Keep That Smile On His Face
Donate Monthly
Sponsoring FReepers leapfrog0202 and another person will contribute $10
Each time a new monthly donor signs up!
Get more bang for your buck
Sign up today
Keep A.I. Laz alive.
Posted on 05/06/2011 10:46:45 AM PDT by reaganaut1
The Academy will no longer host blood drives through the Red Cross, whose ban on blood donations from men who have had sex with other men was found to be inconsistent with the Academy’s anti-discrimination policy, Principal Tom Hassan decided this week.
The FDA policy has been in place since 1977. Gay men are more likely to transmit HIV through blood donations, an FDA representative said.
An Academy employee brought the clashing policies to the attention of Dean of Faculty Kathleen Curwen, Director of Human Resources Kate Anatone and Chief Financial Officer (CFO) Chris Wejchert. The Academy was unaware of the FDA’s policies beforehand, Curwen said. Hassan then met with the Human Resources department, several Academy employees and two Red Cross representatives, making the final decision to change Academy policy upon recommendations from Curwen, Anatone and Wejchert. “There was little convincing to do,” Curwen said. “Once we were informed, it was clear that the Red Cross policy was a clear violation of the Academy’s guidelines. We have strict policies regarding harassment and discrimination. The Red Cross policy was viewed as discriminatory.”
Hassan said that a number of colleges and universities have taken similar stands about Red Cross blood drives on their campus.
A representative from the Eligibility Department of the Red Cross maintained the validity of the FDA’s policy. “Gay men have a higher transmission rate of HIV,” she said. “We are not thinking of changing our policy right now, as we are regulated by the FDA. We won’t alter our practices until there is additional information provided by the FDA that it is safe.” Laura Carter, an FDA Consumer Safety officer, also stood by the FDA’s policy.
“Basically it comes down to infectious disease testing,” Carter said. “It comes down to what they consider risky behavior.
(Excerpt) Read more at theexonian.com ...
The school’s attitude in this case is exceedingly unscientific ~ primitive in fact ~ people should pull there kids out of there now.
Not to worry . . . more than likely, the blood that Bruce donated after his wild weekend is probably ok . . . ya' know . . . probably . . . more than likely . . . and there's no need to label it as such . . . .
What they should do is TAKE THE BLOOD FROM THESE HOMOSEXUALS, AND, AFTER THEY LEAVE THE BLOOD DRIVE LOCATION, SIMPLY THROW IT AWAY.
As a matter of fact, they should label the specimen as such and mark it thusly so that only homosexuals would get it . . . since, after all, they have a RIGHT to $hit up our blood supply.
It’s probably because most PEA’ers are gay.
Stupid, biased Red Cross! I’ll bet they also don’t accept donations from African missionaries just getting over a bout of malaria!
/s
I was talking to some asshat from Exeter the other day.
I realized then that there are a group of people in America who are trying to make themselves the “lords” and “princes” of America just like Europe used to have.
Trying to set themselves above everyone else.
This is horse blank.
To prove how liberal we are, we will knowingly allow high risk individuals to donate blood? Do we care that AIDS was spread to many people via blood transfusion before the ban was in effect?
Male homosexual behavior has been identified as a high risk of spreading HIV and AIDS. Is this an inconvenient truth? I know liberals love to lecture us about inconvenient truths.
Do we have to have additional risks to the blood supply just to prove that we are liberal? I don’t get this. The blood donation ban was put in place as a matter of public health, not as a way to malign homosexuals.
I guess we live in a politically correct world. I expect that sooner or later, this ban on blood donations will go away. But it won’t be because there is suddenly not a greater risk from these men, it will be because of pressure groups and political correctness.
Mark the specimen that it was proudly donated by a homosexual and then let the patient know, before receiving the blood, who is donor was.
They would rather have people die in a blood shortage (caused by them and others like them) due to their “high minded” support of gay blood donors? Nice. Wouldn’t it be just too bad if someone close to them died that way in their pursuit of “equality” or “diversity” or “acceptance.”
What intellectual dishonesty.
And there are bans on those who have lived in Europe, due to risk of mad cow disease, if I recall correctly.
The ban on homosexual donations is only one of many such bans. It’s not like the homosexual community was singled out so we could malign them. But the liberal view is that we did indeed want to discriminate. Liberals have a different world view.
Yeah, the Red Cross doesn’t want to get their butts sued and/or sent to prison because their blood infected somebody. How dare they.
If Principal Tom Hassan ever needs blood in a hospital, he should be denied Red Cross blood and only be permitted to get blood taken from gay men.
What, that’s dangerous? Well, it’s what he’s advocating for everyone else through his action.
You can be certain that the parents of a Philips-Exeter student who received a unit of tainted blood would be the first to sue everyone in sight.
Used to be a good school.
The Red Cross is not discriminating against homosexuals. If they were, they wouldn't provide blood to gay patients in need.
Instead, they're simply saying that gay people are within a class of folks whose blood is not considered "desirable". Just like mine because I served in the military in Europe in the '80s.
Do I feel discriminated against? Not in the least. If I need blood, I know they'll be there for me.
The key with these schools if you are a parent and student. Is to USE them. Make it clear to your kid that the only point to going there is to get the name on your resume and to make contacts with other high powered people. Ignore all the BS from the faculty.
But I see nothing here other than screeching PC. (And no wonder. Do you really believe that either the political appointees at FDA (under Obama!) or its career bureaucrats are "anti-gay" or otherwise would advise the "ban" if they didn't believe that NO ban would cause a disaster?)
These leftards would rather that people die for lack of blood supplies than go along with something that they WRONGLY think is anti-gay. Life itself is less important to them than being politically correct.
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.