John Kerry calls for the blood of gay men

[Jaron]

http://www.thebostonchannel.com/health/22740841/detail.html?hpt=T2

Kerry: Let Gay Men Give Blood
1983 Ban Called Outdated, Discriminatory

POSTED: 12:23 pm EST March 4, 2010
UPDATED: 1:13 pm EST March 4, 2010

Gay men should be allowed to donate blood and laws banning them from doing so are discriminatory and outdated, according to Sen. John Kerry and several of his Senate colleagues.

"Not a single piece of scientific evidence supports the ban," Kerry said. "A law that was once considered medically justified is today simply outdated and needs to end."

Kerry was one of 16 U.S. Senators who in a letter on Thursday asked the Food and Drug Administration to lift the ban on gay men donating blood. The ban was put in place in 1983, at the height of the HIV/AIDS crisis and before modern screening and advanced testing methods for HIV were developed.

Experts say current screening and testing have reduced the risk of tainted blood entering the blood supply undetected to virtually zero.

The American Red Cross, America's Blood Centers and AABB all support repealing the ban, saying the law is "medically and scientifically unwarranted." The American Medical Association also supports modifying the ban.

In 2008, the Senate passed legislation Kerry authored to lift the statutory HIV travel and immigration ban as part of the President Barack Obama's Emergency Plan For AIDS Relief. The ban was officially lifted in October 2009.

Hmm, How can we...tackle this problem?

[The Brain]

 

[Jaron]

If he sparkles in the sun, must he not drink? Maybe I was wrong about this one.

[MadImmortalMan]

 

[Faeelin]

Eh. I'm inclined to be precautionary on this, but if those groups all are behind it, sure.

[garbon]

It might be polite for them to give us rights before asking for our blood.

[Martinus]

A similar ban was lifted in Poland about 2 years ago. America: backwards.

[Faeelin]

A similar ban was lifted in Poland about 2 years ago. America: backwards.

33% of Americans live in states that give legal equality to gay couples. How many Polish provinces do?

It's one thing to live in a shithole country, but it's another to pretend otherwise.

[Martinus]

Incidentally, I found out recently that Poland is more progressive than the US on gays in the military as well. (I suspected that before but didn't bother to research).

A friend's flat mate is a soldier in active service and he is gay and knows a bunch of other gay guys in his unit and they often hang out together. They are not openly gay in the unit, as obviously there is still homophobia and they could be subject to verbal abuse etc., but this does not seem to differ from a situation in any other profession (other than perhaps the fact that the army is more homophobic, than say the fashion industry). (That being said apparently everybody knows the unit leader is a closeted homo, even though he is an outspoken homophobe). But the difference, compared to the US, is that noone can be legally discharged from the army on account of a "crime" of being gay or engaging in gay sex.

On top of that, we have full anti-discrimination employment protection for gay people, the recent ECHR ruling means cohabiting gay couples have certain rights until now given to hetero couples only, and the opposition party is now campaigning on a civil partnership act they want to introduce.

Poland seems more gay friendly than the US. 

[Martinus]

A similar ban was lifted in Poland about 2 years ago. America: backwards.

33% of Americans live in states that give legal equality to gay couples. How many Polish provinces do?

It's one thing to live in a shithole country, but it's another to pretend otherwise.

We are not a federal country, so we don't have different provinces giving people different rights (if we had, Warsaw probably would have had civil partnerships by now). Does your country have federal laws protecting gay people from being fired for being gay? Does your army allow gay people to serve openly?

So go fuck yourself with your ivory tower sense of superiority that would be put to a sore test in some parking lot in Wyoming.

[derspiess]

If they are really that confident in the screening technology, and as long as they let the other high-risk groups donate blood, fine by me.  Less stupid questions I have to answer on the form.

If, however, they are just doing this to help boost gay people's self-esteem, then nein.

[garbon]

If, however, they are just doing this to help boost gay people's self-esteem, then nein.

I think it would most likely make us feel light-headed, not big-headed.

[Martinus]

If they are really that confident in the screening technology, and as long as they let the other high-risk groups donate blood, fine by me.  Less stupid questions I have to answer on the form.

If, however, they are just doing this to help boost gay people's self-esteem, then nein.

See, this is where this unjustified homophobic prejudice comes in.

Gay people are not a "high risk group". Gay and bisexual men and heterosexual and bisexual women who engage in unprotected anal or vaginal sex with random strangers are. This is why this policy is prejudiced and wrong. It should track sexual behavior, not sexual orientation.

[Alexandru H.]

I don't want blood from Polacks. 

[Martinus]

I don't want blood from Polacks. 

Good call. Human blood can be harmful to animals and other lower life forms like Romanians.