Skip to comments.Gay men should be able to donate blood, students say College group pressures Red Cross
Posted on 07/13/2005 4:05:47 AM PDT by Dane
Gay men should be able to donate blood, students say College group pressures Red Cross
By STEVEN BODZIN Los Angeles Times July 11. 2005 8:06AM
WASHINGTON - For more than a decade, gay rights advocates have grumbled about a federal policy that forbids blood donation by men who have had sex with men.
They say that the policy, originally intended to keep HIV-positive blood from entering the nation's blood supply, implies gay men are inherently sick and that it prevents healthy people from donating.
Occasional protests and talks with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which oversees blood banks, have brought no change.
Now, some college students have taken up the cause, and they're taking a new tack. Instead of pressuring the FDA directly, they are going after the American Red Cross - the largest and highest-profile blood collector in the country.
Unlike America's Blood Centers, which represents the non-Red Cross blood banks that collect most of the nation's blood, the Red Cross publicly supports the policy. Activists say that if they can get the Red Cross to change its stance, the FDA will follow.
While many gay rights advocates have treated the blood ban as a low priority, college groups have begun to take on the issue. They argue that, although safe blood supplies are essential, this particular policy is outdated, ineffective and homophobic.
(Excerpt) Read more at concordmonitor.com ...
Gay men should be allowed to donate blood- to progressive college students.
Well, they are sick.
Perverted, disgusting, mentally ill and usually physically ill.
No, I don't believe I want their blood.
Sue me for my intolerance, but I'd prefer not to have to worry about all the diseases that soddomites are prone to have as a result of their disgusting life styles.
You are correct.
But keep in mind how easy it is for flaming homosexuals to lie about it and give blood.
"IMA Gay American" McGreevy lied about it when he gave blood as governor. And nobody cared.
"......implies gay men are inherently sick....."
Well, duh. And of course it's a low priority to the groups. In order to argue against the ban they would have to deny studies that show the higher disease rates in the gay community. Sure, lets put everyone at greater risk of receiving tainted blood in order to be PC and not thought of as "homophobic". This little battle will be going nowhere folks.
I gotta think McGreevy used the confidential opt-out to prevent the use of his blood for transfusions. The New Jersey Blood Center, where I donate, gives you three opportunities to confidentially keep your blood from the blood supply, through the use of an unreadable bar code sticker, through a confidential verbal statement to the interviewer, or through an anonymous phone call after the fact. I am quite confident the Governor used one of these three.
More insane rantings from the Left, A.K.A. Death-wish Society.
Easy solution. Set up a private blood bank. By homos for homos.
What a great idea. I think I will buy a freezer.
aside, I think we should organize and promote a "National Going Back in the Closet Day."
Better yet, make it international.
disclaimer: I don't hate homosexuals. But I think the homosexual agenda, well...sucks.
More evidence of the culture of death folks.
And since gay men are from the group with highest infection rates and HIV does not test positive for some tiome after infection, these students essentially want the blood supply system in the U.S. destroyed. Either that, or they are looking for a propaganda victory by increasing HIV in the heterosexual population via tainted blood. These college students sicken me.
Maybe that is their strategic goal - eliminate the statistic that shows that the population of gay men has the highest infection rate. It is a homophobic statistic and can be used to justify profiling against homosexuals. That does not fit the PC agenda, or the gay rights agenda, therefore must be done away with.
The Red Cross says the possibility of getting HIV through a blood transfusion is 1 in 1.5 million. I'm not sure if they're saying 1 in 1.5 million transfused units have HIV, or if some other factor (dirty needle) transmits the HIV.
Allowing gays to openly donate blood would skew the odds somewhat, but I suspect that the benefits would outweigh the costs. I am always receiving unsolicited mail from the Red Cross about urgent shortfalls in our blood supply, but I've never received unsolicited news about HIV in the blood supply (or vCJD, for that matter -- I think the British Beef Ban is bull).
What a bunch of morons. I give blood 4 or 5 times a year. It's thanks to them that the screening process now takes about 3 times as long as it used to. Over the past 40 years I've given probably 8 or 10 gallons of blood. If they let the queers started donating just like normal people they'll get no more from me. That's the one donation I will make to the Red Cross because they sure aren't going to get any of my money.
*****The notion that anybody would want to knowingly donate blood for transfusion that may be tainted is such a ridiculous notion one would have to be an intellectual to believe it.*******
There are several cases on record where men and women who have contracted AIDS have been known to go out and practice unsafe sex as payback for their own having contracted it.
Many people with Aids have sex without informing their partner . Is there a difference between this and giving blood?
I would say these people would knowingly and gladly give blood for the same reason.
I am happy your friends wouldnt , but there are some strange people out there.
Soon we'll all go autologous....or maybe I'll go into the blood boutique business to sell "safe" stuff. Franchise anyone?
"Maybe that is their strategic goal "
Could well be doc30. After all they failed miserably in their attempt to convince us that AID's would sweep through the hetero community.
Actually, they want to spread AIDS among the population of non-gay men. If cute suburban children are dying from AIDS, then they think that we will drastically mobilize resources to cure this otherwise homosexual disease.
AIDS queers want to infect our children, not just indoctrinate them.
Homosexuals also have much higher incidences of gongherrea and syphilis.
It's just a fact that their "lifestyle"(deathstyle) is much unhealthier and that their blood is going to be filled with many more pathogens, than a heterosexual male or female.
Now, let's get these morons registered on a Federal list
AND have them give blood to each other.
Four or five years and viola the epidemic is under control....'cause the carriers will be room temperature!
Why on Earth would you suspect that? That's about the silliest thing I have ever heard!
If you can screen out a deadly disease, why not screen it out? Blood banks are dependent on donations, so they are always promoting donations, but I don't think anybody is dying from a lack of blood in the blood banks. However, if AIDS is introduced into the blood supply, a lot of people will die.
I don't wish to stigmitize anybody, but public health is important. I think confidential opt outs are the way to go. If somebody with risk factors wants to donate blood, that's fine. But nobody has the right to put their blood into somebody else's body, particularly if it has an increased risk of bearing a deadly disease.
I think the difference between someone who intentionally transmits AIDS through unprotected sex and someone tho donates infected blood is the difference between the person who kills his lover and the Texas University Tower sniper. Sure there are people who kill indiscriminately, but they are rare. It is far more common for people to kill those they know. And it is the extremely rare individual who wants to kill completely randomly and anonymously, without really knowing if he kills or not. I am sure such people exist, but there can not many of them.
Lots of people who are having promiscuous sex have self-hate issues. These people can be dangerous to themselves and those around them. But nobody really gets off on blood donations, at least not in my experience.
well, next thing you know, all IV drug users who share dirty needles will be demanding that they be able to give blood. Not allowing them to give blood is addictophobic, and that is wrong. And them people with hepatitis C will be demanding to be allowed to donate blood. To do otherwise will be hepatitophobic. And that is just wrong. What the heck, lets just drop all screening and let anyone, regardless of their health give blood. Then we will have all the blood we will need. Because after a few short years, so many will die, that the demand for blood products will go down. Or, more likely, because no one will have faith in the blood supply, no one will allow themselves to be given blood products, and thus we will have an ample supply. Yeah, that's the answer.
PING to you, LJ
"...and they received on themselves the due penalty for their perversion." Romans 1:27b
If I may be so bold as to ask this important question:
It is obvious that a majority on this thread believe that the sodomites are statistically more likely to be carriers of deadly diseases, correct?
Then why on earth are we not calling for a quarrantine?
Seriously, if this were any other group, the public would be in outrage. Remember the dastardly meningitis scare or e-coli pandemonium of a few years ago? The public was flipping out, tripping over themselves to secure the possible carriers of those diseases. What happens each time there's an outbreak of Mad Cow? Panic. Boycotts. Public health warnings, etc.
Yet, despite the fact that fewer Americans die each year of Mad Cow, Meningitis, or e-coli than homo-infected AIDS (44% of all new cases come from them) - no one is willing to "call a spade a spade" and label these people for the walking bio-hazards that they are. C'mon - a 300% increase in Syphillis since 2001? This is a borderline epidemic.
Most of you have said (on the forum, under a condition of anonymity) how you feel about the tainted blood of the sodomites, how unsafe and dangerous it is. What's stopping us from saying it in public?
The Politically Correct blinders need to come off here, and the Truth needs to start being told as much and as soon as possible.
"Now, some college students have taken up the cause, and they're taking a new tack. Instead of pressuring the FDA directly, they are going after the American Red Cross - the largest and highest-profile blood collector in the country."
The Red Cross won't budge on this one. There are billions of dollars on the line in blood related products. When people feel that the blood is 100% unsafe there will be a mass screaming for alternatives to the GaySatan damaged blood system.
"More evidence of the culture of death, folks"
When we step off of the 'straight & narrow" (ignore transcendant disciplines aka Ten Commandments) the Law of Consequences kicks in.
If we stubbornly refuse to mend our ways, the Law of Decay sets in....and that includes the decay of reason. Considering that millions of Americans have turned their backs on the 'straight and narrow" it comes as no surprise that insanity flows through America like a river of sludge.
And let gay men donate amongst themselves. I have no problem with that.
This person told me that one of the main reasons that large amounts of infected blood was allowed to be used in transfusions was an unwillingness, on the part of the Canadian Red Cross, to question a donors sexual preference. My friend described it as a "mind set."
So true, LK. We aren't slouching toward Gomorrah....we're in an full-out sprint.
Gays faced with new STD strains (Miami Herald), FreeRepublic
'New AIDS' spreading among homosexual men (WorldNetDaily), FreeRepublic
Rare sexually transmitted disease reported in Boston (Boston Herald)
Syphilis on the rise with gays (Greenwich Time), FreeRepublic
The African heterosexual AIDS myth (TownHall), FreeRepublic
Party, Play.And Pay (Newsweek), FreeRepublic
HIV 'supervirus' is a warning to all (Sydney Morning Herald), FreeRepublic
S.D. man could have aggressive HIV strain (San Diego), FreeRepublic
All The Condoms In The World (Christian Undergound), FreeRepublic
Criminalizing The Transmission Of The AIDS Virus (FreeRepublic)
HIV harbinger (Original Source Not Available)
Gays Debate Radical Steps to Curb Unsafe Sex (New York Times), FreeRepublic
2 new patients may hold clues to potent HIV Strains analyzed for possible links to N.Y. man's virus (San Francisco Chronicle), FreeRepublic
Rare and Aggressive H.I.V. Reported in New York (New York Times), FreeRepublic
New resistant strain of HIV diagnosed in New Yorker (Crains), FreeRepublic
Homosexual Males Award Us Again (Christian Underground), FreeRepublic
Rare sex disease strikes in New York (Original Source Not Available)
Some gays yearn for infection (PJ Star), FreeRepublic
Erasure star admits he wanted to be diagnosed with HIV (Female First (UK)), FreeRepublic
I have a brother who had cancer and they wont let him give blood either, although I dont think there is any case or record of anyone having gotten cancer from a transfusion.
one way or another, the pc liberals are going to find a way to destroy America.
I had elective surgery some time ago and made my own blood bank in case it was necessary.
They want to contaminate it freely. This is really an effort to legalize bioterror. I will bet there are some who purposely attempt to poison the blood supply...
The reason the odds are so low for getting aids from the blood supply now is because queers are not allowed to donate blood, if they are allowed to do this the odds will jump considerably. If you wish to take transfusions from someone who quite possible has aids then, please, go right ahead, just don't ask the rest of us to take the same risk!
Exactly! I hope I never need blood,but if I do I would rather get it from my dog than a gay giver.
Gee, that's comforting.
Isn't there a pretty lengthy (6 months?) period of time where a person can be HIV positive but the tests will show up negative?
This is why the ban is necessary.
Also, donating blood is a privilege, not a right.
If they're infected, bygod you will be too.
Typical lib MO - make everyone else as miserable as you are.
Frankly, I just don't get it. There is no reward for having your blood transfused into another person. Some blood banks pay for blood, but you can still get that money and opt out from having the blood transfused, so even the financial incentive doesn't apply.
The only reason I can see for a high-risk person wanting his blood transfused is because he wants the medical authorities to "validate" his decision to engage in high-risk activity. As long as that question is asked of blood donors, it raises the unpleasant fact that certain sexual activity involves increased risk. But that is not the fault of the question. That's just reality.
De' Nile is not just a river in Egypt.
I know a gay man who openly stated in a sizable discussion group that he would not want to know if he had HIV!