Despite pressure, ban on gay blood donors endures

Associated Press ^ | Sep 15, 2013 11:25 AM EDT | David Crary

[Olog-hai]

The U.S. gay rights movement has achieved many victories in recent years—on marriage, military service and other fronts. Yet one vestige of an earlier, more wary era remains firmly in place: the 30-year-old nationwide ban on blood donations by gay and bisexual men.

Dating from the first years of the AIDS epidemic, the ban is a source of frustration to many gay activists, and also to many leading players in the nation’s health and blood-supply community who have joined in calling for change.

In June, the American Medical Association voted to oppose the policy. AMA board member William Kobler called it “discriminatory and not based on sound science.” Last month, more than 80 members of Congress wrote to the Department of Health and Human Services, criticizing the lifetime ban as an outdated measure that perpetuates inaccurate stereotypes about gay men. …

[svcw]

As it should

[Berlin_Freeper]

The homosexuals will leave no stone unturned until you have to hide in a closet for being a heterosexual.

[Diana in Wisconsin]

Good. Freaks.

[grobdriver]

As it should

Damn right.
The queers can kill each other all they want - but they're not putting their time bomb into normal people.

[struggle]

I don’t understand why gays refuse to see this problem in their own community.

[TwelveOfTwenty]

I don’t understand why gays refuse to see this problem in their own community.

They don't see it as a problem. Google or Bing "bug chasing gift giving".

And according to the left, we're bigots for refusing to accept this behavior as normal.

[dhs12345]

Because people are afraid to tell them that their lifestyle is risky. Because that would be homophobic. The backlash has been extreme to the point it puts lives a risk.

Bottom line: thousands of partners will increase your chances of getting STDs dramatically. Very simple.

Also, quarantining is out of the question too. The quickest method of stopping the spread of life threatening STDs. An infected person can knowingly infect others.

[SendShaqtoIraq]

Problem is they’ll just start lying when answering the questions

[Second Amendment First]

I have no problem with gays donating blood.
Simply label it as “Gay Blood” and let the marketplace decide what to choose.
It would be interesting to see what the libs would choose if they really believed in “choice”.

[dhs12345]

Of course.

Wonder if a large number of gays are selfish. The gays who are vocal are militant and WILL NOT BE TOLD HOW TO LIVE and, if they do indeed have AIDS, are murderers. Murderers of the other gays who they infect and innocents who use blood products.

And the general gay community are enablers of these murderers if they insist on allowing risky people to provide blood. There are individuals who could be singled out if a person dies from an infection from a blood product that was a result of their instance on allowing risky people to provide blood.

[gop4lyf]

It’s a shame AIDS didn’t work faster. Maybe homosexuals would have learned to be a lot less promiscuous, and a lot less people would have died from it.

[JamesA]

I’ve given nearly 14 gallons of blood over the years but I will stop immediately if homos are ok’d to give blood.

[Cowgirl of Justice]

Let them donate to each other.

Their problems and protests will solve themselves.

[5th MEB]

To hell with that Gay Blood crap; call it what it is, QUEER BLOOD, HOMO BLOOD, FAGGOT BLOOD, AIDS BLOOD.
The word GAY does not mean QUEER or HOMOSEXUAL.
Look it up in a legitimate dictionary; a dictionary printed before the 60’s and 70’s PC crap took over the publishing industry.
GAY means HAPPY, EXCITED,, KEENLY ALIVE, EXUBERANT, HIGH SPIRITS.
Now tell me; how many homos match that description, especially the queers with AIDS.
If you let them control the language, they control the debate and fabricate their own truth.

[Viennacon]

This is where the agenda is very clear. What does not allowing someone to donate blood take away from them?

These people ACTIVELY want to give diseased blood.

[5th MEB]

I stopped donating in the early 80’s. I asked one of the Red Cross nurses how they confirmed the answers on the donation forms and was told; “We don't confirm them, That Would Be An Invasion Of Privacy, We Expect People To Tell The Truth”.
To bad, I've got good quality product and a lot of people could have used it.
Now if I donate; it is for a specific person, at a specific time.

[Dubh_Ghlase]

I have been a blood donor (very sought after blood type) for over 30 years (lost track after 100 donations). The day gays can donate is the day I start stockpiling my blood for me and my family...only.

[twyn1]

I’ve never understood this push to allow donations from homosexuals. The reason for the ban is based on medical fact. My entire family is no longer allowed to give blood because we lived in Europe during the “mad cow” outbreaks. Even though we are all healthy and were at extremely small risk of exposure, we are still forbidden. That’s the way it is, and I am fine with it; even a miniscule risk of passing something along isn’t worth it.

[Gay State Conservative]

I've only been in a position where I might need blood once...when I had my hip replaced a few years back.The surgeon said that I'd probably need blood during and/or after the surgery and *strongly* encouraged me to store my own blood in advance to get it back,which I did.Of course one can't always know in advance when he/she will need blood.