Tuesday, August 2, 2011

Gay Men Want to Taint the Nation's Blood Supply...Again

By Alan Caruba

In 1993, tennis champion Arthur Ashe died as the result of receiving a blood transfusion that was tainted with the AIDS virus. Ashe was not homosexual, but the donor of the blood was.

Earlier, in 1985 as the AIDS epidemic began decimating large numbers of homosexuals, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) instituted a rule that homosexual men could not be blood donors.

Guess what? The nation’s homosexuals want to have that ban removed in much the same way they have successfully lobbied to get some States to accept same-sex marriage.

Supporting the effort to taint the nation’s blood supply are Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) and Rep. Mike Quigley (D-IL). Working with them is the Obama administration’s Health and Human Services Secretary, Kathleen Sebelius.

It gets worse. Even the Red Cross is on record for lifting the ban. Until such time as the Red Cross makes it clear that it will uphold and enforce the ban, financial donations should be withheld.

When your life hangs in the balance, do you really want to receive blood that may, in turn, infect you with AIDS?

Do you believe the ban should be lifted because it represents an issue of “discrimination” or “fairness”? That’s what homosexual activist groups are claiming and, frankly, in matters of life and death, I want the FDA to discriminate in favor of protecting life.

A recent article in the National Journal put the issue in perspective: “Men who have sex with other men, including gay and bisexual men, have an HIV infection rate 60 times higher than that of the general population, the FDA says.”

“They have an infection rate 800 times higher than first-time donors and 8,000 times higher than the rate of repeat blood donors. Tests cannot pick up a new HIV infection in the blood with 100 percent accuracy; because blood is often pooled, many people may be at risk from a single infected donor.”

According to the Red Cross estimates, every two seconds someone in the U.S. needs blood and more than 38,000 blood donations are needed every day. One out of every ten people admitted to a hospital needs blood.

I don’t want to live in an America where the need for a blood transfusion puts anyone at risk for AIDS.

I want to understand why, in the midst of the worst financial crisis in a decade, the U.S. government gave a grant of a million dollars for a study of “The Association between Penis Size and Sexual Health among Men Who Have Sex with Men.” The study ran for five years and was subsidized by the National Institute of Health.

Previously I have written that the Obama administration is the most gay-friendly in the nation’s history, but tainting the nation’s blood supply by lifting the ban on homosexual men as donors defies sanity.

It is rapidly becoming evident that the election of Barack Obama has ushered in a period of fiscal insanity, but I shudder to think that this nation might have elected Sen. John Kerry president in 2004. Along with Rep. Quigley he has been pushing HHS to end “the outdated, discriminatory lifetime ban on gay and bisexual men from donating blood.”

This is way beyond stupid. It is negligence and pandering on a scale that will literally put people’s lives at risk.

I don’t care if gays are offended by the ban.

I don’t want men marrying men or women marrying women.

I don’t want children to be indoctrinated in the nation’s schools to believe that there is anything “normal” about homosexuality.

I don’t care if gays are offended by this expression of my opinion. You’re not “special”, you’re just gay.

This is about life and death in America, not sexual preferences.

© Alan Caruba, 2011


Will Harmon said...

Alan, I had no idea this kind of lunacy is going on. Thank you for posting this. If Kerry or Quigley or any of their their family ever need blood, I hope it comes from an AIDS infected homosexual.

KatyDid said...

Someday, maybe they will develop a method of figuring out if human blood has something that makes it unsuitable for donation.

Maybe some sort of test.

For now, we can rest assured that since only gay-gay-gay folks have AIDS and other bloodborne diseases, that our blood supply doesn't have to be tested at all!

As always, thanks for bringing this devious plot to the fore...

Susan (rainy) said...

I was a regular donor before moving to the UK. Lived there from 1990-95. Upon returning to the US I was told that I could no longer donate blood because of Mad Cow Disease in the UK during that time. This is an "indefinite" ban for me even though there is not ONE.. NOT ONE known case of vCJD (the human equivalent to the disease in cows) being transmitted through blood! In fact there have not been any cases of vCJD reported in the US at all. But they are going to lift a ban for homosexuals!?! Political correctness is going to kill us all one way or another.

J Johnston said...

Back in the late 80's didn't Mr. Wm. Buckley offer the idea of branding a big two inch "A" on the forehead of each homosexual Aids carrier?

No, I don't see much use for a grant of a million dollars for a study of “The Association between Penis Size and Sexual Health among Men Who Have Sex with Men.” .....unless they plan to stamp the penis size on the forehead of of all gays..... that might make such a study meaningful, you think!

KatyDid said...

Wishing AIDS upon political opponents' families? I fear I might have misinterpreted the seriousness of this blog.

If you look at the AIDS epidemic as it has developed in the U.S. and around the world, I think it's clear that - with STDs in general, in fact - if you were worried about the spread of various infections in the blood supply, you wouldn't target homosexuals... You would ban the donation of blood by African Americans.

First of all, for virtually every demographic, African Americans represent about 50% of new infections (and only 10% of the general population!).

When you look at FEMALE African Americans, they STILl make up more than 50% of new infections, despite the fact that (by definition) NONE of them are directly engaging in gay male sex.

So why no call for banning African American donations? Because it would make anyone who did look like an alarmist and bigot... for good reason.

But LGBT folks really ARE still a group that is permissible to hate on.

Anyway,sorry to have intruded. now that I see your intellectual heft is so lacking that wishing AIDS on others seems like a legitimate response, I'll be out of your hair.

Alan Caruba said...

@KatyDid: Who exactly is "wishing AIDS on political opponents"? As for the other statistics you cited, you are correct. Political correctness will likely kill more people than a realistic response to HIV.

Bottom line: I and no one I know wants anyone to die from AIDS.

KatyDid said...

@ Alan: Will Harmon just did in his prior comment... "If Kerry or Quigley or any of their their family ever need blood, I hope it comes from an AIDS infected homosexual."

KatyDid said...

(Which, admittedly, I should not blame on you. God knows if I got blamed for what people write in my blog's comments...)

sharkey said...

Wow I was not aware that ONLY gay men carried the AIDS disease. *eye roll*. ANYONE can be infected ... Stop the ignorance!!! AIDS in NOT a GAY disease!!!!! The HIV virus effects EVERYONE!!!

Travis sez said...

Thank you for this additional proof that we live in a world where important decisions for public health and safety are being made by MORONS.

Susan (rainy) said...

@KatyDid: The whole point of Mr. Caruba's post was because he DOESN'T want anyone to die from AIDS. Geesh. I believe his point was about political correctness and putting the nation's blood supply at risk for it.

Thank you for pointing out (abeit through sarcasm) that there is a very accurate test which detects HIV in blood, and that blood donations are all given this test before being distributed. I did not know this.

However to call out bigotry or racism is telling of your view of the world not mine. Those are serious charges and should not be used lightly because you think someone disagrees with your point of view. Real bigotry and racism are horrible things that are diminished by a disingenuous use of those words. I don't hate people. I gave blood because I care about all people. It was to go to anyone that needed it in any part of the world. But now I can no longer donate because I lived in London during the Mad Cow incidences almost 20 year ago. There has not been one case of the vCJD reported in the United States.. ever. Plus there is no evidence to suggest that it is even transmitted through blood. And there have now been reported Mad Cow diseased cows in the US. If I am banned because of possible UK exposure to diseased cows shouldn’t all Americans now be banned as well? Just sayin’. Should I immediately call out bigotry against the Brits! Don’t want to risk any of the English blue blood mixing with our red-blooded American stuff? Get my point? The name calling ‘bigot’ and ‘racism’ crap needs to end.

Alan Caruba said...

@Katydid: Then Will needs to rethink what he said.

Alan Caruba said...

@Sharkey. It remains a largely homosexual disease, although there are stats regarding the Afro-American population that demonstrate it is prevelent there as well. To suggest the nexus is not among gays is to ignore the obvious.

retch said...

Ever since I got a ridiculously luxurious offer to do a job for them, (did some research and declined) never have trusted the Red Crescent oops Hakenkreuz oops Cross again.

Suzie Q said...

"Gay"? It's a rather an innocuous or positive moniker. These people are homosexual perverts. They may want to place a name on themselves that sounds carefree and happy like "gay". It's like 1984 doublespeak.

I prefer calling perversion perversion. Deviants. I just think the moment we redefine the behavior in terms that are not appropriate, the reality of homosexuality is lost in the translation. The behavior is unnatural. They deserve no "class protection" for sexually deviant perversion. It is not "discriminatory" to note that those persons engaging in this form of perversion and deviancy are high risk for carrying the HIV virus before it can be detected as they give blood. They need to remain eliminated as donors. And told they are perverts, and this is not a "special class" of persons deserving "protection" from "discrimination" in their ability to give blood. As we return to sanity, we call perversion perversion and it stops people from claiming "special status" as a "persecuted group" for being defined as deviants.

I just think we need to return to properly defining their behavior as perversion.

Then it is clear that we are not "discriminating" against people for calling perversion perversion. And we certainly don't owe them special status that defies logic.

Will Harmon said...

I have donated over two gallons of blood. I have also received 8 units of blood during major surgery after which I was not accepted as a donor for 12 months. So was I discriminated against?

The battery of questions a prospective donor is asked prior to donating is asked for one reason only; to screen for high risk factors to protect the blood supply. No one is denying potential donors for the sole purpose of blatantly discriminating against them because of race or sexual persuasion. But when people are taking certain pharmaceuticals, have had certain infections, or when men are sleeping with men, or men are paying prostitutes for sex, or when people travel to countries where AIDS is rampant or where other potential blood borne infections or diseases like malaria are known to exist, the risk is greater that blood from these folks could adversely affect the health of those who receive it. Isn’t it better to err on the side of safety than on the side of political correctness? The science is not exact. HIV is not immediately detected in testing and many other blood borne conditions may not show up at all. I don’t want anybody, Kerry, Quigley, myself or anybody else to receive tainted blood. The comment was for shock value. If they really thought about it, do they honestly feel comfortable playing Russian roulette with their own health or that of their families by being transfused with blood that came from people where there was higher risk for any blood borne disease? Of course not. But it does still happen today on occasion with all the current safeguards in place. So does it make sense to relax the screening?

Politicians need to keep their noses out of things they know nothing about and have no business being involved in. These are decisions for healthcare professionals made on the basis of studies, tests, and statistics. Every time a politician raises the race or discrimination issue we can rest assured it is posturing and pandering to voting blocks. I believe that was exactly Mr. Caruba’s point with which I whole heartedly agree.

As a blood donor and blood recipient I care deeply about this issue. I also have several friends who are gay and they are wonderful people who have gifts and talents they use to help other people. I’m neither a bigot nor a racist; it’s not my place to judge. But at the end of the day, people who have high risk health conditions or who engage in high risk activities are statistically in a higher risk class for carrying and passing disease to others through their blood donations and they should continue to be denied. And when we are denied (as I was for 12 months after a blood transfusion), we should bury our own pride and indignation and have the decency and enough concern for others to let it go. And Kerry, Quigley, et. al., need to stop inciting class warfare.