The LGBT movement’s disturbing push to make blood donation more ‘inclusive’
Hudson Crozier
Video Embed
Not even the Biden administration is “inclusive” enough for gay and transgender people, according to an article from the Hill titled “New blood donation rules leave room for LGBTQ stigma.” The Food and Drug Administration’s reasonable efforts to reduce the chance of HIV infection through blood donations may invite “discrimination,” the outlet says.
The regulation in question requires that people who take the HIV medication known as PrEP must be off of it for three months before giving blood. This is because PrEP has the potential to produce false negative tests for the disease when there are breakthrough cases.
SUPREME COURT CHECKS BIDEN’S OVERREACH ON STUDENT LOANS
It doesn’t take a degree to know that blood donation is an extremely delicate process. Those who need a transfusion are already in a vulnerable position healthwise, and officials have every right to ensure their safety. The Hill reports that some would rather these people take a tiny risk of getting HIV to avoid offending the LGBT “community,” a word that appears incessantly throughout the article. To be fair, not all of its sources explicitly demand this.
“Guidance requiring individuals to alter their behavior to take part still leaves room for discrimination, whether explicit or implicit … because of the suggestion that their behavior is somehow harmful,” the Hill wrote while summarizing an activist’s statements.
The disproportionate impact of such rules on gay and bisexual people is due to the prevalence of disease associated with their preferred sexual acts and their tendency toward promiscuity. Did we not just witness the rise of monkeypox as a result? No one disputes this, including the liberals objecting to the policies. While their demand for better testing technology is valid, why can’t they simply encourage these groups to change their habits if they want to give blood so badly?
The answer, of course, is because straight people in committed monogamous relationships do not have the same burdens. One group mentioned in the Hill’s report is Blood is Blood, which bases its name on the “love is love” slogan. Its founder hopes that blood banks will fail to enforce the FDA’s guidance by asking prospective donors questions that are “more inclusive.”
The push to accommodate surrogacy procedures for same-sex couples financially, also known as “fertility equality,” is of the same vein. As long as many LGBT lifestyles come with different consequences than more conventional ones and as long as policies reflect those realities, the cries of “stigma” will never cease.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
Hudson Crozier is a summer 2023 Washington Examiner fellow.