. . . just sayin'.
Posted on 06/13/2010 7:24:51 AM PDT by Malone LaVeigh
Since 1985 federal rules say that a man who had sex with another man even once since 1977 is banned permanently from donating blood. Yet there's only a one-year ban for a man who has had sex with an HIV-positive woman.
The policy was re-examined last week in Washington, D.C., at a meeting of an advisory panel of the Department of Health and Human Services. A change would significantly increase the pool of donors and could boost blood donations nationwide.
"By clinging to a 1980s view of the world, we are perpetuating a stereotype," said Quigley (D-Chicago).
(Excerpt) Read more at suntimes.com ...
IIRC, a significant number of gay men engage in an ongoing series of high risk encounters. So where does the 1 year ban begin or end?
Let these brave newspaper men be the first to receive donated blood from the high risk population...
I say, let’s accept blood from gays...that is what we give to democrats...
Can I open a homo-free blood bank for hospital patients that want to live long term?
I also seem to recall a number of HIV positive men declaring that they would try to spread the infection to the straight community by any route available.
...gay men are an infectious community...they should be forbidden from donating blood...or...the blood should be labeled “gay donated” and let the patient have the choice.
PC trumping common sense.
If it was only about a well defined pathigen known as HIV, they might have a bit of a point.
But the facts are that the homosexual lifestyle can expose participants to new, and yet to be isolated, bugs that shouldn’t be brought to the general population.
When aids first became popular in the 80s, an elderly physician told me that during his entire career, homosexual men in the prime of life would sometimes get very seriously and mysteriously ill for unknown causes and usually pass on in quick order.
The current rules make good sense.
Fine then ban both.
A change would significantly increase the pool of donors and could boost blood donations nationwide.
Baloney. Gay men simply do not make up that much of the population. A reversal of the ban would no increase the pool of donors.
The Democraps already have been infused with homosexual blood!
That’s why they’re liberal, Progressive pansies.
and I say start at the top.
I’ve been banned because I was stationed at Sigonella, Sicily in the early ‘90s; something to do with mad cow disease in Britain.
“Ban on gay men giving blood called outdated”
Anyone who believes that should only be given transfusions from gay mens’ blood. This should go for their children and grandchildren as well.
Yes, how utterly closed were the minds of men from the 1980s. Why, those cromagnons didn't even believe that homosexual perverts should have the right to marry, or to spread AIDS. Now government has become so enlightened they're allowing Americans to have the tainted blood of these homosexual deviates transfused into our veins. Oh the clarity of modern man. Oh the gift of liberalism. I just can't wait to see what the truly enlightened days of 2020 will look like, (if there is a 2020).
“Significant”?
I think not.
Numbers were always a problem for leftists.
Serving abroad in Europe also prevents you from donating blood. Funny, you don’t hear us whining about “the right” to put the generaal population at risk for “Mad Cow.”
Why is the symbolism of this so important to gays? I don’t get it... they might need blood someday, too.
Homo blood?
No, I’m good - thanks
But, I’ve chopped off your arm!!!
Did not!!
More "Obamacare" nonsense? Thin out the herd before they become an encumbrance on the system? A little infected blood here and there and WAMMO - less seniors to care for!
I’m banned too because of mad cow disease in Britain.
To start with, saving your own blood for a future transfusion, usually for cosmetic or planned surgery, like hip replacement, is called an “autologous donation”. To assist in this, there are injections that will stimulate your production of red blood cells, reducing the time involved. This is also important, as blood donations have a time limit for freshness.
Among the diseases and other problems that can be transmitted via transfusion are viral, bacterial, cancers, parasites, toxic chemicals and metals, poisons, and toxins.
A lot of research is being put into blood substitutes and what are called “oxygen therapeutics”, that actually carry oxygen better than the hemoglobin in red blood cells. Some of these had made it to phase III trials, so might be available in just a few years.
Giving ‘gay’ blood to a conservative = giving Superman a cryptonite jockstrap.
I’ve been banned because I was stationed at Sigonella, Sicily in the early ‘90s; something to do with mad cow disease in Britain.
I’m for everyone having freedom and respect under the law. That’s said, I have a right to know that any blood I might receive by transfusion is not from a demographic that has a significantly higher risk of being infected with many communicable diseases, not just HIV. This is absolutely ludicrous.
Sorry. I’m both. Remember not all of ‘us’ are the same. I’m in full support of upholding the ban.
My thoughts too - this time in history is like an awful nightmare that you just can;t wake up form. November or die !
. . . just sayin'.
Having listened to a homo describe his lifestyle, I can honestly say I have no desire to be injected with Fruit Juice, infected or not.
Personally I've never been a part of any organized protest by possible BSE carriers and have simply not donated. Reasonable people might conclude that if there is any risk at all of passing on something fatal with their blood maybe they just shouldn't donate.
This should be cause to hold government employees and lobbyists personally and criminally libel should this be instituted. We have a history where hemophiliacs died by the tens of thousands because of tainted blood.
So now it’s more important to assuage the fragile self esteem of homosexuals than it is to protect the innocent public.
Stop the world, I want off.
We are witnessing the classic liberal attempt to swerve in the WRONG DIRECTION to be "fair".
You are correct, ban both...
Very good idea ;-)
I donate platelets monthly at my local blood center. On every visit I have to go through a checklist of things that would prevent me donating.
If I've ever had malaria.
If I've had a tattoo or body piercing.
If I've ever taken intravenous drugs.
If I've ever spent more than 72 hours in jail (???).
If I've ever had sex with someone from Africa.
The list goes on and on. I'm sure there's a legitimate reason for all these exclusions, and many of them probably pose a lower level of risk.
Go autologous before elective surgery. Pray hard for protection in emergency requirements.
You left out Kagan.
This is an incredibly stupid idea.
While it is true the blood banks are already screening donated blood for HIV/AIDS, why increase the risk so the faggots can feel more “normal.” They aren’t, never have been, never will be. Sad fact of life.
Seeing as how many gay men carry many not so nice dieases I think the ban should remain in place. AFAIK there is a several month period from exposure to HIV and it showing up in a test and for that one reason alone the ban should stay.
barry must want to donate....
Screening people for their ability to repay a mortgage or probability of transmitting a chronic disease in their blood is bigoted, don't you know?
Yes, and it made it into the news for about 57 minutes and then it disappeared into the democrat scandal hole...
These leftists tried in vain to tell us that AIDS was a disease of both men and women.
Sorry, but AIDS is primarily a GAY MANS disease! You queers can keep your Bath House, HIV, disease infested blood!
Politcal Correctness Kills!
Common sense is “outdated?”
My....oh my....
Fairness. One of the central tenets of liberal ideology.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.