Whiny Gays Say Ban on Blood Donations Discriminatory
In the United States, if you are a gay man, you are forbidden from ever donating blood. The risk of HIV infection is 60 times higher from gay men than straight men. But the gays are butthurt because they think the Red Cross is discriminating against them personally, not protecting the blood supply from AIDS causing viruses as they claim. And they claim, if they are allowed to donate, they can fill up the blood bank shortages almost immediately, because they would welcome taking a prick in the arm- for a change.
From MSNBC here:
A regulation created at the height of the 1980s’ AIDS epidemic banned men who have had sex with another man since 1977 from ever giving blood.
Advocacy groups, blood-collection organizations and some members of Congress are calling for the Food and Drug Administration to revise the lifetime ban, which has been reviewed twice in the past 10 years, but left unchanged.
Groups advocating lifting the ban point to frequent shortages in the blood supply. Some claim that if the ban on gay men ended, 219,000 additional pints of blood would be donated annually.
Gay rights organizations say the regulation discriminates against gay and bisexual men. They point out that heterosexual men who have had sex with an HIV-positive partner or a prostitute are barred from donating blood for only 12 months after that contact.
“We’re asking the FDA to look at alternative policies [that also] protect the safety of the blood supply,’’ says Sean Cahill, managing director of the Gay Men’s Health Crisis, an HIV/AIDS organization.
The Red Cross and other blood-collection organizations recommend a one-year ”deferral,” or waiting period, on donations after male-to-male sex, saying the current lifetime ban, established in 1985, is scientifically unwarranted.
The FDA, explaining the current policy, points out that men who have had sex with men since 1977 have an HIV prevalence that’s 60 times higher than the general population. The agency contends its first obligation is to ensure the safety of the blood supply.
Still, a group of U.S. senators and representatives, led by Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts and Rep. Mike Quigley of Illinois, this week asked the FDA to end its “discriminatory” ban.
God save us from these liberals. They really are trying to kill us. I never got to meet my mother-in-law because she died of AIDS after receiving tainted blood in a transfusion. Pretty sure that blood came from a gay man. And now they want to reintroduce AIDS into the blood supply because, god forbid, when a young hemophiliac boy dies from AIDS, can go to the grave smiling that no gays were discriminated against.
Who are they kidding with this one-year limit crap? I can see it now- “Wow Trevor, that was FABULOUS, the way you just filled my ass with your goo, but I really can’t see you again. I plan on donating a pint of my blood in just over a year and you know what the Red Cross says. I have to do my civic duty. Call me in 13 months.”
And just where are all of these gay men that can go a whole year between sexual encounters? Oh, those must be the guys that run the unicorn corrals. Thanks to Moonbattery for the article.
Sorry about your mother-in-law, but that might have easily been from an infected drug user trying to make some extra money selling blood.
Also, what if they just lie about who they’ve had sex with, how often, and when? What then? If somebody is that intent on donating, or selling, blood, why would they admit to anything that would bar them?
I would think a better solution would be to just routinely screen all blood supplies and keep them all quarantined for a certain period, however long it takes for test results to come through. It sounds like they don’t test their blood, which would be a big concern to me, not just for AIDS but for any other number of things. I understand that it would be inconvenient, time consuming, and expensive, but what can you do?
They’ve also been experimenting with artificial blood, believe it or not, but that’s also controversial.
A good rule of thumb is to donate your own blood for yourself, in case you need it at some point in the future, then they will have it in supply. I wouldn’t be surprised if that doesn’t become encouraged more and more once Obama’s health care bill starts to really kick in.
Next those that inject heroin etc. will organize and protest their exclusion from donating blood.
“Yes I share needles and could possibly have some diseases in my blood, but you’d better stop discriminating against me.”
wotta load o’ crap…
You do know that heterosexuals are at the exact same risk percentage for aids right? Also, they screen samples for HIV/AIDS, it’s illegal to not allow someone to donate blood because of sexual preference.
Mason,
You fail at mathematics. Heterosexuals are NOT at the same level of risk as gays. And no, its not illegal to discriminate blood donations based on sexual proclivities. Its what the Red Cross does.