| |
If you don't let us kill you with
tainted blood, then you can go without any blood.
Report for March 20, 2004
The citizens of New Sodom have long complained
that the Red Cross ban on homosexuals' donating blood is discriminatory.
In other words, sodomites are so self-centered that they would rather have
innocent blood recipients die of AIDS than to be told that their sexual
perversion is the source of that deadly disease. In lieu of that, the
sodomites and their friends would have people in need of blood die in that
need if that is what it takes to get their way with the Red Cross.
Sodomites need to hear that Jesus Christ shed His blood to provide the
remission of the sins of all who will repent and believe the gospel. The
Church of Jesus Christ needs to understand the cruel heart, narcissistic
heart of New Sodom.
Red Cross Ban Sought at WOU
Two on the Student Senate Say that a Blood-Drive Query Is Discriminatory
by Matt Monaghan, Statesman Journal (Salem, Oregon)
March 17, 2004, http://news.statesmanjournal.com/article.cfm?i=77204
MONMOUTH - Two student senators at Western Oregon University are trying to
ban student-sponsored blood drives on the school's campus because they say
questions associated with the donor screening process are discriminatory
against gays.
The student legislation may not mean much, however, because current blood
drives are sponsored by WOU's health-services department, not students.
Student senator Shauna Bates sponsored the resolution and told a Monday
night student Senate meeting that a blood-donor- screening question
violates WOU's zero-tolerance policy against discrimination.
The question under scrutiny reads: "Are you a male who has had sex
with another male since 1977, even once?"
The federal Food and Drug Administration, which regulates the Red Cross
screening process, will not accept a donation from someone who answers
"yes" to the question. The intent is to help eliminate
potentially HIV-tainted blood.
"By continuing to allow the Red Cross on our campus, the university
is telling all the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender students that we
don't care about you," said Bates.
If the resolution passes with a two-thirds majority vote of the senate's
14 members at its next meeting March 30, then no student-funded
organization would be allowed to sponsor a blood drive.
Monday's meeting drew students and various health officials from the
university and Red Cross opposing the move.
"The overall consensus of the students that came was against banning
the Red Cross from campus," said Brant Walsh, director of
communications for the student senate.
Molly Underwood was one of about 40 WOU students present. She said that
matters of public health supersede those of discrimination.
"Just because somebody thinks something is unfair doesn't mean you
should ban it," Underwood said. "Lives could be at stake."
Based on opinions such as Underwood's, Bates said she doesn't expect the
resolution will pass.
"I think the senate will ultimately bow to the rally of the students
and the health center," Bates said.
WOU president Philip Conn said that even with controversy, Red Cross blood
drives on campus - which have been taking place since the 1960s - are not
likely to end anytime soon.
"The Red Cross has been here with the support of our university
health service for a number of years," Conn said. "While the
current issue is something that merits discussion, it wouldn't be wise to
drop that relationship."
Alan Bennett, public affairs director for the FDA of Oregon, said the
discrimination issue is one that comes up frequently, but there is little
chance for change.
"The bottom line is that we have to take a very conservative approach
because we have to protect the nation's blood supply," he said.
Homo-Fascism
Watch Main Page |
|
