It's debatable. On the one hand, yes the most common case that the law applied to was "has HIV but virus loads are undetectable and thus risk of infection is no

It's debatable. On the one hand, yes the most common case that the law applied to was "has HIV but virus loads are undetectable and thus risk of infection is nonexistent". On the other, removing that law means that someone who's off their meds with the intention of infecting others is now only guilty of a misdemeanor. Personally, I'm still not sure how that doesn't count as rape by deception, but whatever. In any case, I brought it up to compare to pandemic mask mandates. A "gay sex condom mandate" 30 or 40 years ago would have been incredibly effective at containing HIV (assuming it was actually followed), and HIV was at the time FAR more deadly than COVID-19. The fact that people consider one acceptable and one unthinkable is IMO interesting.