Our Nation's Policies Will Now Be Determined Solely By The FDA

I have to ask just when it became standard procedure for anti-gay activists to justify their positions on any issue by pointing to the FDA's blood donation policy?

Peter LaBarbera did it when calling for a "comprehensive federal study on the health risks of homosexual sex" on the grounds that gay sex is more dangerous than smoking. Bryan Fisher did it when claiming that gays should be treated like drug users.  And now Matt Barber is doing it in defending his opposition to repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell:

Reasons for incompatibility are manifold. They are firmly rooted in both common sense and in the "settled" anthropological, sociopolitical and medical sciences, as well as the theological arena. Taken alone, each provides ample justification for maintaining the status quo. Combined, they prove the case. For now – in the interest of brevity – we'll focus on but one: medical science.

Consider that current U.S. health regulations prohibit men who have sex with men (MSM – aka "gays") from donating blood. Studies conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration categorically confirm that if MSM were permitted to give blood, the general population would be placed at risk.

According to the FDA: "['Gay' men] 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."

The FDA further warns: "['Gay' 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 ['gay' men] than in the general population."

A 2007 CDC study further rocked the homosexual activist community, finding that, although "gay" men comprise only 1-to-2 percent of the population, they account for an epidemic 64 percent of all syphilis cases.

Do the math: If "gays" are allowed to serve openly – as to appease leftists' euphemistic demands for "tolerance" and "diversity" – how much more would soldiers in the field – where battlefield blood transfusions and frequent exposure to biohazards are commonplace – face pointless peril?

As I asked before, since when did the FDA's blood donation policy become the foundation for every other national policy?  And why does this only seem to apply to gays?  If the FDA's policy is so foundational, they why isn't Barber demanding that everyone who is barred from donating blood be likewise be barred from military service, including "people who have recently traveled to or lived abroad in certain countries ... because they are at risk for transmitting agents such as malaria or variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease"?

What is stopping these anti-gay activists from just citing this FDA policy as justification for barring gays from working in hospitals or anywhere in the medical profession ... or from working anywhere, for that matter?  In fact, what is stopping them from citing this policy as justification for instituting wholesale discrimination against gays in all aspects of life?

If the fact that gay men are not allowed to donate blood is enough to justify treating them as criminals and keeping them out of the military, then why not everything else? 

UPDATE: Well, what do you know? Sen. John Kerry is calling on the FDA to remove its ban on gay men serving as blood donors. What will anti-gay activists do if they can't cite this FDA policy to justify their calls for discrimination any more?