Yet another blood feud

Last week, the largest school board in Quebec decided to ban blood donor clinics from all of its schools and offices. The reason? The blood bank agency asks potential donors a list of questions.

One of the many questions posed to men is whether they are gay and have been sexually active. The openly gay vice-chairman of the board protested the "homophobia" of the question.

As a result, the dangerously limited blood supply of this country will be further hit. In other words, the essential surgical and health needs of the people of Canada are considered less important than the chance of a homosexual man being offended by a logical and essential question.

Nor is the scenario confined to Quebec or to Canadian schools. Universities face the same challenge, and at Western Oregon University there is currently a campaign to ban Red Cross blood drives from campus for the same reason.

I wrote about a similar incident some years ago for another newspaper. In that case, the Red Cross had indeed been banned from a university campus in Canada for asking such a question.

After the article appeared the editor of the well-known daily for which I wrote telephoned me and told me I was never to write about gay people ever again.

It doesn't matter, replied the editor, never mention homosexuality "ever again."

It only goes to confirm what many of us have been saying for some time. The tolerance gay people request, and deserve, was achieved long ago. And I applaud that. The debate now is about unquestioning affirmation. This applies to marriage, adoption and so many other areas of the social fabric of our lives.

Let us also please reject the ridiculous charge of homophobia from all this. Of course there are haters out there, but for the most part the accusation of homophobia is merely a clumsy but sometimes successful attempt to stifle contrary opinion. In this case, it is perverse. Lesbians, for example, are more welcome than most as blood donors. They have a lower infection rate than heterosexual women.

Yet the argument goes deeper. There are many questions asked by blood agencies. Which countries have you visited? Have you suffered from various diseases? Have you been an intravenous drug user? Have you been sexually active as a heterosexual in a way that could increase the risk of AIDS infection?

I, for one, cannot give blood because I lived in Britain until 1987, when mad cow disease was to be found in some of the meat supply. The chances of infection are tiny, but the risks are too great to take chances.

Quite right. Nobody's child should receive infected blood simply because someone was upset by what he considered to be a politically incorrect question.

Goodness me, no gay man should face the risk of receiving tainted blood because another gay man's self-esteem was dented by an essential and responsible inquiry.

The essence of all this is that the privileges of the few appear to have become more important than the rights of the many. The comfort level of someone with a particular sexual orientation matters more than life itself.

Of course, all blood is checked and there is hardly any chance of HIV- or AIDS-infected blood reaching the blood banks. But any expert will tell you about the problems of the delayed appearance of infection.

Being gay is not the point. The blood agencies could not care less about a person's sexual orientation. They do care, however, if someone has had anal sex. It is a simple fact that such intercourse makes both partners more open to infection than normal sexual contact.

Only a fool, or perhaps a homophobe, would deny the devastation caused to gay men by AIDS. Condoms are not universally safe, and are not universally used.

Truth, however, is always safe, and should always be used. It could save your life. Even if it does involve answering a question or two.

Of course this kind of stupidity never happens in the good old U.S.A. does it.

Harvard Homosexual Student Activist Urges Blood Donors to Lie
By John Rossomando
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
October 04, 2001

(CNSNews.com) - A homosexual student activist at Harvard University told other students to deny their homosexuality when donating blood, according to the university's student newspaper.

According to The Harvard Crimson, Clifford Davidson sent an email to members urging them to circumvent Red Cross and FDA rules that prevent homosexuals from donating blood to the Red Cross. Davidson is a Harvard senior and leader of BOND, a campus homosexual student organization.

"On the Red Cross's form, you will be asked: 'Are you a man who has had sexual contact with another man since 1973?' This applies to many of you. You should lie," the Crimson quoted Davidson as having written in the email.

The Crimson article also quoted another Harvard student who justified the contents of Davidson's email.

"The [FDA/Red Cross] rule is based on homophobic stereotypes," BOND member Fred O. Smith told the Crimson. "In this case, I don't think it is unreasonable to ignore it."

Davidson also told the Crimson that he only wanted disease-free homosexuals to lie about their sexual behavior.

Comments by Davidson in the Crimson have provoked a firestorm of protest from Rev. Lou Sheldon of the Traditional Values Coalition and Robert Knight of Concerned Women for America's Culture and Family Institute.

"The attitude displayed by Davidson is amazingly narcissistic and shows that he is unconcerned that his advice might result in an inadvertent spread of HIV into the blood supply in Massachusetts," Rev. Sheldon wrote in an October 2 op-ed piece. "A person who receives HIV positive blood is destined to die from it.

"The Red Cross, of course, conducts a series of tests on all blood donated to make certain the supply is safe," Sheldon wrote. "Blood found to contain HIV or other germs are discarded yet no test is 100 percent certain, and no homosexual can be absolutely sure he's free from HIV infection."

Knight believes Davidson's email represents a return to practices of the early 1980s, when homosexual activists tried to prevent screening of the blood supply for HIV indicators.

"The radical gay groups, particularly in New York and San Francisco, campaigned against the blood banks [when they realized] that they had a problem on their hands in trying to screen out homosexual men," Knight said. "They said it was just pure homophobia and because of that, the necessary screening regulations were delayed for some time giving AIDS a window to get into the blood supply, and tens of thousands of hemophiliacs who depend on blood transfusions contracted AIDS and died.

"Why would we be talking again about relaxing the policy when we have already seen the destruction it can cause?" Knight asked.

Knight said there is no excuse for a person lying about their sexual behavior when it comes to blood donations.

"Just because someone has a test saying he is HIV negative does not mean that his blood is safe or free from other pathogens that are spread by homosexual behavior," he said.

In an email to CNSNews.com, Davidson wrote that he was prompted to send the original email to members of BOND because of the urgency in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks against the World Trade Center and Pentagon.

"This was a specific reaction to the NYC/Pentagon crisis and the shortage of blood," Davidson wrote. "I've never lied on a form because I do not lie and would not encourage people to do so under normal circumstances.

"The call was for those who knew their HIV status to be negative, to donate blood-despite the sexuality question because of the [blood] shortage," Davidson indicates. "HIV positive men and women, heterosexual or otherwise, should never give blood."

Davidson acknowledges that the American Red Cross is only following FDA rules, but points out that the Red Cross does not have this policy in other countries.

"In Canada, for example, the question asks about unprotected sex with a non-monogamous partner for both men and women. And, of course, in the U.S.,
the forms ask about HIV status. Nobody should EVER lie about that," according to Davidson.

The American Red Cross said its policy is determined by Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations, which prohibit men involved in homosexual activity since 1977 from donating blood.

"The initial recommendation was issued by the FDA in 1982 at a time prior to there being any tests for HIV," said Dr. Peter Page, the senior medical officer with the American Red Cross. "Not letting people at risk for HIV in any of the risk groups donate blood was the best and only thing we could do to reduce the risk of HIV [transmission].

"[Since then] a test has been developed and improved, [and] the two decade rule has not been lifted since then," Dr. Page said. "This issue has been brought up and discussed in public forums sponsored by the FDA in the last couple of years because the question has been raised [about whether the restriction is outdated]."

Page said the FDA decided to maintain the ban because it was not convinced the screening process was 100 percent foolproof.

"There is an opportunity for sample mix up or laboratory error," Dr. Page said. "Men that have sex with men are also at [a greater] risk for hepatitis B [than the general population], which can also be transmitted through a transfusion.

"The other issue is that relatively recently, in the last year or so, there has been an increase in the frequency of sexually transmitted diseases [among] men that have had sex with men, indicating that risky behavior is still continuing these days," he said. "We have to be cautious about relaxing a restriction when the infection [rate] seems to be on the upswing again."

Calls to the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association seeking comment about the FDA rules and Davidson's email were not returned.

This crap is more than a sore point with me. I have a hemopheliac son (Factor 9) deficient who was poisoned with Hepatitis C by BOTH the United States (courtesy of Clinton and his end run around the law to illegal sell Arkansas prisoners blood to us) AND our pathetic criminal and cowardly Provincial Health Ministers. ALL of these guilty men ran and hit like rats in a corner when the exposing came to light. They tried relentlessly to shut down the Krever Commission but thankfully failed. However, the ONLY way any type of settlement for these innoncent victims could be attained was for the COWARDS who called themselves Health Ministers to receive immunity from Prosecution BEFORE any settlement proceedings were allowed to proceed. Clinton is guilty but so is the Canadian Red Cross. They were warned that they had received tainted blood. What did these paramours of virtue do? Why they used it anyway, DELIBERTALY poisoning tens of thousands, if not more, young hemophiliac boys and many other citizens who simply had to receive blood for whatever other reason ie: surgery. As to the queers, if any of you reading this post, ever get the chance to read a book called "The Aids Coverup" written by an American doctor, please do. It was the most infuriating and heart wrenching book I have ever read. The gist of what it portrayed was this: ORIGINALLY In the United States the homosexual men were coming down with Aids. It appeared to be almost exclusively diagnosed in the gay community. And in fact it's ORIGINAL name was GRID!! That translates: Gay Related Immune Deficiency. They Homosexual Lobby was so powerful that they threatened the US Government representatives with this: Either you change the name to A I D S OR "We will DELIBERATELY pollute the blood supply!! The weak kneed politico's relented. And now I live with this every single day of my life. Many have already lost their children. This was one of the MOST DISGRACEFUL Criminal Acts every carried out. As the Krever Commission dragged along, they were fortunate enough to have several of these "deliberately poisoned" mostly young people, die waiting for a decision. I could go on about the "wonderful" compensation they received but I think that the folks on this board are smart enough to figure out what likely happened. There was a settlement reached for 1.1 Billion dollars. To date, my son has seen 31,000.00 a year AFTER the Court Class Action suit settled. HOWEVER, the Lawyers pocketed their millions within weeks!! Tell these PC Idiots to take a hike. Give blood at a "regular" blood donation drive. The Universities are filled with brain dead Liberals anyway. Mostly along the lines of the Liberals moral midgets that have RULED Canada for the last 4 decades!!

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.