Bryan Fischer
Gay blood donations: political correctness can kill
By Bryan Fischer
Follow me on Twitter: @BryanJFischer, on Facebook at "Focal Point"
Under pressure from demanding homosexual activists, the FDA is once again considering lifting the ban on homosexual blood donations. Males have, in the interest of public health, been banned from donating blood if they have had sex even one solitary time with another male since 1977.
This is not a matter of bigotry, it's a matter of health. It's not bigotry, it's medical science. It's not bigotry, it's compassion, compassion for innocent Americans like hemophiliacs who could get a death sentence through blood given by a sexually deviant donor.
The homosexual lobby, however, is relentless, and have been since the days of Sodom and Gomorrah when homosexuals tried to beat down Lot's door to get at his male guests. And with blood donations, these merchants of death have tightened the window: they pressed the FDA in 2010, and got turned down. They pressed the FDA two years later in 2012, and got turned down again. And now they're back just one year later hoping that political correctness will trump common sense.
Homosexual activists simply wear down and outlast the defenders of classic moral values and thus are able to impose their own twisted morality on the rest of us.
And that terminal weakness is what they are counting on to get their way with the FDA and put the health of the entire American population at risk.
Men who have sex with men are rightly classified by the FDA as belonging to the highest-risk blood donor category, in the same category with IV drug abusers and prostitutes. And there they should remain.
To lift the ban is to play Russian roulette with the health of the American people, and would be a grossly irresponsible thing for the FDA to do. Just this past week, the Japanese media reported on a man who has been diagnosed with HIV with the mode of transmission being a blood transfusion. Putting Americans at such risk is simply a socially, morally and politically irresponsible and unethical thing to do.
In NBC's story on the controversy, the network at least had the journalistic integrity to report, according to the Centers for Disease Control (not a part of the vast right-wing conspiracy), that 63 percent of new HIV infections occur among men who have sex with men.
In fact, as gay activist Matt Foreman has said, "We cannot deny that HIV is a gay disease."
The CDC is also reporting that 62% of men who know they are HIV positive, know they are carriers of what the CDC says is a potentially lethal virus, are having unprotected anal sex, which is the highest risk behavior for transmission of HIV. This number is up from 55% in 2005 and 57% in 2008. In other words, the problem, the danger, the risk, is getting greater and not less by the day.
ABC News reported today that, according the Journal of Infectious Diseases, researchers have discovered a new strain of HIV which moves victims to full-blown AIDS status twice as fast as existing strains do. This is not a time to grow careless or lax.
Advocates argue that improved screening procedures make the ban unnecessary. If so, then why is no consideration being given to lifting the ban on IV drug users and prostitutes and people who have lived in a foreign country which has mad cow disease? For the obvious reason: such donations pose an unacceptable risk, screening procedures or no, to public health.
A few years ago, Harvard professor Harvey Mansfield said, "You can tell who is in charge of a society by noticing who is allowed to get angry and for what cause."
Since nobody has a constitutional right to contaminate the nation's blood supply, here's hoping that the FDA will let the bullies and bigots of Big Gay know that sound public health is in charge here, not the yammering and demanding voices of sexual abnormality.
(Unless otherwise noted, the opinions expressed are the author's and do not necessarily reflect the views of the American Family Association or American Family Radio.)
© Bryan Fischer
December 5, 2013
Follow me on Twitter: @BryanJFischer, on Facebook at "Focal Point"
Under pressure from demanding homosexual activists, the FDA is once again considering lifting the ban on homosexual blood donations. Males have, in the interest of public health, been banned from donating blood if they have had sex even one solitary time with another male since 1977.
This is not a matter of bigotry, it's a matter of health. It's not bigotry, it's medical science. It's not bigotry, it's compassion, compassion for innocent Americans like hemophiliacs who could get a death sentence through blood given by a sexually deviant donor.
The homosexual lobby, however, is relentless, and have been since the days of Sodom and Gomorrah when homosexuals tried to beat down Lot's door to get at his male guests. And with blood donations, these merchants of death have tightened the window: they pressed the FDA in 2010, and got turned down. They pressed the FDA two years later in 2012, and got turned down again. And now they're back just one year later hoping that political correctness will trump common sense.
Homosexual activists simply wear down and outlast the defenders of classic moral values and thus are able to impose their own twisted morality on the rest of us.
And that terminal weakness is what they are counting on to get their way with the FDA and put the health of the entire American population at risk.
Men who have sex with men are rightly classified by the FDA as belonging to the highest-risk blood donor category, in the same category with IV drug abusers and prostitutes. And there they should remain.
To lift the ban is to play Russian roulette with the health of the American people, and would be a grossly irresponsible thing for the FDA to do. Just this past week, the Japanese media reported on a man who has been diagnosed with HIV with the mode of transmission being a blood transfusion. Putting Americans at such risk is simply a socially, morally and politically irresponsible and unethical thing to do.
In NBC's story on the controversy, the network at least had the journalistic integrity to report, according to the Centers for Disease Control (not a part of the vast right-wing conspiracy), that 63 percent of new HIV infections occur among men who have sex with men.
In fact, as gay activist Matt Foreman has said, "We cannot deny that HIV is a gay disease."
The CDC is also reporting that 62% of men who know they are HIV positive, know they are carriers of what the CDC says is a potentially lethal virus, are having unprotected anal sex, which is the highest risk behavior for transmission of HIV. This number is up from 55% in 2005 and 57% in 2008. In other words, the problem, the danger, the risk, is getting greater and not less by the day.
ABC News reported today that, according the Journal of Infectious Diseases, researchers have discovered a new strain of HIV which moves victims to full-blown AIDS status twice as fast as existing strains do. This is not a time to grow careless or lax.
Advocates argue that improved screening procedures make the ban unnecessary. If so, then why is no consideration being given to lifting the ban on IV drug users and prostitutes and people who have lived in a foreign country which has mad cow disease? For the obvious reason: such donations pose an unacceptable risk, screening procedures or no, to public health.
A few years ago, Harvard professor Harvey Mansfield said, "You can tell who is in charge of a society by noticing who is allowed to get angry and for what cause."
Since nobody has a constitutional right to contaminate the nation's blood supply, here's hoping that the FDA will let the bullies and bigots of Big Gay know that sound public health is in charge here, not the yammering and demanding voices of sexual abnormality.
(Unless otherwise noted, the opinions expressed are the author's and do not necessarily reflect the views of the American Family Association or American Family Radio.)
© Bryan Fischer
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
