It's Time to Let Gay Men Donate Blood
This is something that is w-a-a-a-a-y overdue…
I'll grant that at some time in the 1980s, when this new disease seemed to come from nowhere and target gay men, a rule like this may have made some sense. You didn't know who had it because the incubation period was so long, the virus had not yet been identified, tests were nonexistent, and a few people did get HIV from blood transfusions. So far 120 people have been infected by transfusions, of the many millions who have had them.
Meanwhile, lots of gay people donate blood, especially closeted ones -- what are you going to say, "Naw, I just don't feel like it today!" A well known example is New Jersey governor Jim McGreevey who came out in 2004, but he donated blood before that, even staged a photo op for the media to promote blood donation, which is the kind of good-guy thing that politicians love to be associated with. Now that he's out of the closet he can't donate any more.
There are those who use the AIDS epidemic to demean gay men -- you might have seen the picture of the genius at the NOM protest the other day with the sign that said "GAY="Got AIDS Yet?" They would like to portray all gay people as dirty, diseased, and evil. It's time to step back from that though and let the researchers work out the percentages, see if there is a way to screen potential blood donors, let's see what we can do to create a policy that is nondiscriminatory and also does not put people at risk. At least it's time to treat it as a serious issue, and not simply continue the pattern of prejudice out of habit.
A policy that bars gay men from donating blood for life is “suboptimal,” the Obama administration said on Tuesday, and needs another look.
The Health and Human Services Department asked a committee of experts on blood and tissue donations to reexamine the policy and see if there is a way to let at least some gays donate blood.
“If the data indicate that a change is possible while protecting the blood supply, we will consider a change to the policy,” HHS said in a statement.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration, an HHS agency, has banned blood donation by any man who has had homosexual sex because of the risk of the AIDS virus. Soon after the AIDS pandemic began in the 1980s, people such as hemophiliacs who received frequent blood transfusions or blood products began to become infected with the deadly and incurable virus. U.S. to Take Another Look at Gay Blood Donation Ban
I'll grant that at some time in the 1980s, when this new disease seemed to come from nowhere and target gay men, a rule like this may have made some sense. You didn't know who had it because the incubation period was so long, the virus had not yet been identified, tests were nonexistent, and a few people did get HIV from blood transfusions. So far 120 people have been infected by transfusions, of the many millions who have had them.
Meanwhile, lots of gay people donate blood, especially closeted ones -- what are you going to say, "Naw, I just don't feel like it today!" A well known example is New Jersey governor Jim McGreevey who came out in 2004, but he donated blood before that, even staged a photo op for the media to promote blood donation, which is the kind of good-guy thing that politicians love to be associated with. Now that he's out of the closet he can't donate any more.
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 blood 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.
But the Red Cross, always struggling with blood shortages, and other groups such as gay-rights organizations oppose the blanket policy. They say that there are other ways to screen out donors at high risk of HIV infection. Sen. John Kerry, D–Mass., has also been pushing for a change in policy.
“We’ve been working on this a long time in a serious way, and I’m glad Secretary [Kathleen] Sebelius responded with concrete steps to finally remove this policy from the books,” Kerry said in a statement. “HHS is doing their due diligence, and we plan to stay focused on the endgame – a safe blood supply and an end to this discriminatory ban.”
“This announcement by HHS means we’re moving in the direction of finally ending this antiquated and discriminatory policy,” agreed Rep. Mike Quigley, D-Ill. “Senator Kerry and I will continue to push for a behavior-based screening process both in the name of fairness and a safer blood supply.”
There are those who use the AIDS epidemic to demean gay men -- you might have seen the picture of the genius at the NOM protest the other day with the sign that said "GAY="Got AIDS Yet?" They would like to portray all gay people as dirty, diseased, and evil. It's time to step back from that though and let the researchers work out the percentages, see if there is a way to screen potential blood donors, let's see what we can do to create a policy that is nondiscriminatory and also does not put people at risk. At least it's time to treat it as a serious issue, and not simply continue the pattern of prejudice out of habit.
posted by JimK at 7:01 AM
41 Comments:
"A policy that bars gay men from donating blood for life is “suboptimal,” the Obama administration said on Tuesday"
shouldn't they be focusing on other things right now?
"some time in the 1980s, when this new disease seemed to come from nowhere and target gay men"
it still targets gay "men"
"let's see what we can do to create a policy that is nondiscriminatory"
why don't gays just back off and leave well enough alone?
engaging in homosexual behavior increases your risk of AIDS
why not just keep it simple and decline donations from populations that are risky?
"discriminating" on the basis of behavior is fine
why not just keep it simple and decline donations from populations that are risky?
Anon fails reading comprehension, again.
Here's the answer:
"“If the data indicate that a change is possible while protecting the blood supply, we will consider a change to the policy,” HHS said in a statement.
...the Red Cross, always struggling with blood shortages, and other groups such as gay-rights organizations oppose the blanket policy. They say that there are other ways to screen out donors at high risk of HIV infection..."
KISS is the word
a sensible policy needn't be changed to advance the gay agenda
This change is sought and being evaluated in the effort to increase the supply of blood and blood products needed to keep Americans healthy.
The only one trying to advance some political agenda here is Anon, who is once again espousing his obsessive-compulsive support for the homophobic agenda.
"This change is sought and being evaluated in the effort to increase the supply of blood and blood products needed to keep Americans healthy."
you should probably tell the politicians pushing this because they think the reason fo rthe change is to end "discrimination":
"“We’ve been working on this a long time in a serious way, and I’m glad Secretary Sebelius responded with concrete steps to finally remove this policy from the books,” Kerry said in a statement. “HHS is doing their due diligence, and we plan to stay focused on the endgame – a safe blood supply and an end to this discriminatory ban.”
“This announcement by HHS means we’re moving in the direction of finally ending this antiquated and discriminatory policy,” agreed Rep. Mike Quigley, D-Ill. “Senator Kerry and I will continue to push for a behavior-based screening process both in the name of fairness and a safer blood supply.”"
don't hear a word in there about increasing the blood supply...
two weeks ago today, Obama gave Congress two days to solve the debt crisis-
or else!!
he sure scared the heck outta 'em
I guess Cantor called his bluff
the latest poll of likely voters by Ramussen this morning shows 54% disapprove of Obama
On Monday night, Obama again schizophrenically shifted between demagogic finger pointing and patronizing lecturing. In fact, the speech provided an illustration of the central reason he has failed to provide the kind of presidential leadership that is crucial to solving the debt-limit crisis. "I won't bore you with the details," Obama said of his secret budget plan. But the biggest problem with Obama's approach so far is that he has never bothered with any details. The White House has been negotiating with congressional leaders for months, yet Obama has never committed any of his offers to paper. The result has been a steady flood of leaks, counterleaks, speeches and news conferences about what was, or was not, in the latest rejected offer. This environment, created entirely by Obama, created only mistrust and ill will between the parties.
Then there is Obama's obsession with raising taxes. Again Monday night Obama insisted that a "balanced approach" must include tax increases on "the wealthiest Americans." "A cuts-only approach ... doesn't ask the wealthiest Americans or biggest corporations to contribute anything at all," Obama said. This statement is simply divorced from reality. The top 5 percent of income earners pay 59 percent of all federal income taxes. Meanwhile, 45 percent of households pay no income tax at all. What's balanced about that?
If Obama truly was serious about solving our nation's debt crisis he would have released a serious plan months ago. Instead, he not only passed the buck to a debt commission that he created, he then cynically dismissed their work when they announced a solution. Obama then introduced a budget so fanciful that the Democratic Senate rejected it 97-0.
House Republicans, meanwhile, bravely took a hard vote on a real budget proposal scored by the Congressional Budget Office. Obama reacted by publicly rebuking House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., and then outlining a plan that was so vague the CBO refused to even score it.
The Treasury Department has reportedly been telling U.S. banks that there is no risk the federal government will default on U.S. debt. And there is no reason it should. The federal government takes in far more money each month in taxes than it owes in interest payments. But there is a real danger that ratings agencies may downgrade the nation's triple-A credit rating anyway. If that happens, Obama will only have himself to blame.
Anon, you should try reading more newspapers.
"The American Red Cross has changed its mind on the safety of blood donated by gay and transgender people, and has asked the Food and Drug Administration to change its policies.
During the FDA’s Blood Products Advisory Committee meeting March 9 and 10, the American Red Cross said it believes “the current lifetime deferral for men who have sex with men is no longer medically and scientifically warranted,” and recommended that it be modified.
The Red Cross joined its counterparts in recommending that “rational, scientifically based” deferrals be used.
“It does not appear rational to broadly differentiate sexual transmission via male-to-male sexual activity from that via heterosexual activity on scientific grounds,” said Steven Kleinman, M.D., presenting a joint statement on behalf of the Red Cross, the American Association of Blood Banks and America’s Blood Centers.
Kleinman further recommended that the FDA should lift the ban on the donation of human cells and tissues by MSMs for the same reasons.
...Red Cross spokesperson Ryland Dodge says the new position is all about blood safety and has nothing to do with outside pressure and bad press.
The reasons given for the change are that more is known about HIV than when the FDA first issued its guidance, better donor histories are used at collection sites, and that nucleic acid testing has allowed for earlier detection of HIV in donated blood.
The new test was approved in February, 2002.
“We have more data now,” said Dodge in of the more effective test.
“As recently as last fall, we came to the conclusion that the MSM deferral was not necessary,” Dodge said.
Asked why it took the Red Cross so long to come to the conclusion it did, Dodge said, “It takes a while to collect data.”
still don't see anyone saying the reason to change is a need for more blood
here's a little something from a liberal paper in Iowa:
"The standoff over the debt ceiling is about politics, not economics, and a small but cohesive group of Republicans in the House appears to have won. President Barack Obama and Democrats in Congress should accept a deal that can pass in both houses to avoid an economic disaster for our nation and its citizens.
The stop-gap plan proposed by House Speaker John Boehner is better than the alternative of the United States government effectively shutting off funding to nearly half its obligations, or worse, failing to pay interest on money it borrowed."
that's funny
It would appear that Speaker John Boehner (Ohio) has been a quick study of the art of arm twisting as he slowly picks up momentum for his debt limit and deficit reduction plan.
Less than 24 hours after it appeared Boehner would not be able to rally enough GOP support for his bill thanks to conservative opposition, the Speaker suddenly seemed to have picked up momentum Wednesday morning.
“From what I saw in there, I think there’s a pretty good change of heart,” Rep. Allen West (R-Fla.) said following an early morning meeting of the GOP. Asked if he thought the bill would be passed, West said, “I believe it [will]. I’d almost put my retirement check on it.”
One conservative lawmaker said Boehner and his lieutenants have been pushing their Conference hard on the issue. “They’re working it hard. They’re working it earnestly. They’re working it aggressively,” the lawmaker said.
The pressure seems to have had an effect — for instance Rep. Blake Farenthold (R-Texas), who Tuesday was leaning toward opposing the bill, is now on the fence.
Boehner is planning a vote on the bill Thursday.
Since becoming Speaker, Boehner has emphasized a leadership style which allows the House to work its will rather than a more traditional top down approach. But with the nation bearing down on an Aug. 2 deadline to avert a default and raise the debt ceiling, Boehner has changed tactics in order to secure passage of his measure to raise the debt limit in two stages while cutting the deficit at the same time.
WASHINGTON -- The debt ceiling debate has provided yet another opportunity for Democratic base voters to lament the political choices of the president they helped elect. A Washington Post-ABC poll released this week found that the number of liberal Democrats who strongly supported President Obama's record on jobs had fallen an astonishing 22 percentage points over the course of a year, from 53 percent to 31 percent.
Hooray for Anon who can only read the first two sentences. Here's the rest of that HuffPo article:
"The prioritization of spending cuts over job creation -- not rhetorically, but in terms of governance -- was likely the primary contributor.
But as in similar moments in the past, such as the loss of the public option in the health care debate, the failure to end Bush-era tax cuts on high-earning Americans, and last spring's government shutdown showdown, voters' disappointments in policy choices are not translating to serious problems for Obama's reelection campaign.
President Obama currently enjoys a higher popularity among Democratic voters than every Democratic president dating back to Harry Truman had at similar junctures in their presidencies.
According to Gallup's presidential job approval data, Obama had a 78 percent approval rating among Democrats from July 18 to July 24, 2011. Bill Clinton, meanwhile, had a 77 percent approval rating among Democrats from July 20 to July 23, 1995. Before him, Jimmy Carter had a 37 percent approval rating among Democrats from July 13 to July 16, 1979. Before him, Lyndon Johnson had a 63 percent approval rating among Democrats from July 13 to July 18, 1967. Before him, John F. Kennedy had a 77 percent approval rating among Democrats from July 18 to July 23, 1963. And before him, Harry Truman had a 76 percent approval rating percent among Democrats from July 4 to July 9, 1947.
The numbers don't tell the full story. Only two of those presidents, Truman and Clinton, would go on to win reelection. In Carter's case, moreover, that 37 percent approval rating among Democrats represented a near-nadir -- it would be back up to 67 percent by the turn of 1980.
But for the Obama re-election campaign, the side-by-side comparison is an advantageous one. For starters, there is time for the president to improve on his 78 percent. More importantly, his popularity among Democrats has remained consistent even after he threw the party's sacred cows -- Social Security and Medicare -- into the deficit hysteria mix."
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 blood 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.
When this statement changes maybe there should be a debate on the issue. Other people with other diseases are banned from donating.
"people with other diseases"
anon, gay men with HIV will not be allowed to donate blood. That topic is not under discussion anywhere, by anybody. Most gay men do not have HIV/AIDS, and their blood is just as good as anyone else's.
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.
as the article makes clear, they want to figure out how to weed out potentially dangerous donors. A guy who has had risky sex or used IV drugs and doesn't know if he has HIV is the danger. There are things you can ask them to filter them out. (note that women who have sex with high-risk men are not stopped from donating, though they also might be unknowingly infected.) Someone diagnosed with HIV will know, and won't try to donate.
if you think somebody would donate blood to intentionally make people sick, well they don't have to be gay to do that! Rumor has it that there are evil heterosexual people out there, too.
"as the article makes clear, they want to figure out how to weed out potentially dangerous donors. A guy who has had risky sex or used IV drugs and doesn't know if he has HIV is the danger. There are things you can ask them to filter them out"
why go to all that trouble?
why not just take the easiest route and focus on other things?
alcoholics, for example, are banned because of a higher risk of latent hepatitis
this is just another example of turning a system inside out to accomodate the gay agenda
no, anon, this is a matter of showing respect for people who deserve it.
no, anon, this is a matter of showing respect for people who deserve it.
Do you really believe that? Respect has nothing to do with medical facts.
the health of the general public should come before this artificial attempt to make homosexuality seem safer than it is
fact: when you engage in homosexual activity you are placing your health at risk
go ahead
but don't force the rest of us to share your risk
the current policy has it right
while they're at it, they should close down gay bars
the random promiscuity at the center of the homosexual community is a menace to the public health
before you give blood, you are asked a number of questions
answering affirmatively to any of them can disqualify you
you have chronic headaches?
since it might signal a condition that could be transmitted, you are disqualified
these people don't get in a huff and demand research to find out if they can actually safely give blood
they understand that the public health is more important
only homosexuals would push something like this
let's face it, it's an inherently self-centered and self-interested group without a sense of civic responsibility
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
"Consumer activist Ralph Nader said Tuesday that he’ll launch an initiative soon to field primary challenges to President Obama.
Nader, who waged two presidential campaigns as a third-party candidate, is working with a group of frustrated Democrats who are hoping to turn up the heat on Obama from the left.
“It’s an initiative to scan the possibilities of people who may run,” Nader said in a phone interview. “My guess is that it’s almost 100 percent sure there’s going to be a primary challenge to Obama from somebody or somebodies — plural.”
Nader’s effort follows comments over the weekend by Sen. Bernie Sanders (Vt.), a liberal independent who caucuses with Democrats, that it would be a “good idea” for Obama to face a primary challenge in 2012.
Other liberal stalwarts on Capitol Hill acknowledged their frustration toward the president and his handling of the spending-and-debt debate. They expressed worries about how it might tamp down enthusiasm for Obama among the Democratic base in 2012."
having sex of any kind with someone whose infection status you are unsure of puts you at risk. Homosexual sex between partners who are not infected is perfectly safe.
the odds are astronomically higher with homosexuals
sorry, but facts are facts
tomorrow, John Boehner's plan passes the House
on Friday, the Senate, which can't pass it's own bill will have no choice but to pass it
on Saturday, Mr POTUS will sign it- and move on
to his appointment with history, as a one-term President
LAST UPDATED ON JULY 28 AT 8:42 a.m.
House Republicans against/leaning no on Boehner plan (22)
Todd Akin (Mo.) — Senate hopeful is a no
Justin Amash (Mich.) — Not shy about breaking from GOP leaders
Michele Bachmann (Minn.) — Against raising debt ceiling; voted against CCB*
Paul Broun (Ga.) — Against raising debt ceiling; voted against CCB*
Jason Chaffetz (Utah) — Possible Senate candidate is a no
Jeff Duncan (S.C.) Told thestate.com, a South Caroline media outlet, that he is a no
Jeff Flake (Ariz.) — Senate hopeful “can’t support the current bill”
Phil Gingrey (Ga.) — A definite no
Louie Gohmert (Texas) — Planning to vote no
Paul Gosar (Ariz.) — Leaning no
Trey Gowdy (S.C.) — Leaning no
Tom Graves (Ga.) — Firm no
Andy Harris (Md.) — Strong proponent of BBA**; Indicated to Baltimore Sun he is a no
Tim Huelskamp (Kan.) — Firm no
Jim Jordan (Ohio) — RSC chairman is strongly opposed
Steve King (Iowa) — Firm no
Connie Mack (Fla.) — Voted against CCB*; firm no
Mick Mulvaney (S.C.) — A no vote
Ron Paul (Texas) — Against raising debt ceiling; voted against CCB*
Dennis Ross (Fla.) — Leaning no, according to National Journal Daily
Steve Southerland (Fla.) — Lawmaker told AP he is a no
Joe Walsh (Ill.) — Said on MSNBC he is a no
Undecided/Still reviewing/Unclear (46)
Joe Barton (Texas)
Dan Benishek (Mich.)
Rob Bishop (Utah)
Charles Boustany (La.)
Kevin Brady (Texas)
Mo Brooks (Ala.) — The Speaker made the case to Brooks personally, Politico reported
Michael Burgess (Texas) — Told National Journal Daily he is not fond of bill’s provisions on a new commission
Dan Burton (Ind.)
John Campbell (Calif.) — According to The Washington Post, Campbell opposed initial version of bill. GOP leaders can't count on Campbell
Francisco “Quico” Canseco (Texas) — Voted against CCB*
Scott DesJarlais (Tenn.) — Voted against CCB*
John Duncan (Tenn.)
Stephen Fincher (Tenn.)
Chuck Fleischmann (Tenn.) — A couple media outlets have Fleischmann as a firm no, but the Hill has not confirmed that
Trent Franks (Ariz.)
Scott Garrett (N.J.)
Morgan Griffith (Va.) — Voted against CCB*
Bill Huizenga (Mich.) — Told AP, "I'm searching for a path toward yes, but having a difficult time finding it."
Randy Hultgren (Ill.)
Tim Johnson (Ill.)
Walter Jones (N.C.) — Voted against CCB*; told AP he is undecided; regularly votes against GOP leadership
Jack Kingston (Ga.)
Raul Labrador (Idaho)
Doug Lamborn (Colo.)
Jeff Landry (La.)
Tom Latham (Iowa) — Boehner confidante, who faces tough reelection, torn on vote. He signed CCB* pledge earlier this month
Don Manzullo (Ill.)
Tom McClintock (Calif.)
Tom Marino (Pa.)
Jeff Miller (Fla.)
Devin Nunes (Calif.) — Noncommittal during Fox interview Monday
Ted Poe (Texas)
Ben Quayle (Ariz.)
Denny Rehberg (Mont.) — Running for the Senate
Tom Rooney (Fla.)
Tim Scott (S.C.) — Had been leaning no
Jean Schmidt (Ohio)
David Schweikert (Ariz.)
Marlin Stutzman (Ind.)
Scott Tipton (Colo.)
Michael Turner (Ohio) — His office stressed Wednesday he is undecided
Tim Walberg (Mich.)
Lynn Westmoreland (Ga.)
Joe Wilson (S.C.)
Kevin Yoder (Kan.)
Don Young (Alaska)
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/173745-whip-list-on-boehners-new-plan-on-debtdeficit
The vote to pass the Boehner's debt ceiling raising bill has been postponed but could still take place this evening. Speaker Boehner released a revised version of his proposal Wednesday evening, which cuts $917 billion dollars of spending over ten years.
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) confirmed that Boehner's new plan does cut more than his previous proposal, which would have cut $850 billion, but it is still less than the $1.2 trillion he originally said his plan would cut.
Meanwhile, stocks tumbled for a second day on news that compromise has not been found less than one week before the August 2nd deadline, which is the date the ratings agencies say they could downgrade the U.S.’s credit.
they're planning to downgrade regardless of the debt vote because the trajectory of the spending of our socialist governement is unrealistic
our rating will stay below ultimate until Obama is replaced next year
actually, our interest costs will go up very slightly but there will be little other effect
the rating agencies have their own credibility problems in the last couple of years and, so far, demand for our treasury bills has not weakened noticably
we continue to be a bastion of stability
Anonymous, did you really put scare quotes around the word "men" in your first comment above? Did you mean to do that? You underscore when you do things like that that nothing you say is based on science, reality or morality, just animosity.
animosity?
I thought gays would appreciate it if I didn't throw them in a category with all other males.
Personally, I think they should be who they are but they are the ones insisting they were born "that way."
I was just indulging their fantasies.
Geeez, you can't make anyone happy these days.
Why don't you go swallow a bag of crystal meth?
I thought so: animosity.
another redefinition of a commonly understood word by a lunatic fringe gay advocate
Robert is now referring to the process that goes on in his head as "thought"
As I said: animosity.
"another redefinition of a commonly understood word"
animosity |ˌanəˈmäsitē|
noun ( pl. -ties)
strong hostility
It's no redefinition. You exhibit strong hostility toward gays and those who advocate for them to have equal rights. For years you have left a clear record of your animosity in various comment sections on Vigilance. In fact, right here on this thread, suggesting Robert ingest an illegal and dangerous drug is evidence of your animosity.
I don't have any hostility toward gays
I must admit to take umbrage at those who advocate special rights for homosexuals, however
I guess, in a verbal sense, that could be termed hostility
do feel any umbrage concerning those who advocate that certain groups should have more rights than others?
"another redefinition of a commonly understood word by a lunatic fringe gay advocate
Robert is now referring to the process that goes on in his head as "thought""
did you guys see Bea display he r lack of reading comprehension ability?
"animosity |ˌanəˈmäsitē|
noun ( pl. -ties)
strong hostility
It's no redefinition."
Bea,Bea
it wasn't "animosity" that Robert redefined
it was "thought"
he was that confused mental process were the equivalent of "thought"
you gotta admit:
that's a stretch!!
Uh huh, and we also see Anon admitted his "animosity" by redefining it as "umbrage."
What do you have to do with this conversation, topsy?
Are you having a "which person am I today" afternoon?
"Uh huh, and we also see Anon admitted his "animosity" by redefining it as "umbrage."
What do you have to do with this conversation, topsy?
Are you having a "which person am I today" afternoon?"
what you say doesn't make sense
perhaps your mental processes don't qualify as thought eitehr
Some folks here are being far too gentle in defining "Anonymous" (in all of his paranoid schizophrenic guises) by using the word "animosity". The correct word to use is: HATRED!
His God will, however, forgive him of his transgressions...uh, did I really say that? The idiot is destined for the final resting place of his choosing and closest to his vile heart: HELL!
Post a Comment
<< Home