Your life at greater risk to appease the PC gods...

Found this at www.nationaljournal.com my comments in the story are in bold italics:

A policy that bars gay men from donating blood for life is “suboptimal,” advisers to the Health and Human Services Department said on Tuesday, and needs another look. This is another example of medical science taking a backseat to political correctness.

HHS 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. In Truespeak that means "find a way to peddle the idea there's no added risk in the donation of blood from a group that has proven historically to contain added risk for donating 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. Meaning they're already busily twisting the truth.

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.

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. None of this will make a fat rat's patoot, it's already been decreed in some back room that the general population will now be placed at needless risk in order to appease the gods of political correctness.

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. Really? Name some! 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.” What a steaming crock. Hey Numbnuts, any group indulging in the sexual practices prevalent in the gay community has an astronomical risk of AIDS transmission. It's why the virus is primarily a heterosexual problem in Africa, over there "packing fudge" or "driving down the Hershey Highway" isn't limited to homosexuals.

“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.”

Some of the questions the Blood, Organ, and Tissue Safety Working Group will ask: What motivates a man who has had sex with other men to donate blood? Who cares? Can men understand what puts them at high risk of HIV infection? Will donors answer honestly? Don't bet the farm on that last one.

“It is anticipated that the described studies will yield data for reevaluation of the current deferral policy and potentially establish safety of blood collection from a subset of men who have sex with men or other currently deferred donors (e.g. men with a history of abstinence from MSM behavior for a defined time period),” HHS said. In other words, "We'll bend the truth to justify our desired result."

Other people with potential but unknown exposures to infectious diseases are banned from giving blood in the United States, such as people who lived in Britain in the 1980s, when bovine spongiform encephalopathy, also known mad-cow disease, was sweeping dairy herds. And nobody thinks twice about that ban, I know because I'm under it. Shit happens and you deal with it.

(End of story, further comments follow.)

I'm reminded of how the DSM was amended back in the 70's for the sake of political expedience. In one edition, homosexuality was deemed a mental disorder. Following the Stonewall riots the next edition was amended to have that changed. No explanation was ever given except a lot of hot air from the headshrinkers. So never mind that the science wasn't there, the desired result was obtained. End of story for that.

Because of that idiocy we've been told for decades that homosexuality is "just another lifestyle", that it's inherited (no science there either), that it's all relative. If it's all relative than the Almighty owes the city of Sodom one heck of an apology.

But with this latest foray into political correctness every single person who may need a blood transfusion will be saddled with an additional health risk.

All in the name of "acceptance", "tolerance" and "equality".

I feel ready to barf.