It's just a poorly-written but well-intended bill. It allows the state government to set up quarantines for people infected with dangerous infectious diseases. The problem is they aren't differentiating between the ebola virus and something like HIV/AIDS. It would be perfectly fine if they listed specific exclusions for diseases like HIV/AIDS, but they don't want to bother being precise.
Why use a scalpel when you could use a chainsaw?
The problem,
if there is one at all, is that some people are claiming the broad language, such as "dangerous infectious disease" could, at some point or in some place be defined to include those with HIV/AIDS despite NO ONE accepting HIV/AIDS as a "dangerous infectious disease."
So some people want to drop in language that specifically prevents people from using this legislation for HIV/AIDS cases.
Just in case someone stupid decided to define HIV/AIDS as dangerously infectious.
The bill isn't bad. I don't think the amendment is necessary because if someone were to do that they'd be taken to court, and I'm not a big fan of adding in loopholes and exclusions when the medical and scientific community are in agreement with the classification of most diseases.
But someone is really, really, really worried that this bill will allow someone to set up a concentration camp the instant it's signed, and so they write a stupid headline that completely mischaracterizes the bill and situation, and demands that the bill be filled with exclusions "just in case."
Storms in teacups, mountains out of molehills, etc, etc.
