By Peter LaBarbera

Here is Americans For Truth’s politically incorrect translation of the Democrat Party’s 2008 homosexual “PRIDE Proclamation,” issued June 3 and found HERE on the Democrat Party’s website. Of course, practicing homosexuality or bisexuality, or embracing gender confusion (transgenderism) is nothing to be “proud” of. Our comments are in black and red; the Democrats’ “Pride Proclamation” is in blue:

_____________________________

Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean today joined Massachusetts Democratic Representative Barney Frank and Wisconsin Democratic Representative Tammy Baldwin in issuing the following Proclamation marking PRIDE Month:

“Today, on behalf of Democrats across America, we join together in celebrating the contributions that lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans and their families make to our society ….

“Today, on behalf of Democrats across America, we join together in celebrating the contributions that the following Americans — women who engage in (immoral) sex with other women, men who practice (unnatural and destructive) homosexual behavior, men and women who have sex with both men and women, and men who feel they should have been born as women (even though they have male sex organs) and who like to dress, grow breasts and act like they are women — and their families make to our society ….

“…and reaffirm our Party’s commitment to promoting full equality under the law for every American.

“Full equality” … meaning we will take laws and rights designed to fix racial injustice and apply them to changeable sexual misbehaviors and gender confusion — even if that means trampling over the freedoms of other Americans to disagree with those behaviors.

“Full equality” … meaning not that homosexual/bisexual/transsexual Americans have the same rights under the Constitution as everyone else, but that they get special legal rights and protections based on their practice/embrace of aberrant sex and gender confusion. Ex-gays — men and women who leave the homosexual lifestyle — lose such special rights. (We try not acknowledge such people, who usually join the Religious Right and vote Republican anyway.)

Important clarification on “full equality”: of course, we Democrats do not really mean “full equality” — in the “gay” activist sense of the word — because if we were to embrace full legal “marriage,” even as the Party of Homosexuality, that would hurt our ability to get Democrats elected to office. (It’s OK for retired Democrat politicians like Al Gore (at right) to back “gay marriage.”) And so we embrace “civil unions” — which are pretty much “same-sex marriage” by another name — for the time being.

In the same way that we continually profess to be “against abortion” (while supporting full legal abortion-on-demand at all stages of pregnancy, even for partial-birth abortions that are really infanticide), we mustn’t as a party move too fast on homosexuality and transsexuality — lest rank-and-file Democrats catch on to our radicalism and vote Republican. So give us a few years — after our friends in the corporate world, media and Hollywood soften up America a bit more — and then we promise to cave in completely to the Pro-Sodomy, Pro-Gender-Confusion Agenda.

“As leaders of the Democratic Party, we stand proudly with the LGBT community and commit ourselves to working together to build an America that is truly inclusive.

When we say “inclusive,” we do not mean inclusive of pro-family Democrats who oppose sodomy-based, counterfeit “marriage” and homosexuality-based “special rights.” After all, the GLBT wing of our Party has made it clear that far from being “pro-family,” these Democrats are actually hateful, homophobic, prejudiced Neanderthals who desperately “cling to their Bibles” to uphold their narrow-minded bigotry. So, although we throw them an occasional bone or two — and of course allow them to profess their “pro-family” credentials to their backwater constituencies — we Democrats will be about as “inclusive” toward our social conservatives as we are toward pro-life Democrats.

Our (two-faced) Diversity & Inclusion Strategy can be cumbersome to administer: for example, we must reject most requests from so-called “pro-life” (that is, anti-women’s-right-to-choose) Democrats who continually pester us for a primetime speaking spot at Democrat presidential nominating conventions. This is something we simply cannot allow lest we alienate our progressive, pro-choice, feminist and lesbian party members.

“Every American has the right to live in dignity, with equal rights, responsibilities and protections under the law.

By “dignity” and “equal rights,” we of course mean only for the babies who happened to have survived the abortion industry. (We Democrats accord no rights or dignity to innocent unborn children.) The woman’s “right to choose” is preeminent in our Party and we will resist all propagandistic efforts by anti-abortion zealots to remind our constituents that the unborn child has no “choice” whatsoever as to whether or not he or she gets killed through abortion.

As for committed Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus and others who act on their sincere religious belief that homosexual behavior is sinful, we implicitly encourage all campaigns to label these Americans as “homophobes, haters and bigots” (except in more conservative districts where we need the votes of these people to beat Republicans). At times we as a Party will cynically use people’s opposition to homosexuality for political gain. At the same time, we will make cynical insinuations to the media that “fundamentalist” Republicans are the modern moral equivalent of racists because … well … that’s what our powerful GLBT (gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender) party members and donors tell us to do. And our GLBT donors like Tim Gill give the Democrat Party lots of money and help in beating Republicans.

“These are our country’s and our Party’s core values.

As Democrats, we must never stray from our core social values (we’ll pretend they are the nation’s): the protection of abortion-on-demand right up through the end of pregnancy (and even for babies “born alive” through botched abortions), and the celebration of homosexuality, bisexual and transsexuality – using all available governmental power to impose both on America.

Concurrently, we must always take pains to express our religiosity, stressing that Christians, too, can support “choice” and “GBLT equality.” We have learned to rely on Evangelical consultants for guidance on which “Christian-sounding” words to use to appeal to Christian voters, even as we pursue anti-Biblical policies. (We are told that it is best not to use actual Biblical references when trying to justify these positions — except taking “Judge not lest you be judged” (Matthew 7:1) out of context. A far more effective rhetorical strategy is to keep talking euphemistically about rights, equality, discrimination, choice, tolerance, etc. These words intimidate good-hearted but naive Christians from actually examining our Party’s social record.

“Across the country, at every level of government, Democrats have championed sweeping protections in the areas of employment, housing,

Across the country, at every level of government, we Democrats have championed legislation that for the first time in history accords legal rights based on unhealthy sexual misbehavior — conduct revealed by the God of the Bible (never use that phrase) to be “detestable” and which is proscribed throughout recorded human history. (We must remember that the Bible, like the Constitution, is an evolving document; never use the phrase “absolute truth.”)

And even though, due to political correctness, people who identify as “gay” are becoming in many areas the least likely Americans to fired (they are now recruited by major firms and universities based on their homosexual self-identification), we as Democrats are embracing “sweeping” pro-homosexual legislation that will likely trample on the rights of traditionalists who believe homosexuality is wrong. (Do not remind Americans of the Boy Scouts unless in a liberal, big-city environment like Philadelphia, where harassing and demonizing the Scouts is seen as progressive.) We know these stubborn bigots will likely vote Republican anyway, and we are counting on our many friends in the media not to give such cases much publicity. Democrats must continue to extol “faith, family and freedom” even as we support legislation at the federal and state level that directly undermines all three.

On that subject, we strongly support the federal ENDA (Employment Non-Discrimination Act) bill — which will be a tremendous boon for our party’s liberal lawyers constituency. ENDA would force all but America’s smallest businesses to adhere to a pro-homosexual orthodoxy at the threat of potential “gay” lawsuits. (Remember that many entrepreneurs vote Republican anyway.) We as Democrats must avoid at all costs questions like the following: Under ENDA, would a Muslim-owned day care business (not tied to a mosque) have the right NOT to hire homosexuals?

Regarding housing “discrimination,” we Democrats know full well that is there is no homosexual housing crisis. Far from it. In fact, in some homosexual enclaves, there is a reverse redlining of sorts by which heterosexual homeowners feel excluded by homosexuals who manage to fill neighborhoods with nothing but “gay”-owned houses. And homosexuals travel abroad at rates higher than the average American.

We must continue to obfuscate on the fact that homosexuals as a group never faced economic deprivation like our African-American party members even though they are stealing the Civil Rights model to advance their pro-homosexual agenda. Avoid at costs cases like [Americans for Truth Board Member] Matt Barber and Crystal Dixon — who were fired for opposing homosexuality and, in the case of Dixon, an African-American, for disputing our liberal “diversity” dogma equating homosexuality with civil rights. Never say the words “Crystal Dixon”: we are counting on the mainstream media’s non-interest in this story to help her case against the University of Toledo die a slow death.

Let us re-double our efforts to affirm that our Party’s pro-homosexuality agenda has something to do with the historic, noble Black civil rights movement when in reality we know that African Americans strongly resist such notions. Carefully avoid calling African-Americans “bigots,” as some overzealous GLBT and progressive Democrats are wont to do, as this message plays poorly to African-Americans and the media.

“… domestic partnerships and civil unions, adoption

[See above point on "full equality"]. We as Democrats support legislation that gives marriage-type benefits to non-marital relationships: both straight couples — the ones the Religious Right Republicans say are “living in sin,” who are unwilling to make the marital commitment — and homosexual “partners” whose immoral couplings (some bigots claim) should not subsidized and rewarded by government.

Many hateful Religious Right propagandists — selectively quoting our Founding Fathers — claim that the purpose of government from a traditional (Biblical) perspective is to discourage sinful conduct through the law (e.g., punish “sins”). We Democrats, our progressive minds expanded by years of Social Left advocacy, (and by pandering to wealthy GLBT special interests), have grown beyond these antiquated notions — actually flipping them on their heads.

We Democrats happily advocate the use of government to reward non-marital arrangements. Personal rights are preeminent. We advise candidates to champion marriage on the campaign trail but then to undermine it with the help of our GLBT friends in Washington, D.C.

We Democrats will continue to seek ways to provide wayward citizens further incentives to practice destructive and sinful sexual behaviors — ultimately to the harm of children who will have even a greater chance to be placed in homosexual-led households where they will be denied (intentionally) the blessing of either a mom or a dad. Special Note: avoid discussing “gay adoption” on the campaign trail as this concept still rankles many Bible- and Koran-toting Americans adhering to idealistic, Norman Rockwell-esque notions of mother-father parenthood and the so-called “traditional family.”

“… gender identity or expression, and hate crimes.

Though as stated above we Democrats do not recognize even the right to life of some in our human family, we do favor the creation of new and creative legal “rights” based on what some transphobic Republican bigots call gender confusion — men and women who choose to live their life as if they were a member of the other sex. “Gender identity” is a far more accurate term for this healthy phenomenon, but we must as a Party tread carefully on this issue as American transphobia is far more virulent — even among minorities — than homophobia. (Biphobia is also very potent.)

With this reality in mind, we must keep men in dresses and high heels far from Democratic campaign events and relegate our transsexual (like homosexual) Democrat convention speakers to daytime or late-night, non-primetime TV times. We also understand that the “T” in the homosexual/bi/trans’ agenda’s “GLBT youth” equation stands for “transgender,” but highly recommend that any discussion of transgender youth — e.g., boys going to school in a dress — be avoided until America “grows” as a nation and sheds its many prejudices. In fact, we advise that all discussions of GLBT youth be avoided — except in Democrat strongholds like Massachusetts — until further guidance from the Party.

“Despite all we have accomplished, our work is not done. We need to fight efforts to write discrimination into our laws and constitutions.

This is the Gayspeak we use to say that we as Democrats oppose all efforts by American citizens to actually preserve the age-old definition of marriage as between a man and a woman. Curiously, we do this while we continue to proclaim that we oppose same-sex “marriage,” knowing that our GLBT allies are working day and night to radically redefine it. (The ends justify the means for us progressives.) We realize that the our blatantly heterosexist GOP opponents — who shamelessly exploit pro-marriage referendums for political gain — will say that the Democrat Party has slipped so far in kowtowing to homosexual activists that they now regard people rising up to protect marriage as “discrimination.” But that doesn’t matter, as long as the American people fail to catch on to the truth that the same “discrimination” rhetoric we use to bludgeon Republicans could also be applied to historical American efforts to ban polygamy in this country.

For the most part, our Democrat “gay marriage” strategy is simple: claim we are for defending marriage while we play dumb and enable our GLBT activist party members and activist judges to destroy its meaning. This strategy depends heavily on media non-interest and pro-homosexual reporting.

“We need to pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, pass the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Act, and repeal ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.’

[See ENDA comments above.] Such is our determination as Democrats to advance LBGT equality (read: do the bidding of the radical Homosexual Lobby) that we will even attempt to force homosexuality into the armed forces, during wartime no less. We regret that ignorant, Republican-sympathizing homophobes will charge that we Democrats are moving America toward the ‘Criminalization of Christianity’ — by supporting legislation like ENDA that will make it illegal for business owners and everyday Americans to live out their religious and moral beliefs about homosexuality. But that’s OK: we’re the Party that takes in the massive “gay” donations — while the homosexual Log Cabin Republicans are still years away from dominating their party (but making headway fast thanks to enlightened Republicans like Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger).

We Democrats also favor hate crimes laws despite the exaggerated claims of anti-gay bigots like Gary Glenn and Chuck Colson who accuse us of creating a legal hierarchy of victims so that some victims — say, people practicing homosexuality or — receive more and better law enforcement protection than others — say, average heterosexual guys. Moreover, such hate-mongering homophobes falsely accuse us of moving toward the suppression of “hate speech” — as if we Democrats would ever squelch the ideas of our opponents [see point above on our Party's commitment to "inclusion"].

“We need a comprehensive, science-based strategy for combating HIV/AIDS.

Now, when we say “science,” that does not include the prudish Republican-Christian-Right-inspired idea of a governmental study on the health risks homosexual behaviors — e.g., anal sex and other male-on-male sodomies. Sure, there is ample evidence that certain behaviors fuel HIV and other the sexual diseases. (The CDC reports that in 2005, “men who have sex with men” (MSM) accounted for 71% of all HIV infections among male adults and adolescents” (http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/resources/factsheets/msm.htm.) But we must be practical: some science hits too close to home and we can’t risk alienating our wealthy “gay” Democratic base. So we as Democrats vow to perpetuate the national charade that pretends that AIDS is a disease that “doesn’t discriminate” when it clearly does. (See notorious Michigan homophobe Gary Glenn’s handiwork: “AFA-Michigan, AFTAH Welcome Gay Task Force Admission: ‘HIV Is a Gay Disease.’“)

“We must address the socioeconomic problems, including poverty and limited access to health care, that increase vulnerability to this disease.

Read: we’ll do anything but deal honestly with the actual behaviors causing the spread of HIV/AIDS in America: homosexual behavior (men having “sex” with other men) and IV drug abuse.

“To do all of these things we need to put a Democrat in the White House, expand our majorities in Congress, and elect more Democrats at the local and state level across the country. To do that, we need you. Get active, get involved, and join us so we can take our country back.”

No comment. (We can’t.)

NOTE: Americans For Truth About Homosexuality (www.aftah.org) is a nonpartisan organization concerned with the promotion of homosexuality in any party — Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Constitution, etc. Readers can contact the Democrat Party HERE or the Republican Party HERE.

Folks, we need an official government investigation of the health risks of homosexual practices — especially among men. Until we get one, this Food & Drug Administration (FDA) statement will have to do.

I challenge all those who make the dubious case that there is no disproportionately high health risk for males practicing homosexual behavior (compared to heterosexuality) to read this FDA policy explanation on banning blood donations from homosexual men and then continue to make that argument. Those taking up my challenge can write AFTAH at americansfortruth@comcast.net. I extend my challenge especially to vocal pro-homosexual activists.

For everyone else living in the real world — where those practicing deviant sex put themselves potentially at great risk — I suggest you study this FDA policy and then send it far and wide to your network of contacts. Young people especially — such as those supporting the homosexual-activist “Day of Silence” — need to read this because they have been inundated with pro-homosexual propaganda, including the sort that pretends that homosexuality is no big deal and not inherently more dangerous than normal sex.

True Christian compassion requires guiding youth (and adults) away from homosexuality, not confirming them in it. Emphasis is added in bold below. — Peter LaBarbera

________________________________

FDA Policy on Blood Donations from Men Who Have Sex with Other Men

• What is FDA’s policy on blood donations from men who have sex with other men (MSM)?
• Why doesn’t FDA allow men who have had sex with men to donate blood?
• What is self-deferral?
• Is FDA’s policy of excluding MSM blood donors discriminatory?
• What about men who have had a low number of partners, practice safe sex, or who are currently in monogamous relationships?
• Are there other donors who have increased risks of HIV or other infections who, as a result, are also excluded from donating blood?
• Why are some people, such as heterosexuals with multiple partners, allowed to donate blood despite increased risk for transmitting HIV and hepatitis?
• Isn’t the HIV test accurate enough to identify all HIV positive blood donors?
• How long has FDA had this MSM policy?
• Doesn’t the policy eliminate healthy donors at a time when more donors are needed because of blood shortages?
• Would FDA ever consider changing the policy?

What is FDA’s policy on blood donations from men who have sex with other men (MSM)?

Men who have had sex with other men, at any time since 1977 (the beginning of the AIDS epidemic in the United States) are currently deferred as blood donors. This is because MSM are, as a group, at increased risk for HIV, hepatitis B and certain other infections that can be transmitted by transfusion.

The policy is not unique to the United States. Many European countries have recently reexamined both the science and ethics of the lifetime MSM deferral, and have retained it. (See the transcript of the “FDA Workshop on Behavior-Based Donor Deferrals in the NAT Era” at http://www.fda.gov/cber/minutes/nat030806t.htm#7 for further information.) This decision is also consistent with the prevailing interpretation of the European Union Directive 2004/33/EC article 2.1 on donor deferrals.

Why doesn’t FDA allow men who have had sex with men to donate blood?

A history of male-to-male sex is associated with an increased risk for the presence of and transmission of certain infectious diseases, including HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. FDA’s policy is intended to protect all people who receive blood transfusions from an increased risk of exposure to potentially infected blood and blood products.

The deferral for men who have had sex with men is based on the following considerations regarding risk of HIV:

• Men who have had sex with men since 1977 have an HIV prevalence (the total number of cases of a disease that are present in a population at a specific point in time) 60 times higher than the general population, 800 times higher than first time blood donors and 8000 times higher than repeat blood donors (American Red Cross). Even taking into account that 75% of HIV infected men who have sex with men already know they are HIV positive and would be unlikely to donate blood, the HIV prevalence in potential donors with history of male sex with males is 200 times higher than first time blood donors and 2000 times higher than repeat blood donors.
• Men who have had sex with men account for the largest single group of blood donors who are found HIV positive by blood donor testing.
• Blood donor testing using current advanced technologies has greatly reduced the risk of HIV transmission but cannot yet detect all infected donors or prevent all transmission by transfusions. While today’s highly sensitive tests fail to detect less than one in a million HIV infected donors, it is important to remember that in the US there are over 20 million transfusions of blood, red cell concentrates, plasma or platelets every year. Therefore, even a failure rate of 1 in a million can be significant if there is an increased risk of undetected HIV in the blood donor population.
• Detection of HIV infection is particularly challenging when very low levels of virus are present in the blood for example during the so-called “window period.” The “window period” is the time between being infected with HIV and the ability of an HIV test to detect HIV in an infected person.
• FDA’s MSM policy reduces the likelihood that a person would unknowingly donate blood during the “window period” of infection. This is important because the rate of new infections in MSM is higher than in the general population and current blood donors.
• Collection of blood from persons with an increased risk of HIV infection also presents an added risk if blood were to be accidentally given to a patient in error either before testing is completed or following a positive test. Such medical errors occur very rarely, but given that there are over 20 million transfusions every year, in the USA, they can occur. That is one more reason why FDA and other regulatory authorities work to assure that there are multiple safeguards, not just testing.
• Several scientific models show there would be a small but definite increased risk to people who receive blood transfusions if FDA’s MSM policy were changed and that preventable transfusion transmission of HIV could occur as a result.
• No alternate set of donor eligibility criteria (even including practice of safe sex or a low number of lifetime partners) has yet been found to reliably identify MSM who are not at increased risk for HIV or certain other transfusion transmissible infections.
• Today, the risk of getting HIV from a transfusion or a blood product has been nearly eliminated in the United States. Improved procedures, donor screening for risk of infection and laboratory testing for evidence of HIV infection have made the United States blood supply safer than ever. While appreciative and supportive of the desire of potential blood donors to contribute to the health of others, FDA’s first obligation is to assure the safety of the blood supply and protect the health of blood recipients.
• Men who have sex with men also have an increased risk of having other infections that can be transmitted to others by blood transfusion. For example, infection with the Hepatitis B virus is about 5-6 times more common and Hepatitis C virus infections are about 2 times more common in men who have sex with other men than in the general population. Additionally, men who have sex with men have an increased incidence and prevalence of Human Herpes Virus-8 (HHV-8). HHV-8 causes a cancer called Kaposi’s sarcoma in immunocompromised individuals.

What is self-deferral?

Self-deferral is a process in which individuals elect not to donate because they identify themselves as having characteristics that place them at potentially higher risk of carrying a transfusion transmissible disease. FDA uses self-deferral as part of a system to protect the blood supply. This system starts by informing donors about the risk of transmitting infectious diseases. Then, potential donors are asked questions about their health and certain behaviors and other factors (like travel and past transfusions) that increase their risk of infection. Screening questions help people, even those who feel well, to identify themselves as potentially at higher risk for transmitting infectious diseases. Screening questions allow individuals to self defer, rather than unknowingly donating blood that may be infected.

Is FDA’s policy of excluding MSM blood donors discriminatory?

FDA’s deferral policy is based on the documented increased risk of certain transfusion transmissible infections, such as HIV, associated with male-to-male sex and is not based on any judgment concerning the donor’s sexual orientation.

Male to male sex has been associated with an increased risk of HIV infection at least since 1977. Surveillance data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicate that men who have sex with men and would be likely to donate have a HIV prevalence that is at present over 15 fold higher than the general population, and over 2000 fold higher than current repeat blood donors (i.e., those who have been negatively screened and tested) in the USA. MSM continue to account for the largest number of people newly infected with HIV.

Men who have sex with men also have an increased risk of having other infections that can be transmitted to others by blood transfusion.

What about men who have had a low number of partners, practice safe sex, or who are currently in monogamous relationships?

Having had a low number of partners is known to decrease the risk of HIV infection. However, to date, no donor eligibility questions have been shown to reliably identify a subset of MSM (e.g., based on monogamy or safe sexual practices) who do not still have a substantially increased rate of HIV infection compared to the general population or currently accepted blood donors. In the future, improved questionnaires may be helpful to better select safe donors, but this cannot be assumed without evidence.

Are there other donors who have increased risks of HIV or other infections who, as a result, are also excluded from donating blood?

Intravenous drug abusers are excluded from giving blood because they have prevalence rates of HIV, HBV, HCV and HTLV that are much higher than the general population. People who have received transplants of animal tissue or organs are excluded from giving blood because of the still largely unknown risks of transmitting unknown or emerging pathogens harbored by the animal donors. People who have recently traveled to or lived abroad in certain countries may be excluded because they are at risk for transmitting agents such as malaria or variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (vCJD). People who have engaged in sex in return for money or drugs are also excluded because they are at increased risk for transmitting HIV and other blood-borne infections.

Why are some people, such as heterosexuals with multiple partners, allowed to donate blood despite increased risk for transmitting HIV and hepatitis?

Current scientific data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) indicate that, as a group, men who have sex with other men are at a higher risk for transmitting infectious diseases or HIV than are individuals in other risk categories. While statistics indicate a rising infection rate among young heterosexual women, their overall rate of HIV infection remains much lower than in men who have sex with other men. For information on HIV-related statistics and trends, go to CDC’s HIV/AIDS Statistics and Surveillance web page.

Isn’t the HIV test accurate enough to identify all HIV positive blood donors?

HIV tests currently in use are highly accurate, but still cannot detect HIV 100% of the time. It is estimated that the HIV risk from a unit of blood has been reduced to about 1 per 2 million in the USA, almost exclusively from so called “window period” donations. The “window period” exists very early after infection, where even current HIV testing methods cannot detect all infections. During this time, a person is infected with HIV, but may not have made enough virus or developed enough antibodies to be detected by available tests. For this reason, a person could test negative, even when they are actually HIV positive and infectious. Therefore, blood donors are not only tested but are also asked questions about behaviors that increase their risk of HIV infection.

Collection of blood from persons with an increased risk of HIV infection also presents an added risk to transfusion recipients due to the possibility that blood may be accidentally given to a patient in error either before testing is completed or following a positive test. Such medical errors occur very rarely, but given that there are over 20 million transfusions every year, in the USA, they can occur. For these reasons, FDA uses a multi-layered approach to blood safety including pre-donation deferral of potential donors based on risk behaviors and then screening of the donated blood with sensitive tests for infectious agents such as HIV-1, HIV-2, HCV, HBV and HTLV-I/II.

How long has FDA had this MSM policy?

FDA’s policies on donor deferral for history of male sex with males date back to 1983, when the risk of AIDS from transfusion was first recognized. Our current policy has been in place since 1992.

FDA has modified its blood donor policy as new scientific data and more accurate tests for HIV and hepatitis became available. Today, the risk of getting HIV from a blood transfusion has been reduced to about one per two million units of blood transfused. The risk of hepatitis C is about the same as for HIV, while the risk of hepatitis B is somewhat higher.

Doesn’t the policy eliminate healthy donors at a time when more donors are needed because of blood shortages?

FDA realizes that this policy will defer many healthy donors. However, FDA’s MSM policy minimizes even the small risk of getting infectious diseases such as HIV or hepatitis through a blood transfusion.

Would FDA ever consider changing the policy?

FDA scientists continue to monitor the scientific literature and to consult with experts in CDC, NIH and other agencies. FDA will continue to publicly revisit the current deferral policy as new information becomes available.

On March 8, 2006, FDA conducted a workshop entitled “Behavior-based donor deferrals in the Nucleic Acid Test (NAT) era.” The workshop addressed scientific challenges, opportunities, and risk based donor deferral policies relevant to the protection of the blood supply from transfusion transmissible diseases, seeking input on this topic. Participants were given the opportunity to provide scientific data that could support revising FDA’s MSM deferral. The workshop provided a very active, open and broad-based scientific dialogue concerning current behavior-based deferrals and explored other options that may be considered and the data needed to evaluate them.

FDA’s primary responsibility is to enhance blood safety and protect blood recipients. Therefore FDA would change this policy only if supported by scientific data showing that a change in policy would not present a significant and preventable risk to blood recipients. Scientific evidence has not yet been provided to FDA that shows that blood donated by MSM or a subgroup of these potential donors, is as safe as blood from currently accepted donors.

FDA remains willing to consider new approaches to donor screening and testing, provided those approaches assure that blood recipients are not placed at an increased risk of HIV or other transfusion transmitted diseases.

References:

1. Germain, M., Remis, R.S., and Delage, G. The risks and benefits of accepting men who have had sex with men as blood donors. Transfusion 2003; 43:25-33.
2. Busch MP, Glynn SA, Stramer SL, Strong DM, Caglioti S, Wright DJ, Pappalardo B, Kleinman SH; NHLBI-REDS NAT Study Group. A new strategy for estimating risks of transfusion-transmitted viral infections based on rates of detection of recently infected donors. Transfusion 2005, 45:254-264
3. Presentation at FDA Blood Products Advisory Committee Meeting, September 2000.
4. Soldan, K. and Sinka, K. Evaluation of the de-selection of men who have had sex with men from blood donation in England. Vox Sanguinis 2003; 84:265-273.

Published by CWA, April 14, 2008

By J. Matt Barber

Can you imagine officials at a middle school, junior high or high school setting aside a day to promote “tolerance” for heavy smoking and drinking among children? How about a day where teachers encourage kids to “embrace who they are,” pick up that crack pipe and give it a stiff toke?

Neither can I. The public would go ballistic, and for good reason.

But that hasn’t stopped officials in thousands of schools across the country from promoting other politically correct and socially “in-vogue” behaviors that – both statistically and manifestly – are every bit as dangerous as the aforementioned “frowned-upon” behaviors.
That’s exactly what the homosexual activist “Day of Silence” is all about – advancing, through clever, feel-good propaganda, full acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle among children.

Just the Facts Ma’am

By recently admitting that “HIV is a gay disease,” Matt Foreman, outgoing executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, acknowledged what the medical community has known for decades: the homosexual lifestyle is extremely high-risk and often leads to disease and even death.

In fact, multiple studies have established that homosexual conduct, especially among males, is considerably more hazardous to one’s health than a lifetime of chain smoking.

To the consternation of “gay” activist flat-earthers and homosexual AIDS holocaust deniers everywhere, one such study – conducted by pro-”gay” researchers in Canada – was published in the International Journal of Epidemiology (IJE) in 1997.

While the medical consensus is that smoking knocks from two to 10 years off an individual’s life expectancy, the IJE study found that homosexual conduct shortens the lifespan of “gays” by an astounding “8 to 20 years” – more than twice that of smoking.

“[U]nder even the most liberal assumptions,” concluded the study, “gay and bisexual men in this urban centre are now experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced by all men in Canada in the year 1871. … [L]ife expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 20 years less than for all men.”

This morose reality makes a strong case for a fitting redefinition of so-called “homophobia,” that being “Homophobia: The rational fear that ‘gay sex’ will kill you!”

The fact that we don’t have mandatory Surgeon General warnings on the side of condom wrappers is a testament to the power and influence wielded by the radical homosexual lobby. (Warning: Male-male anal sodomy has been proven to shorten your lifespan by up to 20 years.)

Not surprisingly, that same homosexual lobby and its codependent enablers in the mainstream media moved quickly to sweep the IJE study under the rug. Under tremendous pressure, the researchers who conducted the study even jumped into the political damage control fray issuing a statement which read, “[W]e do not condone the use of our research in a manner that restricts the political or human rights of gay and bisexual men or any other group.”

Yeah, so?

Of course, that’s all just worthless fluff. All the political spin in the world doesn’t change reality, nor does it eliminate the study’s disturbing conclusions or practical implications. The research left ZERO wiggle room for anyone who would argue that homosexuality is a “perfectly normal and healthy alternative sexual orientation.”

The risks associated with homosexual conduct are so drastic, in fact, that U.S. health regulations prohibit men who have sex with men (MSM) and women who have had sex with MSM, from even donating blood.

Consider that, according to the Food and Drug Administration, MSM, “have an HIV prevalence 60 times higher than the general population, 800 times higher than first time blood donors and 8,000 times higher than repeat blood donors.”

Adults and children who engage in homosexual conduct, especially males, are also susceptible, at an astronomical rate, to nearly all other forms of sexually transmitted disease (STD). For example, the Hepatitis B virus is about five to six times more prevalent among “gays,” and Hepatitis C is twice as common.

But perhaps most shocking are today’s syphilis rates among homosexual men and adolescents. A recent study conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found that although homosexuals comprise only a fraction of the population (one to two percent), they account for an epidemic 64 percent of all syphilis cases.

The “Day of Silence”

In light of the irrefutable medical facts, it should be considered criminally reckless for educators to teach children that homosexual conduct is a normal, safe and perfectly acceptable alternative form of sexual expression (or “sexual orientation”).

But instead, the “gay” lifestyle is vigorously promoted in our public schools. Sexually confused children who suffer from gender identity disorder and same-sex attractions are told to “embrace who they are,” and are encouraged to entertain deviant and dangerous sexual temptations. “But always use a condom!” liberal educators bellow. (Forget that condoms have a perilously high failure rate and are incapable of preventing numerous STDs such as the HPV virus.)

On April 25, 2008, the pro-homosexual indoctrination of your children comes to a boil. Homosexual activists and like-minded liberal educators will be pushing the so-called “Day of Silence” on kids in thousands of schools across the country.

The “Day of Silence” (DOS) is organized by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), one of the most militant and well-funded of the powerful homosexual pressure groups. DOS purports to confront the alleged systematic harassment and bullying of children who self-identify as homosexual, bisexual or “transgender.” (For a sampling of the kinds of things GLSEN teaches children, click here. Be warned, though. It’s pretty graphic.)

To be sure, bullying and harassment should not be tolerated against anyone, anywhere for any reason, and those who engage in such activities should be firmly disciplined. However, DOS has very little to do with “bullying” and has everything to do with propaganda.

During DOS, children and teachers are encouraged to disrupt the school day by refusing to speak, in a show of support to self-described “gay,” “lesbian,” “bisexual” and “transgender” students. Kids are additionally taught that Biblical truth, which holds that human sexuality is a gift from God shared between husband and wife within the bonds of marriage, is “homophobic,” “hateful” and “discriminatory.”

Our schools are supposed to be places of learning, not places of political indoctrination. It’s the height of impropriety and cynicism for “gay” activists and school officials to use good-hearted but misguided children as pawns in their attempt to further a deceptive, highly controversial and polarizing political agenda.

DOS is pure, unadulterated propaganda and, based on the medical science, amounts to nothing short of educational malpractice. With liberal school officials in tow, these militant homosexual activists are brazenly circumventing and abusing parental authority to further this dangerous political agenda. DOS is also a slap in the face to the many students with traditional moral values.

So, it’s time for the “Day of Silence” to finally live up to its name. It’s time for these radical adult activists to be silent in our children’s schools.

And you can to do something to help.

At DOS-participating schools all over the country, parents are joining with dozens of pro-family organizations, such as Concerned Women for America (CWA), in a “Day of Silence Walkout.” They’re keeping their kids home from school on DOS as a show of protest. (For more information [and a list of pro-DOS schools nationwide] visit www.missionamerica.com).

Parents and children are also strongly encouraged to participate in the Alliance Defense Fund’s non-disruptive “Day of Truth,” which will follow DOS on Monday, April 28, 2008. (For more information visit www.dayoftruth.org).

Children are impressionable. Their young minds are fresh clay ready for molding, and these adult homosexual activists know it. Your child’s spiritual, emotional and physical well-being belongs in your hands, not in the hands of liberal activists and elitist educators with a deceptive and destructive political agenda.

It’s time to shatter the silence with truth.

Matt Barber (right) is one of the “like-minded men” with Concerned Women for America. He is an attorney concentrating in constitutional law and serves as CWA’s policy director for cultural issues. Barber (right), a former professional heavyweight boxer, is also a Board Member of Americans For Truth about Homosexuality.