Quote:
Originally Posted by mikesouth
You may not like it but its backed up by the health Dept and who do you think a judge is going to believe the health Dept or Diane Dukes magic 8 ball?
|
Dont get me wrong I agree with you about optional condoms, but a judge isnt going to believe either of them. Trying to prove that a performer contracted an STI except for HIV and Hep C and possibly syphilis on set will also be impossible.
It would be akin to proving that you caught a flu from your cubicle mate in an office environment.
The California legislature tried to pass a bill last year (AB 375) in favor of hospital workers placing the burden of proof on the employer to show that because of exposure to a blood borne pathogen an infection DIDNT happen. Burden of proof is usually on the injured worker...
The bill was defeated in the Senate... 20-16
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/po...b_375&sess=CUR
I dont think there will be a presumption made in favor of pornstars if hospital workers couldnt get one....
If someone at the FSC knew a little something about research legal or otherwise there could be much better arguments being made against Ballot Measure B as B&B points out...