Posted on 06/20/2016 4:23:19 PM PDT by Faith Presses On
A partial federal ban on gay men donating blood is "discriminatory" and hurtful in that it turned away potential donors after the June 12 massacre that killed 49 men and women at a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida, 24 U.S. Senators said in a letter Monday.
Sens. Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., were among 23 Democrats and one Republican -- Sen. Mark Kirk, R-Illinois -- who signed the letter to U.S. Food and Drug Administration commissioner Dr. Robert Califf.
...
"Yet, some of those most touched by this tragedy -- members of the LGBT community, who are especially eager to contribute to the response effort -- are finding themselves turned away."
...
"Based on advances in science and blood screening and safety technology, we expect that the new, one-year deferral policy is just the first step toward ending discrimination against MSM (men who have sex with men) in our donor deferral policies," the senators wrote.
"A one-year deferral continues to perpetuate inaccurate stereotypes about an entire group of individuals, and remains a de facto lifetime ban for many healthy gay and bisexual men."
(Excerpt) Read more at seattlepi.com ...
But there’s no demand for gay blood. People just aren’t buying it.
Well, seriously, how do they find out?
Does the workers ask them point blank if they are gay?
What about Lesbians? I don’t think they have AIDs like homosexual men?
I’ve never given blood as I’m a type 1 diabetic on a constant insulin pump.
“Let gay men indiscriminately donate blood...as long as it is properly cataloged and used only for muslim patients”
And in addition, let gays donate blood that is only to be used for other gay patients, both male and female. Oh, and for liberal far left politicians too who advocate for the lifting of the ban.
I did? Well, if that’s how you took it. LOL
Do me a favor, if you have any questions regarding the veracity of my Posts, please ask me to clarify before jumping to conclusions.
If you noticed, I said that the person RECEIVING the Blood could simply approve of the Donor being Gay. After all, they are the ones that will have to deal with the consequences. Let’s call it “informed choice”.
That takes the Wind out of the Sails of those acting like Gays are being discriminated against. Well, it would if People have any common sense anyway.
Understand that the upset Liberals look upon the Donor as a Victim, not a person who may be receiving the Contaminated Blood. I was nearly one of those people.
Contracting Hepatitis C on top of already having CLL and MDS would not bode well for my Lifespan on this Earth.
Let’em donate. Once they’re gone, flush it down the drain or how ever they would want to dispose of it.
What the blood donation centers ask about is simply “men having sex with men.” There is a questionnaire that asks all sorts of questions that potentially bar someone from donating blood, either for a limited period of time, or indefinitely.
Men who have had any sexual contact with men whatsoever, including a single incident, since 1977 were “permanently deferred” from donating until last year. Now there is a one-year ban on “MSM,” as it’s abbreviated, during which time a man must be celibate.
There is no way for the blood donation centers to tell if someone is telling the truth or not, on any question that’s asked.
Bans on certain people donating (like those who have used intravenous drugs, and those who have paid to have sex) are to discourage people from even showing up at the blood donation center, and the questionnaires are to put up another layer of protection.
But an FDA report on this very issue says that over time, the number of “MSM” men who donate blood has been increasing. It was less than 1% of their male donors 20 years ago, and it’s now over 2%:
“A key finding of particular note was that MSM, who comprise approximately 7% (Ref. 26) of the U.S. male population, represented an estimated 2.6% of male blood donors. Although the data were determined by different methodologies, they suggest an increase in the proportion of blood donors reporting MSM behavior from 0.6% in 1993 and 1.2% in 1998.”
For more information from the FDA on this issue:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3440651/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3440453/posts
Strictly speaking it is discriminatory. But so what?
I cannot believe there are people who cannot see the insanity in this. They are making decisions like this politically, not medically.
I wouldn’t say it is, in terms of the meaning of discriminatory as it’s commonly used today.
It’s no more discriminatory than not allowing blind people to drive cars.
And the secular humanist narrative on this issue is that all along the ban has been either discriminatory (the result of homophobia and “panic” over AIDS during the ‘80s), or it was medically necessary only when AIDS first surfaced, the medical field didn’t know anything about it, and there was no testing for it.
Almost every story I’ve seen on the issue in the past couple of weeks neglects to mention that thousands of people actually contracted AIDS through blood transfusions and died of it.
Let’s make it mandatory that the FDA test with Democratic senators, administration department management and White House staff for a couple of years to see the overall effects before we expose the general public.
Your husband is a great man for donating blood. I agree, type O negative is extremely rare. My GF is a nurse and they treat this type as a celebrity.
I know. See the other article I posted tonight on this:
“Lifting U.S. curbs on gay blood donors seen years away: experts” -
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3442123/posts
And these posts contain quotes from an FDA paper released last year that looked at the entire issue - statistics and studies, the available choices, and their shortcomings and likely consequences. The decision to keep a ban wasn’t discriminatory or political, but simply driven by the reality of “men who sex with other men” having much, much higher rates of HIV infection, and that if they were to donate in much greater numbers, the safety of the blood supply would decrease.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3440651/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3440453/posts
That is even being discussed is astonishing. If a single life is sacrificed on this altar of homosexual advocacy and political correctness, the people responsible should be arrested for murder.
Only the families of these politicians and they should use homo blood. That should be a 50 year study.
From the news stories and liberal essays I’ve seen, the secular humanists believe that the infection rate through blood transfusion is so low - just three verified cases in a decade, though an FDA report says there were likely some not identified as such - that a slight increase in HIV infections wouldn’t be a big deal (the FDA says the number might quadruple). The “slight increase” is less important than not excluding men who have sex with men.
Ladies first - that means you, Murray & Cantwell.
Otherwise, STFU
As a regular blood donor, I have always wondered about that question related only to males. How come sodomy with females is never a problem? I admit I am clueless when it comes to medical issues, but with my vast understanding of medicine I would apply the question to sodomy with either sex. I sure wish someone would help my ignorance on this subject.
The FDA and medical field strongly differentiate between the two in terms of risk.
So much so that even women who have had sexually contact with a male who has had sexual contact with other men are deferred from donating blood for a year afterward, I believe.
The key issue likely is how being sexually active with someone is in a medical sense the same as being sexually active with everyone else that person has been sexually active with.
And this:
“Sex with an HIV-positive partner was associated with a 132-fold increase in risk (multivariable adjusted odds ratio) for being HIV-positive, and a history of male-to-male sexual contact was associated with a 62-fold increase in risk.
“By comparison, the increase in risk for a history of multiple sexual partners of the opposite sex in the last year was 2.3-fold.”
“As a group, in the United States, MSM have the highest HIV risk: according to CDC, two-thirds of new HIV infections occur in the approximately 2% of the population who are MSM (Ref. 27). The risk of HIV among MSM is more than twenty-fold higher than that of men who have sex with multiple female partners and women who have sex with multiple male partners (Ref. 32).”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3440651/posts
And the questions asked of blood donors:
http://www.aabb.org/tm/questionnaires/Documents/dhq/v2/DHQ%20v2.0.pdf
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.