the courts. There's a long history of this, for instance, with regard to segregation. The fact that states often refuse to abide by federal law unless forced does not mean state law supersedes federal law, any more than you speeding or doing drugs or whatever else you might do that's illegal means your choices "supersede" the law. Perhaps it's not clear to you how law works, especially the interaction between state and federal laws, but I can assure you, saying California law "supersedes" federal law is simply factually incorrect.

With respect to medical privacy, here's how it works. Federal law (HIPAA) defines the limits - for federal law purposes - of medical information privacy. For good or for bad, however, that federal law does not provide what is called a right of private enforcement - that is, the right to sue when your rights are violated, which is a separate right. Enforcement of HIPAA rights, therefore, is up to the federal government itself, through the various United States Attorneys (in the DOJ) for the various judicial districts around the country. And again, for good or for bad, those US Attorneys don't have the resources to sue or bring charges for every HIPAA violation.

States can pass their OWN medical privacy laws - and many or most have. They can set a STRICTER standard for privacy than HIPAA, and they can create a right of private enforcement - in state, not federal, court - for violations of that state law, which is what California has done.

An example of a state attempting to "supersede" federal law would be the opposite - if, say, Texas gave blanket permission for medical providers to disclose medical information to law enforcement officers, for example, and then blocked (or tried to block) the feds from charging any doctors for those violations in federal court. THAT would be "superseding" federal law, and it just can't happen.

As for immigration: you're correct that states, in general, cannot set immigration policy that conflicts with federal law. States try - and routinely fail. What you miss is that the feds cannot, in general, co-opt the states and force them to use state resources to enforce federal policy; and the feds cannot, in general, bar states from using their own resources how they choose. So, for instance, if California offers welfare benefits (paid with state funds) to undocumented immigrants, even though the feds consider the undocumented person deportable, the state isn't "superseding" federal policy - it's just choosing to use its own resources how it wants. And refusing to use those resources to, say, round up undocumented persons isn't "superseding" federal policy either.

Likewise, if a California town stops an undocumented person for a traffic violation, the feds can't demand that the state arrest the guy rather than issue him a ticket, and then hold him until the feds can be bothered to pick him up - the state can CHOOSE to do that, if it wants, but it can also say "not doing your dirty work for you". You can call that "being a sanctuary state" if you want - there's no such legal term - but it's not California trying to supersede federal immigration law. It's California saying "We're not going to spend state money to enforce federal law. You have federal money, spend your own to do it."

[Close2MyBro]

11 minutes ago, BootmanLA said:

With respect, I do know quite a bit about California (and other places, too).

Yes, states often challenge federal laws, and sometimes refuse to follow them until forced to by the courts. There's a long history of this, for instance, with regard to segregation. The fact that states often refuse to abide by federal law unless forced does not mean state law supersedes federal law, any more than you speeding or doing drugs or whatever else you might do that's illegal means your choices "supersede" the law. Perhaps it's not clear to you how law works, especially the interaction between state and federal laws, but I can assure you, saying California law "supersedes" federal law is simply factually incorrect.

With respect to medical privacy, here's how it works. Federal law (HIPAA) defines the limits - for federal law purposes - of medical information privacy. For good or for bad, however, that federal law does not provide what is called a right of private enforcement - that is, the right to sue when your rights are violated, which is a separate right. Enforcement of HIPAA rights, therefore, is up to the federal government itself, through the various United States Attorneys (in the DOJ) for the various judicial districts around the country. And again, for good or for bad, those US Attorneys don't have the resources to sue or bring charges for every HIPAA violation.

States can pass their OWN medical privacy laws - and many or most have. They can set a STRICTER standard for privacy than HIPAA, and they can create a right of private enforcement - in state, not federal, court - for violations of that state law, which is what California has done.

An example of a state attempting to "supersede" federal law would be the opposite - if, say, Texas gave blanket permission for medical providers to disclose medical information to law enforcement officers, for example, and then blocked (or tried to block) the feds from charging any doctors for those violations in federal court. THAT would be "superseding" federal law, and it just can't happen.

As for immigration: you're correct that states, in general, cannot set immigration policy that conflicts with federal law. States try - and routinely fail. What you miss is that the feds cannot, in general, co-opt the states and force them to use state resources to enforce federal policy; and the feds cannot, in general, bar states from using their own resources how they choose. So, for instance, if California offers welfare benefits (paid with state funds) to undocumented immigrants, even though the feds consider the undocumented person deportable, the state isn't "superseding" federal policy - it's just choosing to use its own resources how it wants. And refusing to use those resources to, say, round up undocumented persons isn't "superseding" federal policy either.

Likewise, if a California town stops an undocumented person for a traffic violation, the feds can't demand that the state arrest the guy rather than issue him a ticket, and then hold him until the feds can be bothered to pick him up - the state can CHOOSE to do that, if it wants, but it can also say "not doing your dirty work for you". You can call that "being a sanctuary state" if you want - there's no such legal term - but it's not California trying to supersede federal immigration law. It's California saying "We're not going to spend state money to enforce federal law. You have federal money, spend your own to do it."

Whatever "reasoning" floats your boat.

[BootmanLA]

5 minutes ago, Close2MyBro said:

Whatever "reasoning" floats your boat.

I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you. That's on you. 

[Close2MyBro]

36 minutes ago, BootmanLA said:

I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you. That's on you. 

When a state government "chooses" not to uphold a valid federal law, that's called corruption. You can spin it any way you want but that doesn't change what it is. If you don't like the law, then change it. Otherwise, abide by it. No amount of twisted logic stops it from being corruption.

[BootmanLA]

21 hours ago, Close2MyBro said:

When a state government "chooses" not to uphold a valid federal law, that's called corruption. You can spin it any way you want but that doesn't change what it is. If you don't like the law, then change it. Otherwise, abide by it. No amount of twisted logic stops it from being corruption.

No, it's not.

States do not have a responsibility to "uphold" a federal law. They have a responsibility to not VIOLATE a federal law which binds the state. The fact that you don't seem to understand this basic principle of US government - hint: see "federalism" - makes it difficult for anyone who DOES understand this concept to take you seriously on this matter.

You can, of course, call it corruption if you choose. You can call anything corruption, because "corruption" doesn't have a legal definition in either federal or state law - it's a descriptive term used by lay people to express an opinion about something. There's a huge difference between "I think X is corrupt" and "The state of X has a responsibility to uphold federal law Y" - the latter of which is almost always not true on its face.

[BiAggieGuy]

In my opinion, if you want to ask, sure, knock yourself out.  However, expect to get told to fuck off a lot.

Also, it is not a HIPAA violation to ask someone for medical info.  HIPAA only applies to medical providers, insurance companies, and the like.  They are prohibited from sharing a person's medical info with anyone not authorized by the patient.  An individual can share his medical information with anyone he wants.

[Kimberley]

If someone would ask me to test before having sex i would pass and advice that he should used condoms instead of dating a bareback bottom slut