AIDS and PC, a fatal combination

Clarice Feldman
South Carolina adopted a perfectly reasonable method to stop the spread of HIV and AIDS in its prison  population: isolating those with the disease from the rest of the prison  population. Unsurprisingly, the demented P.C. crowd at the Department of Justice want to put a halt to that. J. Christian Adams writes in the Washington Examiner:

Two unpleasant topics of conversation most of us avoid are the epidemic of HIV/AIDS among prison inmates and a variety of sometimes violent events resulting in transmission of the disease. Some states long ago implemented policies to protect the uninfected part of the prison population while providing exceptional medical treatment and counseling to the infected population.

In South Carolina, it has worked so well since 1998 that there has only been a single transmission of HIV/AIDS to a noninfected prisoner. All that may change, however, thanks to a threat from Eric Holder's Justice Department.

South Carolina received a letter from the now-infamous Civil Rights Division that the policy of keeping infected inmates at a designated facility, instead of scattered across the state in the general prison population, may unfairly stigmatize infected prisoners. To the Obama political appointees in the Civil Rights Division, this constitutes discrimination under the Americans With Disabilities Act.

h/t: Instapundit

This follows the gay activists' fight to undo the ban on blood donations from those  most likely to be stricken with the disease.

Gay men have been prohibited from giving blood since 1985. But momentum to change the ban has grown recently, with advocacy groups, blood-collection organizations and members of Congress calling for the Food and Drug Administration to revise the donation rules.

The Health and Human Services Committee, in its recommendations, noted that current policy permits some potentially high-risk blood donations and prevents some possible low-risk donations. But the panel said existing research isn't adequate to justify lifting the ban. The FDA has final say over the blood rules.

Gay rights groups said the blood donation policy discriminates against gay and bisexual men. They point out a heterosexual man or a woman having sex with an HIV-positive partner is restricted from giving blood for one year from that contact, while gay men face a lifetime ban.

Let's hope South Carolina fights this ridiculous effort to endanger the life of those in its custody.
South Carolina adopted a perfectly reasonable method to stop the spread of HIV and AIDS in its prison  population: isolating those with the disease from the rest of the prison  population. Unsurprisingly, the demented P.C. crowd at the Department of Justice want to put a halt to that. J. Christian Adams writes in the Washington Examiner:

Two unpleasant topics of conversation most of us avoid are the epidemic of HIV/AIDS among prison inmates and a variety of sometimes violent events resulting in transmission of the disease. Some states long ago implemented policies to protect the uninfected part of the prison population while providing exceptional medical treatment and counseling to the infected population.

In South Carolina, it has worked so well since 1998 that there has only been a single transmission of HIV/AIDS to a noninfected prisoner. All that may change, however, thanks to a threat from Eric Holder's Justice Department.

South Carolina received a letter from the now-infamous Civil Rights Division that the policy of keeping infected inmates at a designated facility, instead of scattered across the state in the general prison population, may unfairly stigmatize infected prisoners. To the Obama political appointees in the Civil Rights Division, this constitutes discrimination under the Americans With Disabilities Act.

h/t: Instapundit

This follows the gay activists' fight to undo the ban on blood donations from those  most likely to be stricken with the disease.

Gay men have been prohibited from giving blood since 1985. But momentum to change the ban has grown recently, with advocacy groups, blood-collection organizations and members of Congress calling for the Food and Drug Administration to revise the donation rules.

The Health and Human Services Committee, in its recommendations, noted that current policy permits some potentially high-risk blood donations and prevents some possible low-risk donations. But the panel said existing research isn't adequate to justify lifting the ban. The FDA has final say over the blood rules.

Gay rights groups said the blood donation policy discriminates against gay and bisexual men. They point out a heterosexual man or a woman having sex with an HIV-positive partner is restricted from giving blood for one year from that contact, while gay men face a lifetime ban.

Let's hope South Carolina fights this ridiculous effort to endanger the life of those in its custody.