Tim Scott: “If the gentleman would think back to what I had said, if the person is innocent of the charge and can prove it, then I…”

“If the gentleman would think back to what I had said, if the person is innocent of the charge and can prove it, then I see no compelling interest to expose the fact that they have AIDS. If they are in fact guilty, then the fact that they might have an opportunity to be heard would not slow things down one iota. Mr. Speaker, basically if the other side had offered us 24 hours, even, to discuss the bill, I think it could have been done in the same form that Virginia did it, that gives an expedited opportunity to be heard and a right to be tested so everyone's rights are protected. This provides no such rights. If someone has AIDS and wants to keep that information private, they have essentially, under this bill, no opportunity to do it because that information would be part of a public trial. Then, after the fact that they have AIDS has been made public, then they get to present their evidence showing that they were 300 miles away and could not have possibly been the one who is accused of the crime. Mr. Speaker, this requires testing even though there is no risk of becoming infected. There is no confidentiality of the information. It is spread to a minimum of six, possibly dozens of others, even possibly more. It says attorneys for the victim, attorneys for the defendant, and that could be an entire law firm. There is no telling how many people would get the information. None of them are physicians. This bill should have gone through committee.…”