“Donating blood is not a ‘right,’ according to Australian Red Cross Blood Services, one of the safest blood services in the world. Because of HIV/AIDS risks, the blood service excludes donors who have had “male-to-male sex” within the preceding 12 months. Nor will it take blood from anyone who in the previous 12 months has had a tattoo, a blood transfusion, a body piercing, been in prison, had sex with a prostitute or had a partner with hepatitis B or C.
However, Rodney Croome, “arguably Australia’s leading homosexual rights activist”, has vehemently opposed these policies and accused Red Cross of “homophobia” for its “anti-gay blood policies” – accusing it of denying active homosexual men their “human rights” to be donors. He is currently National Convenor of Australian Marriage Equality, serves as the spokesperson for the Tasmanian Gay and Lesbian Rights Group, and is one of the founders of the Australian Coalition for Equality.
Croome therefore contends that it is the human “right” of every homosexual man who is having regular anal sex, with or without a condom with another man, his partner and/or any other male, to be a blood donor. He claims that Red Cross’s refusal to allow men who have sex with men (MSM) to donate their blood, contravenes anti-discrimination legislation passed in Tasmania in 1998.
When The Australian Federation of AIDS Organizations, Australian Society for HIV Medicine and AIDS Council of New South Wales ran a joint advertisement in homosexual media, supporting the Red Cross stance, based on known HIV/AIDS health risks involving MSM, Croome publicy accused them all of being “Red Cross glove puppets.”
“Do [the three groups] care more about gay men being unfairly stigmatized as lepers, or their own standing with government and the corporate health sector?” he asked.
In Australia, the three bodies stated, those who have male-to-male sex “are the group most likely to have HIV.”
Noting that 80 percent of Australians receive blood at some stage during their lifetime, they said “all people have a right to uncompromised blood supplies and that means screening donors and blood to make sure it is safe.”
“Donating blood is not a ‘right,‘ ” they added.
Croome, who vehemently condemns all who would dare to oppose the legalisation of same-sex marriage as homophobic bigots, is demanding that the Australian federal government legalise same-sex marriage. He uses the same flawed “human rights” and “discriminisation”/victim ‘arguments’ he uses in the “gay blood donor” controversy to now push for “gay-‘marriage’.
In the U.S., the American Red Cross says prospective donors “should not give blood if you have AIDS or have ever had a positive HIV test, or if you have done something that puts you at risk for becoming infected with HIV.”
“You are at risk for getting infected if you … are a male who has had sexual contact with another male, even once, since 1977,” it says.
This does NOT constitute discrimination against homosexual men (MSM). Rather it is making choices based on known and well-documented risks.
By the government pandering to the so-called claimed “rights” of homosexuals and any other high risk categories to be donors, the rights of the general public to be protected from harm is compromised or negated. Likewise, pandering to a tiny LGBT minority who demand the “right” to legal marriage, the rights of heterosexual couples already in committed traditional marriages are compromised.
To change the definition of “marriage” by parliamentary fiat to include same-sex couples is to make the concept of marriage utterly meaningless. Same-sex marriage (SSM) is an oxymoron, a contrived nonsense. Once SSM is fused with traditional marriage the ‘hybrid’ created no longer possesses the unique and defining qualities embodied in the original (traditional) term.
In Britain, men who have had sex with men are permanently banned from donating blood.
Spokesperson for the Australian Red Cross Kathy Bowlen told AAP in 2012 that the current rules around blood donation were not discriminatory. ‘It’s never been found to be discriminatory because we’re required to rule people out on the basis of risk,’ she said.
MSM wishing to be donors are excluded based on their sexual activities (behaviour) linked to known inherent health risk, rather than based on sexual orientation per se.
Bowlen said an earlier study showed that a quarter of blood donors between 2005 and 2010 whose blood contained transmissible infections had not been open about information that would have barred them from donating. She said providing accurate information was very important as blood screening does not pick up infections in their early stages.
CNN.com reports in July 2012
Men who have sex with men still are disproportionately affected by the [HIV] virus and account for nearly half the approximately 1.2 million people living with HIV in the United States, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. But it is a person’s behavior, not their sexual orientation, that puts them at risk say health experts. [Emphasis added]
If differing behaviour is a valid basis for justified discrimination in law, as it is, then traditional marriage warrants formal recognition in name and status, distinct from any other deviation – e.g. polygamous ‘marriage’, same sex ‘marriage’ etc. Traditional marriage differs from a behavioural perspective from all same-sex ‘marriages’ as it involves the exclusive complementarity of both sexes forming the unique union. Futhermore, it differs qualitatively from SSM in that it is oriented towards procreation while SSM is always a sterile union biologically.
References:
Dispute over blood donations divides homosexuals in Australia
Thursday November 17, 2005
http://www.crosswalk.com/1363955/
Review of blood donation discrimination does not go far enough
[Note the implicit bias in this “gay” news headline]
24 May 2012. Anna Leach
http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/review-blood-donation-discrimination-does-not-go-far-enough240512
As blood donations decline, U.S. ban on gay donors is examined
By Jen Christensen, CNN