Harvard Homosexual Leader Urges Others To Lie When Donating Blood

Toogood Reports ^ | October 2, 2001 | Rev. Louis P. Sheldon

[Starmaker]

At a time when most Americans are rallying behind the President in our nation's battle against terrorism and are flooding Red Cross offices with money and offers to donate blood, a homosexual activist at Harvard has told his followers to lie to the Red Cross when they volunteer to give blood.

Clifford Davidson, head of a homosexual group called BOND, recently sent an email to his activist friends. According to a report in "The Harvard Crimson," Davidson told his friends: "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."

Davidson has since clarified his recommendation to lie, saying he only meant that homosexuals should lie on the form if they'd been tested for their STD and HIV status. Fellow homosexual Fred Smith lauded Davidson's recommendation, noting, "The [Red Cross] rule is based on homophobic stereotypes. In this case I don't think it is unreasonable to ignore it."

Another homosexual friend responded with these none-too-comforting words: "I've lied about my sexuality in the past to donate when appropriate, and will do so in the future. But I'm also a very responsible, HIV [negative], STD free, monogamous fag."

The attitude displayed by Davidson is amazingly narcissistic and shows that he is unconcerned that his advice might result in the inadvertent spread of HIV into the blood supply in Massachusetts. A person who receives HIV-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. Blood found to contain HIV or other germs are discarded. Yet, no test is 100% certain, and no homosexual can be absolutely sure he's free from HIV infection. There is also the issue of latent infection, where the HIV virus remains virtually undetected for years in a person's system. It can avoid detection from standard tests.

Homosexuals have been complaining for years that it is "discriminatory" to forbid homosexuals from donating blood. San Francisco Supervisor Mark Leno, for example, complained last year over the Food and Drug Administration's decision to continue the ban on homosexuals possibly infecting the blood supply.

Homosexuals are not only risking infecting our nation's blood supply with HIV, but many of them carry a mini-epidemic of other sexually transmitted diseases including: syphilis, gonorrhea, shigellosis, hepatitis A and C, human papilloma virus, and other communicable diseases.

With more Muslim terrorist attacks a real possibility in the U.S., it seems rather unpatriotic for Clifford Davidson to be asking fellow homosexuals to lie when they donate blood to the Red Cross. Why burden the Red Cross with blood that is possibly contaminated and will have to be discarded anyway? Why is Davidson willing to risk the lives of victims of terrorism who may be infected with HIV-tainted blood that escapes Red Cross testing?

Davidson and his homosexual activist allies should be willing to set aside their narrow and selfish political agendas to consider the better good for our nation. But will they? Or will political considerations continue to outweigh concern for human life and the security of our nation?

[Octar]

Clifford Davidson and his followers need life-ending procedures performed before their irresponsiblity kills another innocent hemophiliac or other person who needs a transfusion.

[JimRed]

Does anyone else remember a homosexual activist back in the late 70's-early 80's who said (on some late night radio program) that they planned to make AIDS a problem for straights by contaminating the blood supply? They figured AIDS would get more research bucks that way.

[cricket]

"Sounds like conspiracy to commit murder to me!"

Worse; it is 'terrorism'. . .; more specifically, in this case a 'germ warfare'; a biological threat. . .

How might Clifford 'feel' about that.

Beyond dispicable, people who would target the innocent and unsuspecting; men, women and children, already suffering. . .without a thought for the consequences he might be responsible for.

As to terrorism in America. . .you are either part of the problem Clifford. . .or part of the solution. . .

[A CA Guy]

People forget homosexuality was considered a part of abnormal psychology before it became a political movement. If they lie, they should suffer the full wrath of the law.

[constitutiongirl]

Good point.

[supercat]

When I've given blood in the past, I had to remove one of two barcoded stickers from a sheet of paper and apply it to the bag. One of the stickers would mark the blood suitable for donation, while the other would not; while I didn't examine multiple stickers to determine if they were identical, there was no way for a casual observer to tell which sticker had been applied to the donated blood.

If someone who is at risk of HIV or other diseases, for whatever reason, wants to be seen as giving blood, I have no particular problem with them making the donation and then putting on the "do not use" sticker. On the other hand, I fail to see how it is infringing upon the rights of such a person to ask that they mark their 'donation' as do-not-use. After all, they have no expectation of benefit from the future use of their blood, so marking their blood "do not use" denies them nothing.

[KC Burke]

Your frank comment is commendable.

[alnick]

>>How can they keep their private life private if they're asked about it on a form when they want to help other people?! Doesn't that seem like a contradiction to you? << Oh come on now. It's clearly obvious to any fool that a question like that on a blood donor form is ABSOLUTELY NECESSEARY in order to reduce the possibility of spreading AIDS. It's not like someone sat there and said, "Oh, I think that I'll discriminate against homosexuals and reject them as blood donors because I don't like those people."