Previous post
Originally posted at David Horowitz’s Newsreal:
Every so often, there will be some new outrage over the FDA’s policy on receiving blood donations from gay or bisexual men. Their policy is in place to prevent tainted blood donations, something that makes sense to most normal people. But still, some gay rights activists will occasionally realize that gays can’t donate, and they completely lose their minds. Gays only comprise about 1-3% of the American population, but we should apparently put all Americans at risk of receiving tainted blood transfusions so that the tiny minority of gays can feel good about themselves. It’s political correctness at its finest! Who cares if some innocent person gets AIDS and dies? The gays will feel useful, so it’s worth it!
A poster at Feministing is really upset about this “unfair discrimination”. In fact, the way she phrases it, the FDA and the CDC both colluded together in a massive conspiracy to excuse their anti-gay agenda with phony, fake statistics.
So look, FDA– and for that matter the CDC whose published statistics the FDA is using, but yet do not appear to cross-reference other demographic and behavioral risk factors to actually provide a nuanced picture of total risk for infection– get off your homophobic high-horse and stop hiding behind statistics that could blatantly be avoided by asking more than one lousy question that basically amounts to: “Are you gay?”
Well, let’s look at the FDA’s anti-gay conspiracy-theory phony statistics. Men who have had sex with men have an HIV prevalence 60 times higher than the general population, and the HIV prevalence in potential donors with history of male sex with males is 200 times higher than first time blood donors and 2000 times higher than repeat blood donors. Men who have had sex with men are also the largest group of blood donors to be found HIV positive. The FDA acknowledges that they are usually able to catch tainted blood donations, but that there would still be a small but definite increased risk if the policy on homosexual blood donations were reversed. Even if it was only one donation out of a million, there are over 20 million blood transfusions every year. And on top of the risk of infecting people with HIV/AIDS, homosexual men are also at an increased risk for Hepatitis B and C, as well as Human Herpes Virus-8, which can cause cancer.
But apparently, we should assume that all of these statistics aren’t true because a Feministing poster named Heather said so without giving any evidence to back up her point. Are we going to take that kind of a risk just to satisfy some sick idea about political correctness?
Whether PC femisogynist gay rights activists want to admit it or not, the truth is that tainted blood transfusions are still a risk. In 2002, two people contracted HIV through tainted blood transfusions. And this year, a VA hospital may have infected up to 1,800 veterans with HIV and hepatitis. There are several famous examples of other people who got AIDS from tainted blood, such as tennis great Arthur Ashe, teenager Ryan White, and Kimberly Bergalis. And while certainly not all tainted blood transfusions come from blood donated from gay men, the point is that tainted blood transfusions do happen. The likelihood is extremely rare, but it does happen. Being careful about who is allowed to donate blood minimizes the risk, but it is still there. Therefore, considering how gay and bisexual men are at such higher risk of contracting HIV/AIDS, it seems reasonable — to a reasonable person, anyways — to ban gay and bisexual men from donating blood. It’s an unnecessary risk to take.
This is continually made out to be an issue of discrimination when its actually an issue of public safety. Blood donations save lives, millions of lives, but it carries risk. You’re going on nothing more than someone’s word that they are healthy and safe to donate. It’s simply too great a risk to take. A tainted donor suffers nothing if they infect someone. Only the person who gets the tainted donation suffers. The only person who benefits from the added risk of high-risk blood donations are the people who get that warm, squishy feeling from satisfying the gods of political correctness, no matter what the cost. And the idea that someone would be OK with increasing the risk of HIV/AIDS just out of political correctness is despicable.
The blood bank also usually bans people who have been in England too much because of the risk of Mad Cow. Have the Brits been complaining?
A friend of mine is CEO of the NW Red Cross Blood Bank. He mentioned to me that they keep redundant tests in the system, just in case they catch a problem that would have been missed in one of the others. And we’re supposed to then ignore a massive risk just to increase the self-esteem of somebody? Um, no.
Obamalackstesticles says: Wow they are sacrificing safety for PC?
I’am so shocked…………………….not
I give blood all the time now, but couldn’t for a few years. The nurse had asked me if I had engaged in any high-risk activity and I said not recently. She pressed me on recently vs. ever, and I grudgingly admitted to having routinely shared my heroin needle with a male prostitute while living in Europe. Her jaw dropped and she gasped, “You … you … you used to live WHERE???!!!”
Cassy,
I am routinely denied the opportunity to donate blood because of a couple of medicines I take. I am a bit sad about it, but I understand where the blood banks are coming from.
The problem with most everything related to homosexuals, is that, no matter the issue, it’s ALWAYS about THEM. They could care less about the rest of the population. They just want THEIR narcissistic behaviours addressed, and to heck with the rest of the world.
For a miniscule segment of the population, especially one based entirely upon a lifestyle choice, they have some mighty serious ego issues.
Respects,
It’s not about the donor, but about the donee. If the Red Cross were refusing to give blood to gays, that would be a legitimate discrimination issue. The same cannot be said of taking it and giving possibly infected blood to others.
(Incidentally, this isn’t necessarily gay discrimination; the questions are about men who sleep with men, which includes bisexuals, prostitutes, and rape victims, but does not include chaste gays.)
There is such a thing as political correctness tyranny. To risk peoples lives in general, let alone Veterans, in the name of radical homosexual political correctness is shameful.
Please visit http://radicalchristianideas.blogspot.com/2010/07/va-spreads-hepatitis-b-hepatitis-c-and.html
Anon says: That is a moderate grade, and better than most conservatives receive. Cassy should read the linked grading report in order to learn more about the corrosive nature of feminism, and that Republican feminism is almost as bad as lefto-feminism.
Gays and bissexuals don’t understand that they are not allowed to donate blood because of some their high risk behaviours. There are heterosexuals like AW1 Tim whom are not to donate blood because some of the medications they take. Is it because they are heterophobic? No. What about those heterosexuals that sodomize and do pissing contests? Will they be allowed to donate blood? Nope. What about other heterosexuals? Perhaps if they meet the requirements. Gay activists have shown themselves to be blind to reality emeshing it with political correctness and misplaced egalitarianism and are truthfully narcissists. Tolerance has gone so out of control that sometimes you can’t even say that heterosexuals relationships are different from gay relationships and lesbian relationships and other things. That heterosexuals have 1 man and 1 woman, lesbian relationships 2 women and gay relationships two men. The same thing about marriage. Marriage is an instutition created by God. Why don’t gays create their own institution?
”That is a moderate grade, and better than most conservatives receive. Cassy should read the linked grading report in order to learn more about the corrosive nature of feminism, and that Republican feminism is almost as bad as lefto-feminism.”
Agreed. There was an article on ThinkingHousewife criticizing Sarah Palin (google it if you want to read it). But remember also that ‘game’ works with feminists and not against them. It doesn’t challenge the feminist worldview. Instead it caters to it and really gamers, PUA’s, etc are becoming as worse as feminists with their calls for RoboGirls and other things. I’d advise men to forget women whom believe in feminism and turn celibate or go for foreign women (but be careful too there. A few foreign women also believe in gender feminism). Seeking traditional religious women won’t work since some of them tend to be non-religious.
Ed says: Gays should face the same criteria as others, no different. Yes a lot of gay men do engage in high risk sex, but also, a lot of heterosexuals also engage in high risk sex as well. All blood, no matter if it’s from heterosexuals, biseuxals, lesbians, or gay men, should all be screened in the same manner. Obviously the responsible thing to do is to know your HIV status, as well as if you have any other ailments that can effect blood, such as hepatitis.
Also, one thing to consider, is that a lot of bisexual men, or men who claim they are straight and are married to a woman, and then go out and engage in sex with other men, these men often times have unsafe sex as well, and they pick up all kinds of STD’s not really caring about this situation, and then passing this onto their wives and other sexual partners. So, the issue of closeted bi people also comes into play here.
Obviously the responsible thing to do in life, is to choose your partners wisely, and to have safe sex, and also to be selective, yes, I know, again, a lot of gay men have a lot of sex, but have you seen how many internet websites are devoted to anonymous heterosexuals these days? It sounds to me like the author is just trying to fan the flames of hysteria, about tainted blood, when in fact, blood is tested.
and all these STD’s – HIV, HEP A, B & C, also occur in heterosexuals as well, and in certain ethnic groups, which I won’t mention, the rate of STD’s and these diseases is also escalated, so, maybe in your next article you can focus on those groups too, just to be fair.
Ed says: And by the way, Kim Bergalis did not get a blood transfusion. The manner in which Kimbery was infected is linked to her dentist, not a blood transfusion. And the other people you mention, Ryan White, and Arthur Ashe, contracted the disease before all blood was screened for HIV. I am surprised that nobody had noticed that, but then again, it seems that you again, are just trying to fan the flames of hysteria here.
I am all for safety, I am also for everyone being aware of their current health, and if they are carriers for any blood borne diseases – that is the responsible thing to do, and anyone in the gay community who thinks that gays should have special treatment over blood donations is just wrong. However, I am sure there are many gay men, who are HIV negative, and who don’t have any blood borne diseases, and so, what do we do jut outright ban all gay men from donating blood and organs?
Tell the story, but tell the truthful story, Cassy. And let’s not forget that there are many other cases where people can’t give blood, those who have had tattoos in the last year, and those also who have chronic auto immune diseases as well besides HIV.
Ed says: Obviously my comment were removed, probably because Cassy doesn’t like to be told that her info is incorrect, about Kimberly Bergalis, that she did not get HIV from a blood transfusion, but rather from her dentist. Also, that Arthur Ashe, and Ryan White contracted HIV through blood donations before blood was being screened for HIV. This has all changed now, and ALL blood is screened, no matter who the donor is.
Cassy, if you had any balls, then you would post my responses up, but obviously you are just another coward, who skews things your way, and can’t tell the truth. I always thought that freedom was about telling the truth, but evidently, you know nothing about Freedom and you especially don’t know a damn thing about the truth.
Ed says: And finally, Cassy, I have nothing against guns, being that I am a gun owner to protect my house and property, but the one thing I have seen, working in a hospital a few years back, is those who often needed blood transfusions were people who were shot by guns. I understand that we live in a crappy world where we need to protect ourselves, but maybe in the case of blood transfusions, certain people are not worthy of getting transfusions, especially criminals, thieves,and those types, however, do we allow them to donate blood? Remember, gays are not allowed to donate blood, but if you’re ever in a hospital, realize that many gays and lesbians work in a hospital environment, so the very people you are criticizing here, may very well save your life. Consider that fact.
15 Comments