Posted on 04/04/2010 7:24:45 AM PDT by Titus-Maximus
While the Obama Administration and its "progressive" supporters in Congress insist they want a federal health care bill to protect people from deadly diseases, liberal senators led by John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Al Franken (D-Minn.) have pressured the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) into considering lifting the ban on male homosexuals donating blood. It's a decision that could mean disease and death for many Americans, and billions of dollars in additional health care costs.
"John Kerry Supports Gay Blood" declared a column on a pro-homosexual website.
Kerry, Franken and 16 other liberal senators insist they want the blood supply to remain safe and that donated blood must undergo two "highly accurate" tests that make the risk of tainted blood entering the blood supply virtually or nearly zero.
But writer and researcher Dale O'Leary says that male homosexuals, or men who have sex with men (MSM), as the FDA describes them, "expose themselves to such a wide variety of pathogens that medical professionals can never be sure that they have a test to identify every one of them. There could even now be something lurking out there, hidden in the blood of apparently healthy men, waiting."
O'Leary, the author of One Man, One Woman, and The Gender Agenda: Redefining Equality, is writing a forthcoming report on the medical and health impact of admitting open and active homosexuals into the U.S. Armed Forces.
"Senator Kerry argues that this policy is now arcane because we have tests to determine if donated blood carries the HIV, but the problem is not the diseases we know of and have tests for but the diseases which we haven't identified as sexually transmitted and blood borne and don't have tests for," O'Leary points out.
(Excerpt) Read more at aim.org ...
Well, I see myself refusing to give blood to the blood banks if this policy is rescinded. I can never or rarely anticipate when one of my friends or loved ones will need my Type O untainted blood and they would definitely get firt crack at it.
Well, maybe not eliminate, but a lot of gay lefties think that homosexual sex is preferable because they do not reproduce. They think of heterosexuals as a form of pollution to be tolerated on a limited basis.
If something is evil, Obama is for it.
Oh, you’re talking about at the blood bank? I think they use a form that asks questions and they trust the people who want to give blood to be honest.
will not that blood also have to be labeled?
This is insane. What about that super virulet HIV that was in NY and killed within days?
Does john kerry get the first transfusion?
or its an easy way to kill political enemies.
I used to have a leftist radical lesbian friend who once told me that “men should be farmed for their sperm and then exterminated”.
That is a direct quote from her.
Heterosexuals are viewed as a threat by homosexuals because we see and speak out about their perversion. We don’t want our children and grandchildren to be indoctrinated and molested by them.
They want us GONE.
Yep. On a previous thread on this topic, I proposed starting a business selling certified sodomite free blood, for many times the price of the politically correct, but potentially lethal stuff. Nearly every patient would pay the premium for the safe blood.
Maybe LCBT donated blood should be reserved for LGBT and progressive recipiants. Want to bet that the recipiants wouldn’t complain?
FUBO!
LLS
There can be a window of 6-12 months between HIV infection and the test for it turning positive. Russian roulette anyone?
Political Correctness is Killing Us.
I suppose now that they got the Health Care Monstrosity rammed through, the dimwits in Congress think they know everything there is to know about health and health care. Instant experts.
As the article points out, there are a lot of things besides HIV spread through the blood, and we may not even know about some of them yet.
Not really. Anywhere will do.
I think they use a form that asks questions and they trust the people who want to give blood to be honest.
Ah! And there's the rub - so to speak. Let's say someone is NOT gay (not that there's anything wrong with that) but fill out the form checking off that they ARE gay. They'll need proof. Will pictures do?
On the flip side - if someone IS infected but says that they aren't gay? That could cause problems - no?
Next up, mandate that IV drug users, prostitutes, mega-piercers and “bug chasers” be allowed to give blood to the general population. It’s their “right.”
Not necessarily. I've heard of people banking their own blood, but it's very costly. (Remember the Seinfeld episode where Kramer made a 'withdrawal' to keep in his own freezer?)
That, and the accessibility to your own blood products on short notice impose obvious limits.
Such anarchists need to be charged with a federal felony, if not just outright shot. But they will, unbelievably, actually be lauded.
Why?
We need to wrest this idiotic discussion from the hands of the sodomites and put it back on a rational path. They want people to think that "gays" are being banned from donating because they are "gay", when it is merely the well-founded, rational, solidly proven risk that such behavior presents to the blood supply.
Isn’t Ezekiel Emanual a homosexual himself? Or is that the other brother?
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.