Blood is a constant need for those with medical emergencies or chronic problems, and the only way to get blood to those who need it is for people to donate their blood.
However, in order to ensure the safety of those who receive blood, there are a number of restrictions on those whose donations are accepted. Conditions that make blood medically useless include Creutzfeld-Jakob Disease, leukemia, lymphoma, hepatitis, AIDS, infections, malaria, syphilis, gonorrhea, sickle cells, and tuberculosis. To give a person blood from someone who has one of these conditions could be life threatening, and so the FDA requires that organizations take a list of precautions to prevent such diseases from getting into the blood system.
Progressives at San Jose State University are banning blood drives anyway, though. They have decided that the anti-HIV precautions are unacceptable, and so would rather not give blood at all, in order to attempt to bully the FDA into compromising its scientifically-sound, safety-first blood donation protocols.
I have given blood since high school, both in regular blood drives, and for friends who were going into surgery who didn’t trust the blood supply.
And here is a bit of the insanity behind the blood drive ban by the idiot progressives at San Jose:
They’ve lobbied for years for officials to relax the restriction on blood donation to one year after the latest sexual activity, but to no avail.
Gay rights groups on several college campuses, including Stanford’s, have held protests on the issue in recent years. At San Jose State, it was an employee’s complaint last year that prompted Kassing’s office to investigate whether the rule made blood drives discriminatory.
They decided it did, since gay men were being treated differently than other groups of people with similar risk factors.
Source: Inside Bay Area
This is idiocy of the highest order! Being a progressive means that if you are standing on your head, everyone else is upside down, and reality must conform to your world view.
There are good reasons to discriminate against a person, and bad reasons to discriminate against a person.
Perhaps they (the idiot progressives) are not aware of some of the definitions of discriminate:
- recognize or perceive the difference
- marked by the ability to see or make fine distinctions; “discriminate judgments”; “discriminate people”
- treat differently on the basis of sex or race
- distinguish; “I could not discriminate the different tastes in this complicated dish”
- noting distinctions with nicety; “a discriminating interior designer”; “a nice sense of color”; “a nice point in the argument”
Please note that there is only one bad definition, and several good definitions…and keeping a group of people who engage, or have engaged, in risky behavior from contributing to the blood supply is a good type of discrimination.
I was prevented from donating blood for a period of one year after returning from Saudi Arabia…and I did not cry “foul” or accuse the Red Cross of discrimination. This was standard procedure, even though the most dangerous activity I had engaged in was providing security over watch for people distributing Bibles to the underground churches in that Islamic country.