In 1985, the AIDS epidemic began decimating large numbers of homosexuals, and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) instituted a rule that homosexual men could not be blood donors. The FDA's official policy on blood donations from men who have had sex with men is presently, and always has been since 1985, No. Over the years, the FDA has held fast against pressure and lobbying efforts to rescind the rule. It is a well-known fact that men who have sex with other men, including gay and bisexual men, have a HIV infection rate 60 times higher than that of the general population. This is not our statistic. It is the FDA's.
Now, here comes Russian Roulette. There is no test that can pick up a new HIV infection in the blood with 100% accuracy. This is because blood is often pooled, so many people may be at risk from a single infected donor. Now, enter Senator Kerry who, in June of 2010, went over the FDA and sent a letter to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which is the parent agency of the FDA. In his tome, Senator Kerry complained that by keeping discriminatory policies on the books and denying willing donors the opportunity to help others, the ban should be lifted. Anyone reading this blog will realize why the gun is loaded. Hopefully, Homeland Security will weigh in on this.
Kerry's letter was signed by some of Illinois' "finest." I don't think that Mike Quigley (D- Chicago), or Jan Schakowsky (D-Chicago) believe the ban should be lifted because of any blood shortage, but because they want to continue their support and lobby for the homosexual agenda. These two players are also prominent in the marriage debate, both supporters of same sex marriage.
Our own Illinois Senator Durbin also signed on to Senator Kerry's letter to the HHS. This issue, like all issues, is being presented as a discriminatory policy kept on the books to deny willing donors the opportunity to help others. Does this rhetoric sound familiar? Does playing with a loaded gun sound familiar? To think that 40 members of the House and 17 members of the Senate would willing put this nation's health at GRAVE risk. Remember Arthur Ashe, the only black man ever to win the singles title at Wimbledon, the U.S. Open and the Australian Open, who contracted AIDS through a blood transfusion, as well as 10,000 hemophiliacs who died in the U.S. alone.
Pontificating Senator Kerry, in his frenzy to save humankind from a lack of blood, said, "Not a single piece of scientific evidence supports the ban. A law that was once considered medically justified is simply outdated and needs to end." Senator Kerry also notes that major professional health organizations have come down on the side of overturning the gay blood ban. Senator Kerry writes, "the three largest blood organizations in our country-the American Red Cross, America's Blood Centers and AABB (formerly the American Association of Blood Banks) - all agree calling the ban medically and scientifically unwarranted."
Illinois, especially, should be concerned. After all, we have examples of what lifting the ban might produce nationwide. Late in 2007, the media reported on a troubling case in Chicago. Four patients who received organ transplants in Chicago area hospitals contracted hepatitis and the AIDS virus from one donor who was medically identified as a person who lived "a high risk lifestyle." Later, it was confirmed that this donor's 'high risk lifestyle" was homosexual.
Physicians knew that the donor of the diseased organs had engaged in homosexual sex. However, these doctors weighed the test results and lifestyle risks against the loss of organs. The organs won and the patients lost. A lawsuit has resulted. The case revolves around the CDC guidelines which were violated twice. The first violation was not fully informing the recipient of the organ about the level of risk. The second violation was not testing the recipient for HIV. This is why the FDA reaffirmed their ban on homosexual blood donation. The ban isn't limited to homosexuals. It restricts other "high risk" categories such as prostitution and IV drug use. These restrictions are in place to minimize the risk that HIV or other infectious agents are injected or introduced into our blood supply.
The Department of HHS, in responding to Senator Kerry and Representative Quigley, identified 4 areas of study to pursue before the regulatory ban on gay men donating blood can be lifted.
This has nothing to do about health or a blood shortage, but everything to do about normalizing homosexuality. The battle continues.
Now, here comes Russian Roulette. There is no test that can pick up a new HIV infection in the blood with 100% accuracy. This is because blood is often pooled, so many people may be at risk from a single infected donor. Now, enter Senator Kerry who, in June of 2010, went over the FDA and sent a letter to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which is the parent agency of the FDA. In his tome, Senator Kerry complained that by keeping discriminatory policies on the books and denying willing donors the opportunity to help others, the ban should be lifted. Anyone reading this blog will realize why the gun is loaded. Hopefully, Homeland Security will weigh in on this.
Kerry's letter was signed by some of Illinois' "finest." I don't think that Mike Quigley (D- Chicago), or Jan Schakowsky (D-Chicago) believe the ban should be lifted because of any blood shortage, but because they want to continue their support and lobby for the homosexual agenda. These two players are also prominent in the marriage debate, both supporters of same sex marriage.
Our own Illinois Senator Durbin also signed on to Senator Kerry's letter to the HHS. This issue, like all issues, is being presented as a discriminatory policy kept on the books to deny willing donors the opportunity to help others. Does this rhetoric sound familiar? Does playing with a loaded gun sound familiar? To think that 40 members of the House and 17 members of the Senate would willing put this nation's health at GRAVE risk. Remember Arthur Ashe, the only black man ever to win the singles title at Wimbledon, the U.S. Open and the Australian Open, who contracted AIDS through a blood transfusion, as well as 10,000 hemophiliacs who died in the U.S. alone.
Pontificating Senator Kerry, in his frenzy to save humankind from a lack of blood, said, "Not a single piece of scientific evidence supports the ban. A law that was once considered medically justified is simply outdated and needs to end." Senator Kerry also notes that major professional health organizations have come down on the side of overturning the gay blood ban. Senator Kerry writes, "the three largest blood organizations in our country-the American Red Cross, America's Blood Centers and AABB (formerly the American Association of Blood Banks) - all agree calling the ban medically and scientifically unwarranted."
Illinois, especially, should be concerned. After all, we have examples of what lifting the ban might produce nationwide. Late in 2007, the media reported on a troubling case in Chicago. Four patients who received organ transplants in Chicago area hospitals contracted hepatitis and the AIDS virus from one donor who was medically identified as a person who lived "a high risk lifestyle." Later, it was confirmed that this donor's 'high risk lifestyle" was homosexual.
Physicians knew that the donor of the diseased organs had engaged in homosexual sex. However, these doctors weighed the test results and lifestyle risks against the loss of organs. The organs won and the patients lost. A lawsuit has resulted. The case revolves around the CDC guidelines which were violated twice. The first violation was not fully informing the recipient of the organ about the level of risk. The second violation was not testing the recipient for HIV. This is why the FDA reaffirmed their ban on homosexual blood donation. The ban isn't limited to homosexuals. It restricts other "high risk" categories such as prostitution and IV drug use. These restrictions are in place to minimize the risk that HIV or other infectious agents are injected or introduced into our blood supply.
The Department of HHS, in responding to Senator Kerry and Representative Quigley, identified 4 areas of study to pursue before the regulatory ban on gay men donating blood can be lifted.
This has nothing to do about health or a blood shortage, but everything to do about normalizing homosexuality. The battle continues.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment