Gay Men Still Cannot Give Blood.
Back in the early 1980’s, the wonderous Reagan Administration, and society as a whole, did a bang up job in reacting to the AIDS outbreak. One of the reactionary responses was to prohibit gay men who had sex after 1977 from donating blood. Would it shock you to learn that that ban remains alive and well today, in the 21st century?
Not a single piece of scientific evidence supports the ban,” said Sen. John Kerry, a Democrat, who joined 16 other Democrats and independent Sen. Bernie Sanders in writing Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Margaret Hamburg.
The lawmakers stressed that the science has changed dramatically since the ban was established in 1983 at the advent of the HIV-AIDS crisis. Today donated blood must undergo two different, highly accurate tests that make the risk of tainted blood entering the blood supply virtually zero, they said.
The senators said that while hospitals and emergency rooms are in urgent need of blood products, “healthy blood donors are turned away every day due to an antiquated policy and our blood supply is not necessarily any safer for it.”
Brian Moulton, chief legislative counsel for the Human Rights Campaign,the nation’s largest gay rights group, said they are hopeful that the policy, last reviewed in 2006, will change under President Barack Obama, “who is interested in looking at all the policies that have a discriminatory effect.” The goal, he said, is “to have policies in place that are based on the science” rather than “any discriminatory idea about our community.”
So, wait a minute. What the FUCK! It would be one thing if this policy had not been reviewed since its enactment since 1983, although I would wonder why the Clinton Administration did not review it, since we knew in the 1990’s how to test for HIV. But the policy was reviewed in 2006 during the Bush Administration, and those sick fucks decided to keep the ban in place!!??!!
Republicans and conservatives in general really need to get over their homophobia already.
ha, I wonder how many Republican Senators have used this to avoid giving blood?
Since when is John Kerry and 16 other Senators medical experts? They would be the first ones to decline a blood transfusion for themselves and thier families if they knew it was from a high risk donor. I guarentee it.
So just because blood came from a gay man you would refuse it?
You are an ignorant unintelligent evil bigot.
Ummm DelDem–you’ve used some strong wording here in reference to republican and conservative homophobia. May I reintroduce you to just America’s fear of HIV/AIDS? Surely, a Democrat isn’t just laying around saying “go ahead and transfuse me, as long as it’s red”. Fine, if the policy needs to be revisited–but really DelDem–this one is America’s discomfort. And believe me, it’s not just blood that has been with held thru this decades long embargo–milk banks too have closed–where’s that outrage? Only conservative mothers nurse their young?
No, DD I said THEY would refuse it. They are grandstanding. This is one example of why the DS are going to take a whooping in November. Call me what you want, I don’t care, but this is not how main stream R’s or D’s feel or think.
Fine, if the policy needs to be revisited–but really DelDem–this one is America’s discomfort
Is this really your argument here? That Americans — uneducated about this point — maintain this policy because they don’t know any better? You’d think that we’d come to some point where we get just how much we don’t know, how quickly we demonize and ostracize because no one wants to disabuse us of our worst instincts. If the argument is that we maintain the idiocy because Americans are fearful — still — that doesn’t speak very well for us. By that logic we should still be living with Jim Crow.
Joanne…
America is no longer uncomfortable with gays. Yes, a majority of religious conservatives and Republicans may still have a problem (sometimes while being closeted themselves).
America is no longer ignorant about HIV/AIDS. And if some remain ignorant, they should be educated rather than have their fears catered to by the right. And if they refuse education and still fearmonger, they these backward conservatives deserve to be discarded from the public discourse.
I’m just imagining that they can tell you’ve had sex in the last 20 years. Imagine the embarassment when they survey the crowd of potential donors and say, “OK, everyone except Jason go home.”
DD- “America is no longer uncomfortable with gays”?
Then please explain why every state that has a referendum on gay marraige fails when put before the people on the ballot?
Gay marriage is a different beast. You will find those who say they have no problems with gays but oppose gay marriage. Discrimination dies slowly.
But explain to me when 70% of America is in favor of repealing DADT? Explain to me why anti-discrimination laws pass?
DD- point well taken. I’m not sure about the 70%, and anti-dis laws are passing, so I will take your word for it.
My original point is that if the blood banks know that gays are a higher risk, why would they jeporidize the receivers? They are not considering IV users, because of the risks.
And before you jump me i’m just saying they are both higher risks groups. Im not comparing, IV users to gays as bad people, just higher risks groups.
Don’t worry, I am not going to jump you. LOL.
But my response to your point is that blood donations are all screened for HIV and all other blood born viruses. And there is a major difference between not allowing IV drug users to donate blood and not allowing all gay men. Can you not see the difference? The former is an illegal risky activity. To say that the latter is an illegal risky activity is well… it reinforces a whole host of stereotypes and discrimination against gays.
Well it might, But technally alot of states still have anti-gay laws on the books. Until they change those laws then they are both actually and technically against the law.
See my the article I just published Anon.
you could start a gay blood bank and prove how safe it is…
DD and cass–I am going to back out of this dialogue. America’s discomfort w/ HIV/AIDS as I stated has been translated to discomfort w/ gays, and the ridiculousness of Jim Crow laws.
Having lived and worked in the trenches when the world went thru the whole AIDS epidemic of the 80’s, no one cared if it were Haitians, homosexuals, or eating sheep products–ANY SOURCE was banned as the potential portal of entry, for at the time “death sentence” contracting this disease meant. Since then some bans have been lifted. I’m sure many don’t even remember the the whole Haitian tag of this disease, when first introduced.
That being said, the gay community–when not caring for their own decimated population–proactively, preached safe sex, condom usage and on and on. But, this necessity was only because and based on the clear evidence of how this disease was transmitted. May I remind you, that prior to the last decade of more tolerant attitudes of the gay population, the reality is gays may have disproportionately engaged in higher risk behaviors leading to acquisition of disease–any STD. The 70’s still had bathhouses, and the STUDIO 54 mentality that was quite pervasive thru the early 80’s. A weekend in the city was a great way to help get thru the week–whether closeted or not. Those who may have used condoms (and the mind-set then was why bother they were only for pregnancy), were using the ubiquitous rubber condom, not real effective in preventing the spread of many things. LOTS have changed since then–attitudes, practices, screening,lifestyles, condom safety/integrity etc.. But–what hasn’t changed is 1977 and the 5-10 years after–those activities may still carry consequences, that haven’t screened out–and now seeing the rocketing increase of dormant Hep. C and the deleterious effects of that lil’ designation, I’m not real sure MAINSTREAM Americans, or the medical community thru labs is ready to sign off on that one. While I can appreciate your outrage, we still very much have a population of gays who survived thru the 70’s and beyond, engaged in high-risk behaviors and WILL BE eliminated from a donors pool, just like a straight person, who too may have engaged in those same behaviors. And I know the donor checks neither liberal or conservative–just like the recipient. But everyone’s conversation should be safety. You are both incredibly intelligent people. This narrow view of who’s holding up the blood supply is quite devisive on a much more broader clinical view and implication. I regret taking the bait.
Currently the fastest growing population with AIDs is young, straight women like me. I give blood every couple of months. Actually they called me Monday.
I worked with an AIDs charity trying to get funding when I worked at a DE senate office. I was SHOCKED at the rates of AIDs in Delaware. We were like 7th in the nation for AIDs cases for square mile (I don’t think that’s exactly right because it’s been a while, but it’s close). Most of those cases were clustered in the city of wilmington, and most were african american women. Any of them could walk into the blood bank on market street and donate if they wanted to. That’s why they test.
It started with AIDS but the absolute percentage of homosexual men who carry HIV, Hep. or some sort of blood borne illness is greater than the general population and is not required to meet the quotas. It is benefit v, risk. The tests do not show up until weeks after an infection. It is not unreasonable. If you have spent so much time in Africa, you can not give blood. There is a whole list of people. It is not some attack on gays.
Should it be reviewed regularly based upon testing technology? Yes. We need all of the safe donors that we can get.
Should it be repealed for your political agenda? No.
Equality is my political agenda. Treating everyone the same.
The ban doesn’t make sense since there’s a test for these blood-born diseases.
Branching off what JC and David said, yes there is a section of the older gay population who may have engaged in less than safe behavior before we knew the extent/devastation of HIV, and they therefore might be at a higher risk (like someone who’s spent a lot of time in africa, or a former iv drug user). BUT there are HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of younger gay people who grew up in the era where we knew about AIDS and have always been safe with their behavior as a result. I would argue that they are the same risk level as a young hetero person and could be considered a safe donor. I think it’s unfair to them.