Someone sent this in to me.
Opinion/Editorial
http://bppa.blogspot.com/2009/06/lat...r-control.html
This article by Ernest Greene contains the following paragraph. Ernest Greene, aka Ira Levine, is the President of the Board of Directors Of AIM Healthcare.
Quote:
|
?There?s just one little hitch in this plan. It is against the law in California for any employer to require an HIV test, or even to ask about a potential employee?s HIV status, as a condition of employment. Doing so is considered employment discrimination and carries significant penalties to the employer.?
|
So Mr. Levine (Greene) are you saying that AIM is helping these companies violate the law by granting them access to performers private medical information? What responsibility does AIM have when you have openly admitted to assisting these companies in violating the civil rights of performers?
If it is illegal for producers to ?even ask about a potential employee?s HIV status,? as Ira Levine states, could it be considered illegal for AIM to give those employers that information?
And for the record, the AIM waiver does not come close to being legal?..Every single disclosure of private medical information to a third party must be in writing, and specifically have the name of the person to whom the results are being given, and the location (fax number, mailing address etc.) of where the results are being sent. This is NOT done at AIM.
And then there is Levine?s all or nothing mandate??I repeat; testing or condoms; that is the choice.? Why is that the only choice? Why would requiring condoms all the sudden change the industry?s already illegal practice of ?requiring? testing? Does anybody really think that performers like Belladonna, Evan Stone, Sasha Grey, Stormy Daniels, Jenna Haze, or any other responsible performers are going to stop testing? The very idea is ridiculous. Will NINA HARTLEY not get tested before performing if condoms become mandatory?
The testing done by the industry is already illegal. Levine tries to make you believe that the industry would all of the sudden follow the law if condoms were mandatory. That is perhaps the most ridiculous thing about his entire misguided argument. What is really needed is LEGISLATION like in Nevada, to make the testing legal. Would Levine support such legislation? Of course not.
And as far as the reliability of the current system??wasn?t that system NOT FOLLOWED in 2004, when all those guys went to Brazil and worked with performers who weren?t tested, and wasn?t that system NOT FOLLOWED last year when the person worked without a current test, and no other performer or producer checked to see if this person was tested? Looks like there is a 100% failure of the system every time someone tests positive in the industry?.and Levine is proud of this record? What a joke.
I wonder what Levine has to say about the other part of the OSHA regulations that require condoms?..I am talking about the part that says EMPLOYERS must pay for post exposure testing and treatment??Of course he will NEVER address this issue. And if porn is made without condoms, what responsibilities do producers have when performers catch diseases on their sets, which Levine admits does happen ?regularly???..Mr. Levine, what do you think the producers should be liable for?..and what is the current protocol in the industry when someone catches a disease? Who pays for that?