It would be difficult to find a system more tyrannical than the modern day egalitarian revolution which militantly promotes absolute equality. No where is this philosophy more apparent than in the homosexual movement. Not content with their recent equality gains regarding service in the military, marriage and adoption, they are now fighting for equality of blood.
The Wall Street Journal reports in a recent article 1 that a blood products advisory committee is helping pave the way for a reversal of the ban that bars homosexuals from donating blood. Those who promote such a medically reckless and life threatening proposition ignore two sobering facts reported in the Journal.
“Among the newly diagnosed cases of HIV in 2012,” the article states, “64% were males who had reported sexual contact with other males.” Of even greater concern is the “window period” where the deadly HIV virus in the infected person is not detectable.
“In modern tests used most frequently by blood banks,” the article explains, “that window period varies from nine days after transmission to about 22 days.” Watching a homosexual give blood therefore should cause us as great a concern as a blood donation from someone coming from Ebola-devastated West Africa. After all, this equally lethal disease also has a 22-day incubation period and in its early days its victim has neither a temperature nor symptoms.
The most disconcerting part of the story comes from Dr. Susan Stramer, Vice President for Scientific Affairs at the Red Cross. She said that an extremely low number of cases of blood donation result in AIDS transmission nowadays and backed it up with numbers. The Journal reported her saying that data from the Red Cross showed that transmissions each year between 1999 and 2011 varied greatly from one to twelve depending on the year.
It is doubtful that such a comment would console the person on an operating table awaiting a blood transfusion. Such a prospect is as frightening as receiving blood from Liberian native Thomas Duncan 2 on the day he arrived in America. He showed no signs of Ebola but died weeks later of the horrific disease. Would those proposing such a ludicrous change in blood screening be willing to play what is virtually a game of sanguinary Russian roulette?
In the interest of fairness, it must be stated that the proposed change, if it goes through, would only allow donations from homosexual men who have refrained from sexual activity with other men for one year. This begs a question: what measures will be put in place to ensure that these new donors have complied with the rules? It should be noted that Ebola patient Thomas Duncan said he had no contact with Ebola victims before he left his homeland.
Lastly it must be said that there are myriad other conditions for which a person can be barred from giving blood. For example: “If you have had recent exposure to or a history of hepatitis, malaria, CJD (AKA Mad Cow Disease), babesiosis, and Chagas’ disease,3 ” just to name a few.
That list presently includes men who have had relations with other men, at least once since 1977. For the homosexual movement to claim this as “discrimination,” as the article states, is therefore baseless. Blood gathering centers like the Red Cross are by their very nature discriminatory and so they should be. This is the care which should be taken to protect our blood system in order to transmit life instead of death.
We can well imagine that in spite of the all the logical reasons and medical arguments against such a measure it might very well pass. Those who suffer the unfortunate consequences will be victims of a politically correct society that prefers to sacrifice common sense in order to continue worshiping at the altar of egalitarianism.