Aaron Pace Says Indiana Blood Center Rejected Him For Appearing Gay
-
A straight man who tried donating blood at a Gary, Indiana blood center was reportedly turned away recently–because employees of the center thought he was gay.
The Chicago Sun-Times reports that Aaron Pace, 22, is "admittedly and noticeably effeminate," but still a heterosexual man. In any case, when he visited Bio-Blood Components Inc. in Gary, which pays for blood and plasma donations, he was told he could not be a donor because he “appears to be a homosexual.”
Bio-Blood would not respond to the Sun-Times for comment, but allegedly are taking advantage of an outdated federal law that was upheld in 2010.
CNN has more on the FDA ban:
Current FDA rules dictate that any man who has had sex with another man since 1977, even once, cannot donate blood. This rule has been in place since the early 1980s, when there were no tests in existence for identifying HIV-positive blood. Concerns about HIV tainting the blood supply prompted this policy, viewed as a safety measure.
Current law requires all donated blood to be tested for HIV and other infectious diseases, which is why gay activists and even the American Red Cross have called for the “medically and scientifically unwarranted" ban to be lifted. Also, most blood centers ask male donors if they have had sex with men during the screening process--which Bio-Blood reportedly did not do, instead they just presumed he was gay.
A 2010 study by the Williams Institute showed that if the FDA would lift its gay blood ban, nation's blood supply would be increased by 200,000 pints per year.
Still, when the Federal Advisory Committee on Blood Safety had a chance to lift the ban last year, they voted to uphold it, citing inadequate research surrounding high-risk donations. After the ban was upheld, the Red Cross expressed disappointment, saying they supported "rational, scientifically-based deferral periods that are applied fairly and consistently among donors who engage in similar risk activities."
-
That's far beyond pathetic to say the least.
-
We all know that if you get a transfusion from a gay man that it turns you gay….....no wait, that sounds as stupid as if you get blood from a black man it turns you black.
-
Sadly, there are people that believe gay blood turns you gay.
-
i don't think that's the reason the law was passed. i think it's more because the incidence of sexually transmitted diseases SEEM to be more prevalent among us homosexuals. however, it was already proven that women experience pretty much the same thing, except that it doesn't get reported as frequently.
sigh.
-
I'd like blood from a dude with a big cock…. hopefully it would help it grow! :dick:
-
If we take this concept to it's full conclusion, then no one should be allowed to give blood.
Black men are the least likely to admit they are gay, yet black males are the highest group for gonorrhea and HIV.
Black women are the highest female group with HIV and 2nd highest in total group behind black men with HIV.
Women are the highest group for several STDs and 2nd for gonorrhea (see above).
Here's a chart for HIV infection by race/gender in the US; hXXp://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/aa/
If we look at Africa, then no black person should ever give blood.
If we look at Alaska, no one should be allowed to give regardless of race or gender.
It not medical groups that are keeping this law on the books, it's politicians that are doing it, while ignoring the medical industry.
NOTE: Except where noted, I'm using US figures.
-
i don't think that's the reason the law was passed. i think it's more because the incidence of sexually transmitted diseases SEEM to be more prevalent among us homosexuals. however, it was already proven that women experience pretty much the same thing, except that it doesn't get reported as frequently.
sigh.
The original reason that law passed in the early 80's was due to HIV. At the time it was referred to as GRID (Gay Related Infectious Disease). The first case in North America was first spotted in the gay community in southern California. The first traceable case traced back to a gay airline studard who was well… a slut to say the least. This of course before they knew anything really about HIV, or that it can also be transmitted to heterosexuals as well. That's part of why it is no longer referred to as GRID.
To be more precise, it was in the mid 1980's when the term "GRID" was disbanded as scientists and doctors came to discover more about what it really was, and replaced it with the term HIV (Human Immunodeficiency Virus) around the time that AZT and DDT were introduced. It was also around that time that it was discovered that HIV can be passed through heterosexual contact, which is another part of why the term GRID was disbanded in that time.
-
Sadly, there are people that believe gay blood turns you gay.
There are people who think their kids will turn gay if they see gay couple holding hands. If it were true, there wouldn't be any homosexuals as there are way more heterosexuals holding hands in public ::) I wonder how people even come up with these things…
And I also heard that it was because of a higher disease rate statistically. That was decided a long time ago, so this should be reviewed.
-
And I also heard that it was because of a higher disease rate statistically. That was decided a long time ago, so this should be reviewed.
True, but misleading… The CDC[nb]Centre for Disease Control[/nb] (Winnipeg, Manitoba) quarterly report released July 2001 noted that within North America, the largest group to be affected by communicable disease was actually that of the heterosexual female, when all such diseases were taken into account. What's more interesting is that the report went on to state that the only one single category that had a higher risk and infection rating among gay men was that of HIV, however although the infection rate for HIV was highest in gay men, by April 2001, on a global scale, both the infection rate for HIV as well as the highest population of infected persons with HIV were actually that of the heterosexual female.
On this simple fact alone, one could argue that although this point holds true within North America for HIV infection rates only, imposing such a restriction would be branding being gay as a societal taboo. When all things get taken into account, HIV is not the only potentially life threatening infection out there. Two of the other life threatening and often over-looked diseases to beware of are Hepatitis C and Herpes, both of which are statistically more likely to occur in a heterosexual. With Hepatitis C in particular, it is also noted that the hardest hit category is the intervenes drug user, which holds absolutely no co-relation whatsoever to sexual orientation. Since there is no causal link between being a heroin user for example and being a gay man, that again is a gist that such legislation needs to be examined a little more closely.
I'm not saying that I'm against having certain rules in place for gay men, however I believe that such rules need to be based on scientific fact, and not misconception or out-dated information, which no longer holds any validity. Such examples include if you're an MSM[nb]Men who Sleep with Men… These are not necessarily gay men, as not all persons who fit into the category of MSM identify as being gay.[/nb] for example, it would make logical sense that a screening be done for HIV prior to being allowed to donate blood. By the same token, if you're in intervenes drug user for example, it would also make sense to impose a rule to screen for HIV and Hepatitis C prior to being allowed to donate blood. These rules would be based solely on the fact that persons who meet those criteria are statistically most likely to become infected with those diseases, therefore for safety reasons, tests must be conducted in order to ensure the safety of the blood.
The whole thing of not allowing an MSM to donate blood solely for the fact that they are an MSM makes absolutely no sense whatsoever since there are ways that currently exist for making sure such a procedure is safe to perform before doing so, and otherwise denying MSM's the ability to donate blood only further reduces the availability of valuable resources that are always in demand. Why is it that people often linger in fear of a stigma created by ignorance when a little proper education on such subjects would prove to be more valuable in the end?
