Skip to comments.Despite pressure, ban on gay blood donors endures
Posted on 09/16/2013 6:13:22 AM PDT by artichokegrower
NEW YORK (AP) 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Probably a good reason to keep the ban in place.
Or this ban could be a reason why gays progression has been so successful, because Americans no longer see any negative consequences from such activies. In other words a positive for them.
Was this brought up to the SCOTUS in those marriage cases?
This is one place where a liberal will ignore political correctness in favor of reason.
No one can predict when or if they will need blood. So, while liberals love homos, they don’t want HIV. If allowing homo blood into the mix wouldn’t effect the liberal elite, they’d have done it already.
D*mn right it does.
Another reason why you should, for elective surgery, SELF-DONATE!!!!
As a Father who raised a son with hemophilia, thes fudge-packers shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near a blood bank!
I can think of very valid reasons not to receive blood transfusions now.This is beyond stupid. They are shooting themselves in the foot big time by bowing to the LGBT crowd on this one. Its not like you could potentially get a old and the sniffles; any screwups on the blood screening that misses the HIV irus and you’re toast. Ommon sense has ben thrown out the window in the name of fairness / PC. I guess the dummies are going to have to learn why there are policies and rules the hard way.
^ I meant by even discusing this because you kniw why they are bringing it up
^ I meant by even discussing this because you know why they are bringing it up
Unless things have changed, I don't believe this is true -- unless the definition of "days" is "many days".
The median window period for the nucleic-acid test is 17 days. The antigen test has a shorter window, but its sensitivity is low.
Simple, nobody would knowingly TAKE blood from a gay-friendly source.
Wrong. Common sense and sanity prevails... at least for now.
Even if it is true, as I understand it the same can not be said about Hepatitis C... which also runs rampant among the rump rider “community”.
It says the ban continues.
In addition to the other comments, blood bank screening can only catch the diseases we know how to test for already. Even ignoring the latency period issue, it is clear that gays are 30 times as likely as straights to harbor HIV. Clearly, their lifestyle predisposes them to blood-borne illnesses, and new ones are always emerging.
Why take the chance? So they can sell blood, or just to make them feel good about themselves?
Homosexual men carry all kinds of STD and other diseases. The list of diseases the average homosexual man has had is appalling.
> In the News/Activism forum, on a thread titled Despite pressure, ban on gay blood donors endures, sickoflibs wrote:
RE : They are shooting themselves in the foot big time by bowing to the LGBT crowd on this one
It says the ban continues.
Hit the send button before I read that part but by even discussing the idea you know here it usually leads with PC crowd ...
It’s not fair that straights aren’t contracting AIDS at the same rate as promiscuous gays.
We need to level the playing field with blood transfusions of this blood borne pathogen.
More proof that sodomites are profoundly mentally disturbed. They want INNOCENT PEOPLE TO SUFFER HORRIBLE DEATHS to further their sick agenda.
CDC just announced that 94-95% of all new HIV case are related to Gay Sex.
Interesting that the science is settled on the subject of global warming with very inconclusive data and observations while the science of blood born pathogens backed up with irrefutable evidence is ignored.
You cannot donate blood if you have piercings, or have traveled to Africa either. Are those discriminatory too? These perverts want to change the rules based solely on feelings rather than the facts. Fact is that AIDS is almost the exclusive domain of gays. No way around that.
If they ever accept gay blood, I will stop donating forever (except for family if needed)
I donate a lot of blood. If they start letting gays donate, I will NEVER donate again!
Earth to homos: It’s not ALL about you!
Right, and how many homosexuals would you believe if they told you they had been celibate for the last 17 days?
It is extremely useful to know who in your trusted circle of family and friends has your blood type and can donate immediately for emerging situations.
My husband and I and our children all have the same blood type.
Africa, heck! I’m not allowed to donate blood because I’ve spent too much time in England. Apparently, all the British beef I’ve consumed puts at risk for carrying Mad Cow Disease. It doesn’t take much to not be able to donate blood.
I couldn’t donate for a year because I was in a malaria-infested area for a total of a half-hour. Why should gays get a pass?
The Miteybad Solution:
Permit gays to donate blood only to a blood bank where the designated recipients are members of the House and Senate who are also members of the Democrat Party (the DEMGAYBB.)
All transfusion needs of the designated recipient group MUST be provided the DEMGAYBB. All pertinent current legislation will be amended to so reflect.
Use of blood bank services by Democrat members of the House or Senate from any source other than DEMGAYBB shall be punishable by imnprisonment for a period of not longer than 20 years, a fine not to exceed $5,000,000.00, or both.
It’s really 100 percent, but they didn’t think the American people could accept that truth.
There is another reason for the ban: there have been numerous and recorded attempts to “poison the well” by gay activists, in other words mass attempts to DELIBERATELY infect the blood supply.
Thank God that the Red Cross and other orgs have steadfastly refused to cave to the buggery brigade. They ruin lives and society in all ways, yes, but the sheer horror of donated blood units being “ticking timebombs” (as one RC staffer put it) is the stuff of horror movies.
Normal people give blood. To make homosexualists seem normal they must be able to give blood too. See my tag line.
Seems a simple question. Maybe the answer is a desire to spread their diseases in the hope of accelerating the search for cures?