We can give a kidney--But not gay blood

[NorthTexasBoi]

Actually...

I NO LONGER have Hep B. Period. And most importantly, the day I was denied to give blood was after 9-11, and the Red Cross was begging people to donate. So, your facts need ot get straight..LoL...actually they already are "straight", thats the problem. Secondly, and most importantly, even if I did have Hep B blood, the blood os screened twice thoroughly, something as easy to catch such as HIV or Hepatitis (viral) would not be used for someone else in the first place. You think they just take peoples blood and distribute it without ever examining it? LoL! So, the problem was that they denied me donating blood, the LARGER SCOPE of the problem is they wont allow ANY man (gay or not) that has EVER had sexual "relations" with another man donate blood....period. That is discrimination. I don't care what the CDC, or Red Cross uses as grounds for denial, its deiscrimination. And as for the poster that stated "Hmmmm...If I was bleeding to death and no "straight" guy's blood was available would I risk using a "gay" guy's blood ? Something to think about.... " ---Thats absolutely obsurd. If EVER you have had the misfortune of having to get a blood transfusion, you could have easily been given a gays mans blood. LoL. They do not scan our blood for gayness, they scan it for diseases. And so, if I was to simply say "no" to the whole "Have you ever had sex with another man?", then I could donate my blood. Get it? Don't you think thats what a lot of "us" do? Hell, I've been lying ever since 9-11 and giving blood, as for my friends that are homosexual. The need for assisting thjose in crisis or people that are in need warrants the lying so that we may indeed donate blood such as everyone else. And furthermore, who's business is it anyways what I do in bed? If you needed blood, just say thank you and move on. ;-)

Christopher

 

[BelizeBreeze]

Is the Pansie still posting?

 

[CdwJava]

They also don't allow IV drug users and a whole host of people in high-risk categories to give blood.

Here are the guidelines for the Red Cross (not the large number of people ineligible to donate):

http://www.redcross.org/services/biomed/0,1082,0_557_,00.html

- Carl

 

[shortbus]

As I was saying, and will continue to post, GAYS, LESBIANS, AND BISEXUALS ARE DENIED THE RIGHT TO GIVE BLOOD IF SEXUALLY ACTIVE OR EVER HAS BEEN WITH MALE-TO-MALE PARTNERS. So, I was asking, has anyone ever sued for this? Can someone file a class action lawsuit for discrimination for this?

Your suit would arise under the federal "equal protection" clause. Certain types of classifications (gender, racial, religious) receive heightened scrutiny by the courts. However, classification by sexual orientation does not. Courts only look to see if there is a 'rational basis' for the classification, meaning a legitimate goal & rationally-related means of achieving it. This is a lower standard, and these type of classifications are rarely found unconstitutional.

 

[BelizeBreeze]

Your suit would arise under the federal "equal protection" clause. Certain types of classifications (gender, racial, religious) receive heightened scrutiny by the courts. However, classification by sexual orientation does not. Courts only look to see if there is a 'rational basis' for the classification, meaning a legitimate goal & rationally-related means of achieving it. This is a lower standard, and these type of classifications are rarely found unconstitutional.

And the minute this idiot filed such a suit, the court would throw it back in his face.

This was a waste of response time.

 

[shortbus]

And the minute this idiot filed such a suit, the court would throw it back in his face.

This was a waste of response time.

Belize, it was the only response that actually was grounded in the law.

By the way, remind me which rule of federal civil procedure authorizes a court to dismiss a plaintiff's suit, sua sponte.


Oh, right, there isn't one.

 

[BelizeBreeze]

Belize, it was the only response that actually was grounded in the law.

By the way, remind me which rule of federal civil procedure authorizes a court to dismiss a plaintiff's suit, sua sponte.


Oh, right, there isn't one.

YOU show me where this falls under "Equal Protection". Or are you telling me you think such a suit would survive? Then you don't know bumpkis.

This is NOT a gay issue, as you would have known had you read the thread. This is an issue of disease and the rights of the U.S. Health Department, the CDC and private blood banks to deny donations on the basis of tainted blood.

Check your Federal Regulations. This question has already been decided.

 

[shortbus]

YOU show me where this falls under "Equal Protection". Or are you telling me you think such a suit would survive? Then you don't know bumpkis.

This is NOT a gay issue, as you would have known had you read the thread. This is an issue of disease and the rights of the U.S. Health Department, the CDC and private blood banks to deny donations on the basis of tainted blood.

Check your Federal Regulations. This question has already been decided.

Belize, the OP asked if you could challenge a regulation that, on its face, banned gays from giving blood. Yes, you can. Please see Romer v. Evans, the most recent equal protection ruling from the supreme court on gay issues. Discrimination of this sort must meet "rational basis" review or it is unconstitutional.

That's the most I can 'dumb it down' for you.

 

[BelizeBreeze]

And since there are going to be more replies to this thread as long as we continue to have trolls, I suggest anyone wanting to learn about this subject read the following:

Quintana v. United Blood Services
Ray v. Cutter Laboratory
Moore v. Armour Pharmaceutical
Doe v. U.S.
New York State Society of Surgeons v. Axelrod
Doe v. Dyer-Goode

In review:
Isolation and quarantine are powers exercisable by a public health department to prevent serious health risks to the public. Isolation of persons with HIV is rarely utilized because the infection is not transmitted casually. A few public health departments, however, have utilized isolation of patients who pose a threat to the public due to their sexual or needle sharing behavior.

Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives' Ass'n 489 U.S. 602 109 S.Ct. 1402; National Treasury Employees Union v. Von Raab 489 U.S. 656 109 S.Ct. 1384

The Supreme Court said that when the state has a "special need" beyond that of ordinary law enforcement then the privacy rights of the person must be weighed against compelling state interests.

To-date, only South Africa has stated that Gays have a constitutional RIGHT to donate blood. However, South Africa also has laws to deny that right to those who carry a wide range of disease, including cancer and aids.

The World Health Organization has gone on record as stipulating there is no fundamental human right to donate blood.

Litigation against blood suppliers and health care facilities relating to the transfusion of HIV contaminated blood continues to escalate. The suits are predominantly based upon claims of strict product liability and negligence.

The strict liability claims have, for the most part, failed. Most states have blood shield statutes that define blood transfusions as a service, not a product.

The federal Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit refused to hold a supplier liable for failure to test back inventory. The supplier followed the FDA's recommendation to test all blood as soon as testing supplies were commercially available. But testing existing inventory would have been expensive and time consuming, and was not the standard of care in the industry.

Most negligence cases applying this standard of care have found in favor of blood suppliers. Before the advent of a commercially available blood test for HIV, suppliers could only screen blood through surrogate testing (e.g. HBV) or donor self deferral based on sexual orientation, IV drug use, or other factors. The Quintana court held that the supplier was not negligent in failing to use surrogate tests and self deferral because it was complying with the industry standard of care.

Self-deferral has been explained by the court as questionaires to exclude those donors who have a high probability of donating tainted blood, thereby placing the supplier in the position of strict liability. The court has also held both the supplier and the donor liable for civil and puntative damages for a donor lying on a self deferring questionaire where no testing has been completed on the donation.

 

[BelizeBreeze]

Belize, the OP asked if you could challenge a regulation that, on its face, banned gays from giving blood. Yes, you can. Please see Romer v. Evans, the most recent equal protection ruling from the supreme court on gay issues. Discrimination of this sort must meet "rational basis" review or it is unconstitutional.

That's the most I can 'dumb it down' for you.

Next time read the ENTIRE thread.

https://forum.freeadvice.com/showthread.php?t=275817