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.
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.
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Taking common sense measures to minimize the risk of contaminating the blood supply is politically "outdated" to democrats.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Your data in ‘outdated’.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.
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
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.
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.
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????
Hey Kerry, you first.