Posted on 10/03/2005 8:38:48 AM PDT by Millee
A Red Cross division in Australia will be forced to defend its refusal to accept blood donations from homosexuals after a statutory anti-discrimination body agreed to take up a legal complaint.
Michael Cain wants the state of Tasmania's Anti-Discrimination Commission to find that the Australian Red Cross Blood Service (ARCBS) acted in a discriminatory manner when it refused to take blood from him because he was a sexually active homosexual.
Cain's lawyers argue that by refusing to accept blood from Cain, the ARCBS contravened anti-discrimination legislation passed in Tasmania in 1998.
The law says "a person must not discriminate against another person on the ground of sexual orientation [or] lawful sexual activity."
In a statement about his experience, Cain said he was filling out forms ahead of donating blood when he came to one which asked: "Have you engaged in male-to-male sex in the last 12 months?"
"At this point I felt that I was being personally violated in a way. I couldn't believe that they were asking about sex let alone singling out male-to-male sex when people could easily lie anyway. I answered truthfully."
A Red Cross staffer subsequently told him he could not donate blood, explaining that "gay men have a higher risk of carrying contaminated blood due to unsafe sexual practices."
Cain was upset that he was not given the opportunity to have his blood tested, which he said would have proved that he did not have HIV/AIDS.
"If all blood is tested, there is no reason why I too should not be given the opportunity to prove that I have healthy blood. I resent the fact that I am not allowed to help people in need."
According to its eligibility guidelines, the ARCBS declines any request to donate blood if the prospective donor has, in the previous 12 months, had "male to male sex."
But it will also not take blood within 12 months of other activities considered to increase the level of risk - including a person having had a tattoo, a blood transfusion, a body piercing, been in prison, had sex with a prostitute or having had a partner with hepatitis B or C.
In some cases, such as when a person has injected drugs not prescribed by a doctor, the ARCBS will permanently not accept blood.
In their legal brief, Cain's lawyers said that the ARCBS may try to point out that it is not acting in a discriminatory manner because it also won't take blood in other instances, such as from a person who has been a prison inmate or staffer within the past year.
But there is an important distinction, they argue - "gay men cannot and do not choose to be gay."
'Disincentive'
In a recent speech, Tasmanian Gay and Lesbian Rights Group campaigner Rodney Croome attacked the blood donation policy.
"The current gay blood ban says that no matter how careful gay and bisexual men are in guarding themselves from infection, there is still something inherently risky in a man making love to another man," he said.
"This prompts gay and bisexual men to ask, if safe sex isn't good enough to protect public health, is it good enough protect my own health. When it comes to public policy, could there be any greater disincentive for gay and bisexual men to bother with sex safe?"
Peter Stokes, executive director of a Christian ethical action group Salt Shakers, called the case "yet another politically orchestrated attempt to force society to ignore all the clear and undeniable health risks associated with the homosexual lifestyle using a undemocratic government body [the anti-discrimination commission]."
Rather than the ARCBS having to justify its policy, Stokes said he believed the ban should be extended to "all people who engage in promiscuous sexual activity, not just homosexuals."
"This is not about discrimination. This is about \lang3081 discerning what is right and wrong for the majority of Australians according to the evidence," he said, adding that more than 80 percent of HIV/AIDS infections in Australia arise from men having sex with men.
Croome argued in a statement that countries like Spain, Switzerland and Italy have lifted prohibitions on accepting blood donations from homosexuals.
He made no reference to the situation in the U.S., however, where American Red Cross eligibility guidelines appear to be considerably stricter than those in Australia which are now being challenged.
"You should not give blood if you have AIDS or have ever had a positive HIV test, or if you have done something that puts you at risk for becoming infected with HIV," they say.
"You are at risk for getting infected if you ... are a male who has had sexual contact with another male, even once, since 1977."
It's evil, pure and simple. Equalty has just gained new purpose: everyone must become 'equally' diseased.
>>>>>Croome argued in a statement that countries like Spain, Switzerland and Italy have lifted prohibitions on accepting blood donations from homosexuals.
This is troubling. Is there anytype of ban that has been issued to these countries in reference to pharmaceutical imports?
Research facilities and pharm companies purchase specimens, blood and tissues etc.
Will this taint imports? It has been an issue before.
Tainted blood deals raise international furor
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/889385/posts
Blood banks test for HIV anyway - gay or not - so just saying "no" to the question does not guarantee that your blood will be used. Positive HIV and your blood is tossed - then your name goes on a thanks but no thanks list.
Wow, that's frightening. Isn't anyone paying attention over there?
Sure. People on prescriptions, for example. Or who have had hepatitis, or herpes of some kind. Any number of conditions.
Maybe they should just accept it, then destroy it.
Well, I agree part of the way, but I believe there is a "in utero" deficiency that leaves some people "weak" in their primary sexuality. These are the ones that can be pushed over the line by mistreatment or recruitment. That is why I hold out that someday prospective moms will have a pill that boosts their children's normal sexuality so that they are not available for the homosexual population to drool over.
And you are right about trauma and abuse. This crime is considered way too gently by our courts and population. It should be one of the worst offenses one can commit. Heres hoping the incidence of this perversion will in fact decrease.
I'm not prejudiced against gays, but I am prejudiced against self destructive political correctness which may lead to more deaths from a tainted blood supply.
True or False: There is a higher incidence of HIV/AIDS in the gay population.
True or False: If there is a higher incidence of HIV/AIDS in the gay population, then admitting gay blood donations into the blood supply will increase the likelihood of blood containing HIV.
True or False: If there is an increase in HIV in the blood supply, more people receiving transfusions will be infected with HIV.
True or False: If HIV/AIDS is fatal in many cases, people infected with HIV from blood transfusions will die.
True or False: This freakin' world is going insane.
G-d save us all from the fatal idiocy of PC.
"At this point I felt that I was being personally violated in a way."
Sometimes the jokes just write themselves, lol!
we'll just have to disagree on this one. There is no non-debunked study that has ever found a biological link to this mental disease
I give blood regularly.....
I hope I don't need to be given blood, but I sure as hell don't want a group of people giving blood that are absolutely prone to blood borne diseases some of which we don't know about yet....
there are many gay men who unfortunately want to pretend they are normal when they are not.....they are an abnormal human developement ...that does not make them evil or necessarily sinful....but it does make them prime disease carriers...IMO
therefore, money and time are being wasted on a group that is not going to pass muster a great deal of the time....
gee...they don't even want you if you travel to AFrica much or if you have the sniffles....
but being a anal-fixated individual in a community devastated by HIV I guess is acceptable.....NOT!!!!!
Its not that much a disagreement, we know its not genetic, identical twins can split on the issue. As far as the in utero, I saw it on a study, that maybe at a particular time in development there is not enough of some nutrient. This is not any different than trauma to the developing child. The time frame would be short enough to explain the frequency of the homosexual in the population as a whole. And would also explain the homosexual without any known abuse or abnormal parenting.
You can be sure that determination of the cause of homosexuality will not be as exciting to the left as it will be to the right. In fact, looking for such a cause is probably very non-pc. But I don't care. Take care.
me 2
Amazing. There is an "anal sadistic" side to those who feel they must sue over this.
I think the Red Cross and authorities in France have been sued because they were not diligent enough to keep high risk blood out of the system in the early discovery of AIDS/HIV. It would be their suicide to bow down to this nonsense.
OMG. This cannot be allowed to happen anywhere, and we all know why.
In June of this year, a large study was released where they asked gay men in various cities to volunteer to get tested for HIV. The researchers found the gay men in places where gay men can be found (gay bars, baths, bookstores, gay pride events). They tested 2500 men. Turns out 25% had HIV but only half of these knew they had it.
Studies involving identical male twins find that if the one twin is gay, the probability that the other twin is gay is 38% (if I remember correctly). This doesn't sound like much until you realize that only 2-4% of the male population is homosexual: so the probability that the identical twin of a gay man is gay is ten or more times more greater than normal. The same number for left-handedness is only 1.5 times more likely (8% of the male population is left-handed, and if a left-handed man has an identical twin, the twin has a 12% chance of being left-handed).
But of course, even though there appears to be a strong genetic component to homosexuality, it is certain that it doesn't cause homosexuality, it only increases the odds.
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.