Posted on 02/24/2026 12:54:02 PM PST by fwdude
A three-member panel of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has allowed the U.S. military to reinstate its enlistment ban for HIV-positive people, ruling on Wednesday that the ban was based on “rational concerns.”
The Department of Defense (DOD) has a “rational basis” to exclude people with HIV from enlisting in the armed forces, Judge Paul V. Niemeyer wrote in his opinion, even those with undetectable viral loads whose treatment renders them unable to transmit the virus. The ruling reverses a Virginia district court’s 2024 injunction blocking the DOD’s enlistment ban, which had been in effect since the Pentagon instituted mandatory HIV screening in the 1980s.
(Excerpt) Read more at yahoo.com ...
Dear FRiends,
We need your continuing support to keep FR funded. Your donations are our sole source of funding. No sugar daddies, no advertisers, no paid memberships, no commercial sales, no gimmicks, no tax subsidies. No spam, no pop-ups, no ad trackers.
If you enjoy using FR and agree it's a worthwhile endeavor, please consider making a contribution today:
Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you,
Jim
“”””Ban People Living with HIV”””””
Strange wording.
“Permitted” what total garbage, the courts have no business, no jurisdiction in establishing military policies regarding effective unit cohesion and health/safety.
Really need one of these cases to get to the SC and smacked hard. This stuff has no place in the courts.
But then again with Benedict Roberts, “jurist for sale,” who knows how it would rule.
Consider the source. “Them” is a homo-apologist site. I really couldn’t find any normal news with this early story.
The title was bound to be provocative.
Can anyone think of another permanent, serious medical condition that requires constant ongoing treatment to manage it that does NOT result in deferment from enlisting in the military?
And yet, they want HIV to the the exception. The POLITICAL exception.
When I was in USAF, I was sent to Naval Station Key West, Truman Annex, to support US Forces Caribbean. My first room mate was a nave P.O.
A few weeks after I got there in June 1986, the order for mandatory AIDS testing for Navy personnel came down. On the specified date, my room mate went for testing and never came back.
Oddly, only navy people had to be tested. I wasn’t tested even though I had shared the room for a few weeks.
But Covid...
No "rules for thee but not for me".
Interesting. I’ll bet they walked him right out the gay(te). :)
The media uses that description a lot, someone doesn’t have HIV, they are living with it.
Or at least from donors at very high risk of contracting HIV.
It is an infection, a communicable one. We might as well call it that.
The “living with” construct is Woke speak. You don’t want to stigmatize people by saying HIV-positive people. Same with homelessness. Its now definitely not Politically Correct to say “homeless people”. You have to say “people experiencing homelessness.” I think “person of color” falls within the same PC rules.
That is also why venereal disease (VD) morphed into sexually transmitted disease (STD) and then to sexually transmitted infection (STI.) Infection is so much more non-volitional sounding than disease.
I don’t have Roberts Derangement Syndrome, but that’s pretty damn funny right there!
I think Diabetes is acceptable for a someone in active military, but only if they have been diagnosed AFTER they had already been in the service.
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.