A Clinton-appointed federal judge has ruled that the U.S. military cannot bar HIV-positive individuals from enlisting if they've temporarily rendered their viral loads undetectable through the use of costly antiretroviral drugs, which usually require daily use.

Judge Leonie Brikema of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia previously handled two consequential cases in which she ruled against certain military service restrictions on HIV-compromised individuals — persons who if left unmedicated could possibly succumb to opportunistic infections and/or infect their comrades.

Citing her own opinions in those cases, Brikema asserted in her Aug. 20 ruling that the Pentagon's "policies prohibiting the accession of asymptomatic HIV-positive individuals with undetectable viral loads into the military are irrational, arbitrary, and capricious."

"Even worse, they contribute to the ongoing stigma surrounding HIV-positive individuals while actively hampering the military's own recruitment goals," continued Brikema.

'HIV is an infectious, incurable, bloodborne disease with several possible ways in which the disease could be transmitted to other service members.'

The lawsuit that precipitated Brikema's ruling was brought on behalf of three HIV-positive individuals and a leftist advocacy group.

The first, Isaiah Wilkins, is an HIV-positive 24-year-old homosexual who receives HIV-related health care from the VA Medical Center in Atlanta, Georgia. He has to take pills to suppress his viral load. Wilkins seeks to enlist in the Army.

According to a 2023 Congressional Research report, the Pentagon's Armed Forces Health Surveillance Division estimated that between January 2017 and June 2022, 1,581 service members were newly diagnosed with HIV.

The second plaintiff is Carol Coe, a 33-year-old transvestite living in Washington, D.C. He contracted HIV while serving in the military, then left the military in 2013 to get a sex change. Coe attempted to re-enlist in 2022 but was unsuccessful on account of his infectious disorder.

The third plaintiff is Natalie Noe, an Australian now living as a permanent resident in California. She was similarly told that her HIV positivity was a negative where recruiters were concerned. To manage her HIV, Noe takes pills daily and is injected with an antiretroviral therapeutic every three to six months.

The trio were joined in their action by Minority Veterans of America — a leftist advocacy group committed to "social and structural change" that has worked to guarantee access to "abortion and contraception, and gender confirmation surgery through VA for veterans."

'We are pleased the court has eliminated the last discriminatory policy that barred people living with HIV from seeking enlistment or appointment to the military.'

The suit was filed against the Department of Defense in November 2022.

According to the original complaint, medical advances in HIV treatments "should have led to an overhaul of military policies related to people living with HIV. Instead, the Department of Defense and the Army — and all military departments — have maintained the bar to enlistment and appointment of people living with HIV."

The suit claimed that policies barring HIV-positive prospects from enlisting violated the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause and the Administrative Procedure Act.

Court documents indicate that the Pentagon argued that:

the military's HIV policies are rationally related to promoting the health and readiness of the armed forces. For example, defendants continue to argue that asymptomatic HIV-positive individuals with undetectable viral loads may not take their daily medications properly, which would result in their viral loads rising; that HIV is an infectious, incurable, bloodborne disease with several possible ways in which the disease could be transmitted to other service members, such as through battlefield blood spatter or transfusions; and that HIV is associated with various comorbidities and side effects that could harm a service member's health.

The Pentagon further suggested that:

the science is clear about the meaningful risk of infection that comes with blood-to-blood transmission "even for individuals with an undetectable viral load";
restrictions on HIV-positive enlistees is "rationally related to the goal of ensuring that safe blood supplies are available for use in combat medical care";
"'deployment may make it more likely that' HIV-positive individuals 'could experience viral rebound' due to the 'increase[d] ... risk that [they] will not maintain strict adherence to their' HIV medications";
"recruiting HIV-compromised individuals would impose disproportionately higher financial costs on the military compared to individuals without HIV," given antiretroviral therapy costs between $1,800 and $4,500 monthly; and that
it is rational to preclude incurable disease-compromised persons from joining to "ensur[e] a healthy military."

Brikema, evidently unpersuaded by these arguments, has enjoined the Pentagon from barring HIV-compromised individuals with undetectable viral loads from joining the military.

"We are pleased the court has eliminated the last discriminatory policy that barred people living with HIV from seeking enlistment or appointment to the military," stated Gregory Nevons, senior counsel for Lambda Legal, an outfit that helped file the case. "Americans living with HIV no longer face categorical barriers to service careers — discharge, bans on commissioning, bans on deployment and finally bans on enlisting."

"This is a victory not only for me but for other people living with HIV who want to serve," said plaintiff Isaiah Wilkins.

The Military Times indicated that the Pentagon declined to comment on the ruling.

While HIV-compromised candidates have been given the green light to enlist, the Pentagon still has prohibitions on the recruitment or retention of persons with certain maladies, such as Crohn's disease, kidney abnormalities, asthma, anemia, gout, rheumatoid arthritis, various sleep disorders, and excessive sweating.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

German judge lets 8 men who gang-raped girl walk free

A German court delivered its verdict Tuesday concerning those responsible for the barbaric September 2020 gang-rape of a 15-year-old German girl in the northern city of Hamburg.

Of the eleven men initially charged in relation to the gang-rape of the minor — only four of whom were technically German — two were acquitted. Nine were found guilty. Eight got probation, not exceeding two years. Only one is headed to prison.

There has been significant backlash following the release of eight convicted rapists, prompting officials to condemn critiques of the judgment, particularly those of an "anti-migrant" nature.

What's the background?

Spiegel reported that the victim attended a party on the festival lawn in Hamburg's over 350-acre city park on Sept. 19, 2020. Four of the men dragged the girl, then intoxicated, into a bush and raped her. One of the rapists added insult to grievous injury and stole her phone and wallet.

Two other men then joined in, raping the victim.

After the initial series of attacks, the victim reportedly began stumbling away, right into the arms of yet another rapist from the pack. The rapist who intercepted her near the festival meadow was then joined by three additional rapists, who are suspected to have all similarly sexually assaulted the victim. Owing to the uncertainty about whether the final three all raped the victim, one rapist was acquitted.

The brutal gang rape lasted nearly three hours.

According to German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung, after her violent dehumanization, the victim managed to get onto a train. However, her aggressors, understanding that she was traveling alone, followed her. Fortunately, she fled to a group of people who "recognized her condition and called the police."

DNA evidenced implicated nine of the rapists. There was also video evidence, but Spiegel indicated that the footage was "irretrievably deleted shortly after the crime" such that neither investigators nor the court could confirm what genetic evidence made abundantly clear.

An eleventh defendant charged with aiding and abetting and filming the rape was acquitted earlier this year.

While four of the rapists were allegedly of German nationality, another four reportedly had Afghan, Kuwaiti, Armenian, and Montenegrin nationalities. The Morgenpost Verlag GmbH indicated one was born in Iran, another in Libya, and a third in Egypt. The court has not indicated the nationality of two of the rapists.

Trial

Although the rapists were ages 17 to 21 at the time of the horrific crime, they were tried in a youth court. The trial, where the court prohibited media coverage, began in May 2022 and lasted 68 days.

Ninety-six witnesses and several experts ultimately gave testimony.

Among the so-called expert witnesses was psychiatrist Nahlah Saimeh. Saimeh intimated that the gang rape may have been a means to let off some of the "frustration" that supposedly comes with "migration experiences and socio-cultural homelnessness."

Saimeh said rapists "who live on the margins of society, completely uprooted culturally, linguistically and socially" might face a "mix of emotions of anger, sadness, powerlessness, depression, fantasies of grandeur as a compensation attempt to cope with one's own misery, and drug use."

"Disordered, unprepared migration experiences and socio-cultural homelessness increase the risk of addiction and psychosis," said the so-called expert. Sex, she continued, could serve as a "means of releasing frustration and anger."

The psychiatrist further suggested that gang rape fosters identity and strengthens group feeling.

The rapists' lawyers called for acquittals, suggesting that the traces of their semen on the victim's clothing did not prove the sex was forced.

While presiding Judge Anne Meier-Goering acknowledged that "none of the defendants uttered a word of regret" during the trial, she nevertheless sentenced eight of the rapists to probation, of no more than two years.

Only one rapist, a 19-year-old, received prison time. He was sentenced to two years and nine months in prison without parole.

Matthias Jahn from the Goethe University Frankfurt told ZDFHeute that the court took into account the fact that none of the rapists had previously been sentenced to a youth prison or had been convicted of sexual offenses.

The court's decision can still be appealed.

Apparently Germany has previously been willing to lock up gang rapists. Ten migrants — eight Syrians, an Iraqi, and a Algerian who similarly said their victim had consented — were sentenced to prison in July 2020 for gang-raping an 18-year-old woman in Freiburg. The maximum prison sentence dished out was five years and six months.

Backlash

Spiegel indicated that those involved in the trial have been subjected to overwhelming criticism and hostilities since the rapists were set free.

"We are observing the hostility in connection with the proceedings and the verdict with great concern," said Kai Wantzen, a spokesman for the court.

Wantzen suggested that the hateful messages targeting Meier-Goering and others have both crossed the line into criminal offenses and "reached a new, worrying level in terms of intensity and mass."

The Hamburg Judges Association noted it was concerned over the "unbearable agitation against a colleague who had fulfilled the task assigned to her under the Basic Law in this difficult case."

Heike Hummelmeier, chairwoman of the association, said, "The calls for violence against the judge – which also have an anti-migrant background – are completely unbearable."

Arne Timmermann, a criminal defense attorney on the board of the Hamburg Working Group for Criminal Defense Lawyers, suggested that in the case of outrage over Saimeh's controversial remarks to Spiegel, she was being taken out of context.

"The psychiatrist creates a general profile of perpetrators (perpetrators who live on the fringes of society, completely uprooted culturally, linguistically and socially) and argues with racist stereotypes," said Timmermann. "The reader gets confirmation of what he always thought about 'gang rapists.'"

While the perception that Saimeh meant to write off gang rape as an opportunity to vent migrant frustrations generated outrage, it did not seem to register nearly as much anger as the court's decision to set the rapists free.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Chaos ensues after airline passenger forces open plane door mid-flight: 'I thought the plane was going to explode'

A passenger aboard an Asiana Airlines flight from Jeju Island to the South Korean city of Daegu was apparently in a rush to deplane, opening the door just minutes before landing.

A 33-year-old male seated next to an emergency exit reportedly forced open the door on an Airbus A321-200, which was carrying 194 souls including 48 primary and middle school children on their way to a sporting event.

When the door was opened, the plane was roughly 700 feet off the ground and traveling about 170 mph, reported Reuters.

Baek Hyunwoo, a spokesman for the airline, indicated the feat would normally be impossible owing to the difference in air pressure inside and outside the cabin; however, at the lower altitude, there was only a slight difference in air pressure.

Since the plane was descending, the flight attendants were reportedly buckled up and seated too far away to make a swift intervention.

Footage of the incident taken by another passenger shows strapped-down passengers holding on for dear life, with daylight and powerful gusts flooding the cabin.

\u201cMan arrested after opening door as plane prepared to land in South Korea, 9 people taken to hospital - Yonhap\u201d
— BNO News (@BNO News) 1685087257

Another video of the incident shows the plane door ajar and various garments flapping in the wind.

\u201cDoor of Asiana Airlines plane opens in mid-air just before landing in South Korea; 9 people taken to hospital with breathing difficulties\u201d
— BNO News (@BNO News) 1685080680

According to Sky News, some passengers suffered extreme ear pain after the door was opened.

One 44-year-old passenger told the Yonhap News Agency, "I thought the plane was going to explode. ... It looked like passengers next to the open door were fainting."

The mother of one of the schoolchildren aboard the plane said, "The children were shaking, crying, and frightened. Those sitting near the exit must have been shocked the most."

Despite the open door, the plane managed to land safely. There were no casualties.

Twelve people, all but one of whom were between the ages of 11 and 16, reportedly hyperventilated. Nine were taken to a hospital.

Kim Hyeong-su, an officer in the criminal affairs division of the Daegu Dongbu Police Station, indicated the man accused of opening the door could face charges of violating aviation security laws, reported the New York Times.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!