Skip to comments.HHS weighs accepting men who have sex with men as blood donors
Posted on 03/13/2012 10:54:19 AM PDT by Nachum
The Health and Human Services Department (HHS) is seeking comments on designing a pilot program to create alternative donor deferral criteria for gay men. Currently, men who have had sex with other men (MSM) since 1977 cannot donate blood due to higher levels of certain transfusion-transmissible infections among that population, the notice explains. Members of Congresss interest and increased accuracy among donor testing have made the department reconsider the ban. [T]he increased effectiveness of donor testing for [Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV)], [Hepatitis B Virus (HBV)], syphilis and other infectious agents has greatly enhanced
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
The list, Ping
Let me know if you would like to be on or off the ping list
Anything to spread the infections and upgrade the deviants.
If that happens I’ll just stop giving blood.
I believe people can bank their own blood in advance, if they know they will have a need for it in the near future. but that does not help with emergencies.
But the rule change is ridiculous even to consider.
Criminally insane. Will ping this one out.
This is a really, really bad idea. But, if they go ahead with it anway—they just can’t hel themselves. If (when) they do, the MSM will no doubt provide cover. Any poor bastard who gets infected as a result of a transfusion will be covered up. It will be silence or they will blame the victim.
“Men who have sex with men”
Does that mean queers?
I’ll bet congress and barry’s cabinet will have a separate special (read: safe) supply saved in case they need blood.
Since they are all ok with it, let the gay men have full advantage of this blood while shielding it from people that don’t engage in risky behavior.
What this tells you is if you ever have a family member needing a blood transfusion, to have friends or family donate DIRECTLY....INSIST on it. If the hospital will not allow this, INSIST on them providing you with a written statement denoting such. If they won’t provide the statement and say “take it or leave it”, stop right there and tell them you need a phone to call your lawyer - RIGHT NOW.
The real “pink slime” controversey
Isn’t it these Leftist sorts in power today that are stating a necessity to decrease the Human population by at least 85% to save the Earth?
Kill us off everyway they can eh.
That was my first thought too, and I donate every six weeks like clockwork. On further consideration though...if tens of thousands of us did that, then heteros in need of blood would face a higher likelihood of getting the stuff with, well, cooties. I'll keep giving for the sake of my fellow "men who have sex with WOMEN".
“Kill us off everyway they can eh.”
From the Sebellius Scrooge school of economics: ‘If they’d rather die, then they had better do it and decrease the surplus population. ..’
First the left promotes taxpayer funded unprotected sex, now this.
Yeah, I don’t see anything good coming from this.
How about “men who have sex with_____”
If HHS wants 1.5 million additional donors and 3 million boycott donating blood that’s a net loss of 1.5 million donors.
How fast do you think the rules would change back if the blood donation system had a big net loss of donors because of this absolutely insane possible rule change?
What do they have in common with Santa Claus, The Easter Bunny, and Unicorns?
While I doubt if 3 million would boycott, your point is still a good one. All we’d have to do is offset the gay gains.
And when there is a jump in the cases of transfusion recipients getting HIV and other diseases how many innocent people will be allowed to be murdered in this fashion until it changes?
If this happens I am absolutely boycotting and protesting!
Political correctness will literally kill us.
the can not resolve the HIV exposure risk.
with all the cocktails, some even show miniscule traces of the vires to be STATISTICALLY zero, HOWEVER this is only as long as they take the phamra cocktail.
Some unsuspecting person is going to get a transfusion not have the cocktail and the virus will go full blown exposure.
So we toss aside science and substitute Congressional interest and public opinion in the formulation of health policy.
Back during the Clinton days as governer, Vincent Foster was involved in a scheme that “donated” prisoners blood which made its way to Canada if my memory serves me right. There was a money angle in there somewhere. Some things never change.
The irony is that I’m O- and used to give faithfully, but now I’m permanently barred because I served my nation and “might” have mad cow disease because I served in Turkey at a specific time... As if.
New rules for donors were brought in. Gays, injection drug users are still allowed to donate blood — but, they are supposed to check a little box on a confidential form. If the box is checked, the blood isn't used. This allows the high-risk donors to participate in (e.g.) workplace blood drives, and still avoid contamination of the whole blood supply.
Naturally, the gay lobby here is pushing to eliminate the “discriminatory” rules. Better dead than politically incorrect, seems to be the underlying philosophy.
A number of years ago I was a designated donor for a child having heart surgery. The kid's mother knew my wife and asked if she knew a "safe" donor. I was volunteered for the job since I had the right blood type, had been a frequent blood donor, plus my wife verified that I was "clean". I made several blood donations over a two week period taking lots of iron supplements in between and even did a pheresis donation for packed red cells. I was the only blood donor for this kid's surgery.
I lost TWO good friends due to aids in tainted blood supplies duringn the Great Hemopheliac Genocide, that NO ONE in the media ever wants to mention, because it’s politicallt inncorrect to talk about.
200,000 dead Americans in a few short years, and thier memories are ERASED on the altar of Gay politics.
MOST PEOPLE DO NOT EVEN KNOW THIS HAPPENED, but they know that Reagan is to blame for the AIDS that killed all the gays.
In 1984 my 21 year old heterosexual Godson,who lived in San Francisco,had an automobile accident.
He needed surgery,had a transfusion,and everything came out fine.
He was dead in a year. The blood killed him.
There are serious reasons the guidelines are in place. Being PC regarding a persons blood is sickening. Who is the professional in the above line? I do NOT go to these folks for a doctors opinion for a reason. Good Lord help us.
This is part of the Left’s new “bio-ethics”? Killing the patients is now poltiically correct?
Let’s see if any doctors stand up and raise he!! about this outrage. They have not been too dependable these days.
I had surgery in 1981. 5 years later, I got a letter from the hospital saying I *might* have received contaminated blood (HIV). It took several weeks to get a definitive answer that I had not.
My sympathies to you and the boy’s family.
Glad you are OK-——the early 80’s were scary times with the AIDS fears.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda ping list.
Be sure to click the FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search link for a list of all related articles. We don't ping you to all related articles so be sure to click the previous link to see the latest articles.
Add keywords homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list.
This is viciously insane evil. There is only one reason to want "men who have sex with men" donate blood - so WE can get AIDS. That's it. They want people who are NOT mentally ill sex perverts to get AIDS. Remember quite a while ago when "AIDS isn't a gay disease!" was trumpeted around? We were ALL at risk from AIDS even if we weren't sex perverts and were faithful to our wives/husbands??? Well, turns out AIDS is indeed a "gay" disease. So despite the fact that AIDS gets the lions' share of reserach funding, the vast majority of AIDS cases are "m who have s with m" or related perverts/lowlifes. So they want the rest of us to get AIDS. It's that simple.
That is exactly why homosexuals should never be allowed to donate blood.
In 1983 or ‘84 I had a severe blood loss and the docs were going to force a transfusion on me. I utterly refused (although I had never heard of AIDS), I just did not want it (I am NOT a Jehovah’s Witness!). The docs huddled and allowed me to refuse it but I had to do stuff to build the blood back up. Now I feel grateful I refused because so many innocent people were getting AIDS from blood at that time.
Another reason to be sickened by the military’s embrace of the deathstyle.
We know that the military never needs (or donates) blood. /s
Good point - it would probably be deliberately switched for a political reason as well.
Focus, people. This is in Great Britain, where humans who were alive in the late eighties are allowed to give blood. There would be no blood banks in England if they followed our rules.
Note, please, that in the USA, no one who was in England, or across the channel in Western Europe, for more than a few weeks in the late 80s, is even ALLOWED to give blood due to the mad cow scare there.
In our country, not a single Brit who was alive then could give blood here.
My blood is banned in the USA for life because I lived in Europe then.
In terms of gay, in this country if a man admits to one count of sex with another man he is forbidden to give blood for life too.
I am similarly banned, though not for serving my country, just for living over there. That rule is so ignorant that it should be changed WAY before the USA adds homosexuals to the blood donor list.
Anyone in Europe (I didn’t know it extended as far as Turkey) during the years where there was a mad cow scare in England is banned. Yet very few of those nations import any British beef. It makes no sense.
In short, MSM!! Main Stream Maggots who are affectionately called faggots?
Men Sans Manhood?
The rest would be relly, really X-rated!
I keep hearing among the sodomite community that their goal in therapy is to have an “undetectable viral load” - meaning HIV can’t be detected in the blood, but is still present.
How’s that for covert infection of the populous?
“Banking your blood” in many instances just means getting credit for the blood you bank - give a pint, get a pint, but not necessarily yours.
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.