The Virginia House Courts of Justice Subcommittee met Tuesday afternoon to discuss House Bill No. 141. This bill, if signed into law, would make it a crime for an HIV-positive person to engage in various sexual acts without notifying his or her partner prior to those acts that he or she is HIV-positive.

And how does this bill define HIV? The answer is an intriguing one:

"HIV" means the human immunodeficiency virus or any other related virus that causes acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS).

Is this definition of HIV utter nonsense, and shows that this bill's crafters didn't do their homework? HIV is HIV, not any other virus or retrovirus. Right?

Or, do the architects of HB 141 have knowledge that many of us aren't privileged to have? Did Delegate McClure, the bill's patron, read an advance copy of Nick Regush's next bestseller "The Virus Within: The Coming Epidemic" which suggests an alarming possibility that HHV6A may have an important role in the definition of AIDS?

I called Delegate McClure's Richmond office to find out. A LA told me that the crafter behind HB 141 used that particular disclaimer as a "catch - all". A "catch - all"? It is improper and disingenuous for the crafters of this bill to try and "cover all the bases" by throwing other viruses into the mix.

This bill, if passed as it is currently written, would open the door to criminal prosecution of people who have currently tested positive for other viruses that have been shown to damage the immune system.

Other viruses implicated in the present definition of AIDS (according to the Geneva World AIDS Conference) include cytomegalovirus (CMV), HHV6-A, Epstein-Barr virus (EBV), Kaposi's Sarcoma-associated herpesvirus (KSHV/HHV-8) and just about any other virus that qualifies as an "opportunistic infection."

At worst, HB 141 is a "back-door" attempt to further criminalize sex between consenting adults, as well as an attempt to criminalize sex among minorities.

Minorities? Well, yes. In a Jan 13, Reuters report, the fastest-growing population of HIV-positive persons is among African American and Hispanic gay men. Thus, the correlation could be made that House Bill No. 141 would disproportionately target minorities.

This bill, if passed as it is currently written, would open the door to criminal prosecution of people who have currently tested positive for other viruses that have been shown to damage the immune system.

And, finally, one definition that does ring true and that targets no particular population - the "HIV" test. Language in packet inserts for each of the so-called "AIDS" tests all provides one common disclaimer: that the tests cannot be an effective measure of AIDS. The tests are not standardized. The rate of false positives for the HIV tests are alarming - there are currently 69 different diseases and conditions that create a false positive diagnosis, among them pregnancy, tetanus vaccinations and the flu. Imagine the possibilities of charging someone with a Class 6 felony only to find, months after incarceration, that their HIV positive status was based on the flu. Imagine the torment for the "criminal"...and imagine the scandal for Virginia.

If House Bill No. 141 survives the Courts of Justice Subcommittee (which, by all rights, it should not), the Virginia General Assembly better look long and hard at this proposition before it votes. Otherwise, they may well have to change the state tourism motto to "Virginia is for lovers … but only if you have signed consent."

The rest of the list? Hepatitis A, Hep B, Hep C, and Hepatitis G - Herpes 6, 7, 8 and Herpes Simplex 1 and 2 as well as the non-viral STD's such as chlamydia, syphilis and gonorrhea.

Does this mean that anyone who is positive for these viruses will be prosecuted, even if they are not HIV-positive? CMV and EBV are very common in the American population. Anyone who has ever had "mono" would probably test positive for EBV. Does this mean that anyone with an EBV infection can be deemed guilty? And EBV and HHV6A are spread by kissing. Are we going to criminalize kisses, too?

It is the responsibility of Virginia lawmakers to become intimately involved with new and evolving scientific documentation before passing criminal laws that will surely come under scientific attack.

More and more people everyday are living with HIV -- not just for days or weeks, but years. At the same time, diseases commonly associated with AIDS, such as Kaposi's Sarcoma, are being found in people who have no trace of HIV. Surprising? Perhaps not.

This has led to some serious re-evaluation of AIDS and its factors and co-factors, an action that would seem to have been acknowledged by the architects of House Bill No. 141 when they attempted to craft a "catch-all" definition of HIV.

But such a definition won't wash. Such a law would constitute no less than a sexual "witch hunt," as well as an unholy alliance of bad science and bad law. The Commonwealth of Virginia already has laws on the books regarding sexual conduct and consent; so House Bill No. 141 is redundant at best.