Posted on 02/23/2005 8:47:22 PM PST by Lorianne
DURHAM — The University of New Hampshire’s Student Senate will consider adopting a resolution tomorrow that would challenge the federal government’s policy of banning sexually active gay men from donating blood.
Sponsored by student Sen. Nicholas Christiansen, a 19-year-old sophomore, and the student senate’s Community Change Council, the resolution wants the Food and Drug Administration and the American Red Cross to become, in its words, “aware of our strong opposition to the policy that bans sexually active homosexual males from ever donating blood, and that the students are dedicated to equal treatment and opportunity for all people, regardless of sexual orientation.”
If adopted, the resolution would recommend that UNH seek a group other than the Red Cross for campus blood drives. The FDA’s policy has been in place since the 1980s and is meant to avoid spreading HIV, the virus that causes AIDs. About half of reported cases of HIV infections are among gay men.
“We’re not trying to ban the Red Cross from our campus, at least not immediately,” Christiansen said. “The resolution states that we’re going to try and find someone else to take our blood.”
Christiansen, who is gay, said he began working on the resolution during winter break after friends questioned why gay men are prohibited from giving blood. He acknowledged that the Red Cross is adhering to federal guidelines but said his resolution calls out the Red Cross because that group opposes any change in the FDA policy.
Michael Freedman, chief of American Red Cross Blood Services for New England, said the issue has been raised on other college campuses in the region but he was not aware of a formal resolution from a student government group. He said the Red Cross is following FDA guidelines in barring gay men sexually active since 1977 from being blood donors.
“We are supportive of the science that would make the blood supply as safe as possible, and allow as many people as possible to donate safely,” he said.
Other factors limiting blood donation include illness, drug use, and time spent in countries with diseases or viruses that can be passed through blood. For example, travelers to the United Kingdom are not allowed to give blood in the United States because of fears of spreading mad-cow disease, Freedman said.
The Red Cross holds blood drives on the UNH campus throughout the academic year.
College campuses and high schools provide about 360,000 pints of blood, or 15 percent, of all the blood collected for banks in New England, Freedman said.
“All major colleges are important,” he said. “First, because of the volume, and also because people can donate over their lifetime and we believe it’s important to get people to start early and get in the volunteer mindset of donating blood.”
Freedman said Red Cross representatives would speak with UNH students about the policy if invited, but that he was not aware of any Red Cross representatives planning to attend the student senate meeting tomorrow.
“I think a lot of people say, they’re the Red Cross, and they are great, but it doesn’t mean they can discriminate,” Christiansen said. “I think it would send a really strong message to say even the Red Cross can’t do this.”
More death by political correctness.
Wonderful! Now they appear to claim the "Right" to donate blood. What other 'Rights' will be next. Any suggestions?
“aware of our strong opposition to the policy that bans sexually active homosexual males from ever donating blood, and that the students are dedicated to equal treatment and opportunity for all people, regardless of sexual orientation.”
Fair enough, take it - just make sure to label it for liberals only.
I have no problem with this as long as these UNH college student stipulate that should they need a blood transfusion it cannot come from the Red Cross blood banks. Only blood that is donated by gay men can be used.
Note to self: Donate blood to myself....Just in case...
I don't understand Nicholas Christiansen's objection to the ban. Borrowing from liberal reasoning, if just one life is saved through this policy, it will be worth continuing the ban.
"S--- is thicker than Blood!"
Actually that usually happens now just before surgery. When a surgery is expected to result in blood loss, they'll take out a pint and increase liquids from an IV. Then during surgery your own blood is given back to you.
These are liberals. Logic doesn't matter.
I guess they have a liberal cause hierarchy, evidently with the gay agenda at the top.
Some days I fear that I may click on ONE MORE of these threads, read one more of these stories, and my head may explode.
God help us all.
I think that if he knew servicemen are banned he would drop his opposition to the policy because he wouldn't want to be on the same side as the military. Just my opinion.
Interesting find. Thanks
Paleo Conservative wrote:
Actually that usually happens now just before surgery. When a surgery is expected to result in blood loss, they'll take out a pint and increase liquids from an IV. Then during surgery your own blood is given back to yo
--> Yea i'm aware of the before surgery. But i mean, I am going to donate blood to myself that can be stored for an emergency (like unforseen surgery/accident.)
I don't know how they would really KNOW who is an "active homosexual" and who isn't.
So there really is no 100% safety mechanism at work here for blood donations. I think they ask you and it's the honor system for your answer.
My blood bank doesn't take any blood from any man who has had "sexual relations" with another man since 1977.
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.