February 5, 2008, - 11:43 am

ABSURD: In Solidarity with Gays, University Bans Blood Banks

By Debbie Schlussel
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) bars gay men from donating blood. It’s not about discrimination–as the agency also bars non-gay persons who also are at risk for fatal diseases and viruses. It’s about protecting the blood supply from AIDS and protecting Americans’ health.
The fact is that AIDS tests are not always certain. The disease can show up in the infected up to ten years after the fact. Not accepting blood donations from gay men is an important safety precaution. And unlike the warnings they gave us in the ’80s, we never saw the explosion of AIDS in the general population–just in the gay male and intravenous drug user population.
But common sense and safety precautions are not a good thing in the mind of San Jose State University President Don Kassing. He says this violate SJSU’s non-discrimination policy. So, how is he responding? Well, the numbskull with a Ph.D. is banning ALL blood drives on campus. This, at a time when American blood donations are low and hospitals are running short.

gaymarriagehomersimpson.jpg

I wish some daring students at SJSU would flout the policy and hold a blood drive, because I can’t believe this policy is Constitutional. SJSU receives a great deal of federal funds, including federal student loans and grants, and it cannot flout FDA policy, nor can it ban students from freedom of association and assembly in holding a blood drive. If SJSU’s president Kassing’s fatwa is challenged in court, I doubt it will pass Constitutional muster. Discrimination–as in this case–is lawful, where there are legitimate national security and/or safety concerns, as there are with the blood supply.
Would you take blood from anonymous donors, if you knew it could come from a gay male who might have undetected AIDS? Hello . . . ?:

San Jose State University President Don Kassing said the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s position conflicts with the school’s policy prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation.
A campus employee brought the matter to Kassing’s attention last year, and school officials gathered information and spoke with the FDA before Kassing decided to discontinue on-campus blood drives until he is satisfied the agency reevaluates its stand, he said.
“I recognize the importance of giving blood and we know that universities are a significant source of blood,” Kassing wrote in an e-mail sent Tuesday to faculty, staff, students and alumni. “Our hope is that the FDA will revisit its deferral policy in a timely manner and we may soon be able to hold blood drives on this campus again.” . . .
People with past histories of intravenous drug use, prostitution, hemophilia, hepatitis or certain heart and lung diseases are subject to the same lifetime ban on giving, according to the FDA. Individuals are ruled out when they fill out a questionnaire that asks about medical histories and past behaviors.
People who have been treated for cancer, women who have sex with bisexual men and travelers who may have been exposed to the human form of mad cow disease by spending three months or more in the United Kingdom between 1980 and 1996 also are generally disqualified for periods ranging from one to five years.
“The persons who are deferred, this is not based at all upon judgment of their behaviors themselves. They are simply based on the mathematical model of risk,” said FDA spokeswoman Peper Long.

This is ridiculous. The SJSU policy will not get the FDA to change its sound policy barring all of those who contribute a high risk of potentially-fatal virus to the blood supply.
And it has a significant impact in the long-term:

Local blood banks say that position comes at a steep cost.
Blood drives on the San Jose campus bring in an estimated 1,000 pints a year, estimates Michele Hyndman of the Stanford Blood Center. In general, she said high school and college campuses account for about 20 percent of all donated blood.
Hyndman argues the effects of the ban go further, however, since many students who first give blood in campus drives go on to become lifelong donors.
Lisa Bloch, spokeswoman for San Francisco-based Blood Centers of the Pacific, agreed, calling Kassman’s decision “irresponsible.”

Thanks to reader Ari for the tip. He writes:

There’s something truly sinister about the gay rights agenda. This is more disgusting than buggery.

Amen. AIDS–contrary to the gay rights movement–did not become “everyone’s disease.” By pushing this, it’s clear they want to make it everyone’s disease by pushing it on the blood supply.
G-d help us, if the FDA changes its sound policy.

Related Posts with Thumbnails
Print Friendly



Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

12 Responses

Greetings:
Homosexuals are NOT “gay”.
They are homosexual.
Homosexuals should be referred to as homosexual, not as gay, a word which used to have a perfectly innocent connotation.
Please stop perpetuating the perversion of our English language.
Thank you.

writesong on February 5, 2008 at 12:16 pm

writesong,
Would the colorfully descriptive terms of rump ranger, sausage lover and bone smoker assist in your happily excited, keenly alive and exuberance, inducing high spirits of the English language?
Perhaps it is best you go here and refresh yourself with the fact that GAY is the correct term for homosexual males.
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/gay
You may be onto something though; the word Carrier might need to be updated.

West Dearbornistan on February 5, 2008 at 12:43 pm

“I recognize the importance of giving blood and we know that universities are a significant source of blood,” and universities are a significant source of homosexuals as well.

TheOmegaMan on February 5, 2008 at 12:53 pm

Politics and science don’t mix.

John Cunningham on February 5, 2008 at 1:06 pm

    LOL!! Yeah and Jesus Freak Republicans are world renowned for their contributions to science. Remember Evolution is a hoax and stem cell research is evil!!!

    John on December 20, 2009 at 6:46 pm

clean blood on hand!

Jim Phelan on February 5, 2008 at 2:14 pm

Thanks, Debbie for the post. We can never be too over cautious when it comes to the blood supply. I am in the culture war and I see how liberal colleges have become, to the degree that they loose all common sense. It all goes back to appeasing a small minority of folks who feel they are being picked on, such as in this case, the gays.
BTW: This is a state university we are talking about, so how about we ban government funds to it, since they want to refuse to provide a community service of such importance. I’m sure if that school has a massacre or another disaster, they’d want some clean blood readily available!

Jim Phelan on February 5, 2008 at 2:17 pm

Debbie,
I am completely for protecting the blood supply. As a matter of fact I am not allowed to give blood as I have lived too long in Europe, Germany to be exact, so because of the BSE risk I am no longer a good candidate. While I would love to give blood, I understand why I can’t.

Blogeline on February 5, 2008 at 2:47 pm

Greetings:
I don’t care how MERRIAM-WEBSTER defines the word, “gay”.
I want us to take back OUR language from the Marxist elements that have imposed “political correctness” on us.
I’m sixty-two years old, and I remember when the word, “gay”, meant something else entirely, and was a word that anyone could use anytime, without it’s implications being misconstrued.
Likewise, I’m also furious at the repeated misuse of the politically correct terms, “African-American”, “Native American”, and “gender”, and I never let those terms go unchallenged.
Politically correct terminology does far more than damage our language.
After all, I frequently deliberately say “ain’t”, so I ain’t really all that particular about grammar.
No, the greater harm from politically correct terminology is to distort our history and culture, and further denigrate traditional American values.
It’s a classic Marxist tactic, and it’s working.
Thank you.

writesong on February 5, 2008 at 3:44 pm

Also disturbing is this, coming from internationally known infectious disease specialist Dr. John Diggs.

West Dearbornistan on February 5, 2008 at 12:13 pm

To illustrate how even more absurd this is…
I live in the SF Bay Area and donate blood to the American Red Cross on a regular basis. There are many different reasons that the blood bank can defer your donation other than you being gay. For example, if you’ve lived in certain overseas countries for a period of time, if you take certain medications, if you’ve had cancer or been treated for other diseases, if the iron in your blood is too low (and I’ve been deferred numerous times because of this), etc.
These rules protect not only the person who receives the donation but the person who wants to donate–if you’re not 100% healthy, you can risk your own health. And, why in God’s name would anyone want to jeapordize the life of a patient just to be able to donate and make themselves feel important?
The fact remains that men who have sex with men are more likely to have HIV and other communicable diseases. If the San Jose State option is adopted, the only choice that blood banks will have is to accept blood from anyone and everyone, pay the expense to run extensive tests on that blood, and then dispose of any donations that are tainted… excuse me “less than optimal.” What a waste of time and money, just to ensure that some gay man’s feelings don’t get hurt! Get real idiots.

Kalifornia Kafir on February 6, 2008 at 12:18 am

This is moronic. The blood bank relies on questions in order to find out if a person is gay. If a person admits they are gay, why not ask them if they have ever had unprotected sex? THAT is what spreads HIV and NOT mere homosexuality. If a person is honest enough to admit they are gay, then they should be honest enough to answer that question as well. Also, they are cutting out a giant chunk of the population that could donate blood. Not wise.

John on December 20, 2009 at 6:48 pm

Leave a Reply

* denotes required field