Who among us would want homo blood in our veins?
"Hey! Over here! I'll take it - all you got."
"What difference will another gallon or two make?"
Posted on 06/15/2012 6:51:27 AM PDT by TribalPrincess2U
CNSNews.com) – Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Rep. Mike Quigley (D-Ill.) sent a letter signed by 62 other Democrats to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, supporting her agency's review of the policy that bans homosexual and bisexual men from donating blood. The Democrats say the ban is “outdated,” and they called the HHS pilot study an important step in "assessing the feasibility of allowing healthy gay and bisexual men to donate blood while maintaining the safety of our blood supply."
(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...
It's bad enough not knowing what you're getting but adding this to the chain make it even more frightening.
All 62 of them should be given a transfusion with some of that “low risk” blood donated by homosexuals.
Why? So the homos can feel good about themselves? Seriously? I wonder if they put one of those warning labels the liberals are so fond of on the donor blood that the doctors had to tell you about. How many people would say, “Oh sure go ahead and pump the ‘low risk’ sodomite blood into me.” Would Sebelius want it for herself of family members? Maybe someone should ask her.
LLS
Obama truly is the first gay President. It seems he is more focused on homosexual issues than literally any other issue. Is it because for homosexual issues, he can just issue mandates without needing to work with other branches of Gov’t, so its easier for him?
His administration’s preoccupation with homosexuality is both puzzling and stunning at the same time.
It’s all about votes mostly.IMO
re: “Congressmen Send Letter to Sebelius Backing Move to Let ‘Low-Risk’ Homosexuals Donate Blood”
Ok - how about an amendment to this bill that would allow people who WANT blood transfusions from homosexuals can get it - and, that Senator Kerry and his family be required to ONLY get blood transfusions from homosexuals - and, this same rule should apply to all the idiots who sign onto this bill.
BINGO!
That would be okay by me. Never happen tho,
These 63 (including Kathleen Sebelius) should show the way by volunteering to take some of this “low risk” blood).
An oxymoron, since the risk is continuous.
Taking common sense measures to minimize the risk of contaminating the blood supply is politically "outdated" to democrats. Instead they ruthlessly pander to their donor base.
I once showed a liberal CDC data, showing that HIV (and alot of other diseases) were most prevalent in gays.
Her response:
Your data in ‘outdated’.
I see a meme coming on.
What really pizzes me off is the way they are trying to force all this ‘healthy’ stuff down our throats. Be healthy, move. Don’t eat peanut butter and jelly. Down-size your food. Don’t eat popcorn—but getting blood from a homo is okay.
I’d rather die a fat old woman then what I could get from a homo.
Sounds fair to me.
Hell NO !
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/index.htm
Per the CDC website, men having sex with men make up 2% of the population, but in 2009 accounted for 61% of new HIV infections.
Who are these ‘low risk’ homosexuals?
When you give blood, they don’t ask if you’re gay...just if you’ve had gay sex. How is anybody who answers affirmatively to that question ‘low risk’?
Civilization - the ultimate target of liberals
Maybe Larry Sinclair is telling the truth.
Self-esteem > common sense....what could go wrong?
> ‘Low-Risk’ Homosexuals
This is a contradiction in terms.
Like, “Low-Risk’ prostitute, or ‘Low-Risk’ drug addict.
> His administration’s preoccupation with homosexuality is
> both puzzling and stunning at the same time.
Not at all.
It’s an important part of the revolutionary agenda to overthrow all sexual moral compass.
The only prevailing moral compass consists of the vicissitudes of political correctness.
We the People want to see a photo of all 62 democrats and their families receiving blood transfusions from a safe homosexual donor. Just a needleful will do
No thanks. LGBT rights should not be a suicide pact for the rest of us. Public health and all that.
Kerry and Quigley were probably told they couldn’t donate.
I see how this is going to play out.
You get a transfusion from tainted blood. You go to your insurance company and they say Obamacare doesn’t cover that. Take an aspirin, buy some diapers and go home and bleed to death.
Why only a needleful? Give them a standard whole pint.
And just what is a ‘low-risk’? I worked in a plasma pheresis/blood donation center in a big city once. How can you tell a high-risk homosexual donor from a safe homosexual donor? You can’t.
Whether you like it or not both are donating blood everyday. The only thing stopping them is self-reporting that they engage in risky behavior. They sign a paper stating they do not and they give blood. Even drag queens dressed to the hilt donate. I have seen it.
Those centers are for-profit organizations and turn a blind eye if it will interfere with them collecting $$. I quit working there after I observed risky behavior not only by the donors, but the staff. Blood money.
Sanctioning it will only make it worse. The only safe way to receive ‘safe’ blood is to have a family member or fried donate directly for you. MOO
“friend”
If they are so “low-risk”, the letter writers/signers should explain the deaths of an entire generation of hemophiliacs from the use of blood products derived from an unscreened population back in the 80s. Since there is not a satisfactory answer to that, this letter is based on pure politics rather than medical science and data.
The blood donation system has determined that I’m an unsuitable donor due to living in Europe as a member of the US military with potential exposure to BSE (”mad cow”). While that could also be called “low risk”, they have chosen not to take the chance. Are there no logical thinkers left in the world????
Touche!
Hey Kerry, you first.
Given the Left’s worship of deceit and hypocrisy, I’ll assume these congressmen are busy as we speak, stockpiling a cache of certified homo-free blood for themselves.
Kerry gets the dumbass award.
Liberalism really is a mental disorder.
Your comment is right on the button. Just a simple numbers
game is all that is needed. Why don’t they allow low level
risk homosexuals to donate blood only to homosexuals? Cause the
risk is too high of infecting all of them.
Your tagline is very insightful also.
Both of your comments underscore the inability of some
other people to think one or two steps of
complexity past their position.
It’s time for democrat blood banks and Republcan blood banks ... democrat hospitals and republican hospitals. People lying about their political leanings will be fined... Then let ‘em do whatever they want...
Close. Pandering to 2% of genpop is not about votes though. Pandering to the greatly inflated percentage of rich Hollywood types is the goal here.
As ever, follow the money.
Your comment is right on the button. Just a simple numbers
game is all that is needed. Why don’t they allow low level
risk homosexuals to donate blood ONLY to homosexuals? Cause the
risk is too high of infecting all of them.
Your tagline is very insightful also.
Both of your comments underscore the inability of some
other people to think one or two steps past the
immediate ramifications of their position.
I am prohibited from donating because I served (Army) in Germany 26 years ago. My daughter is prohibited from donating because she was born in Germany 28 years ago and lived there until the ripe old age of 2. The reason? Fear of spreading mad cow disease. I think if they want to get donors, they should end these bans long before they eliminate the ban on “low risk” homosexual donations.
Thanks for you information. But >I have heard that sometimes
donations from a family member can be risky also, since
many family members lie about their past behaviour.
The truth is blood transfusion is risky anyway, and should
only be given when absolutely necessary, as in life saving.
Thanks for you information. But >I have heard that sometimes
donations from a family member can be risky also, since
many family members lie about their past behaviour.
The truth is blood transfusion is risky anyway, and should
only be given when absolutely necessary, as in life saving.
There are some hospitals that will allow you to donate your
own blood months before an elective procedure. Or they use
low blood usage procedures.
Hey, you better check your fingers, hitting the “post” key
twice for one post is no good.
a “low risk” homosexual is like being a little bit pregnant.
“Low risk blood” has already killed tens of thousands just so the homosexuals wouldn’t feel offended.
Who among us would want homo blood in our veins?
Solicited by Sebelius, no doubt.
What is the reason for this?
To spit on us and show us who really has the power?
To make queers feel better?
Does someone, somewhere believe it is necessary?
Or is it just another step in tightening the screws on us a little more?
Who among us would want homo blood in our veins?
"Hey! Over here! I'll take it - all you got."
"What difference will another gallon or two make?"
Let's hope a lot of dimwads get what they deserve.
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.
