Update: The cry fest over the ‘right’ of gay men to give blood sadly simpers within the gay, lesbian, and Left-wing communities. Since HIV infection is moronically viewed by many gay men as ‘just another STD’ and with gay progressive apologists boosting the bloodletting banner, the How Dare You Discriminate Against Me campaign continues. Following are my opinions on this pseudo-controversy that I addressed in a post back in March.
March 13, 2010:
A movement is afoot once again to lift the ban against gay men donating their blood. The LA Times reported that Senator John Kerry and other Democrat senators have written the Food and Drug Administration urging them to lift the ban, stating it is ‘outdated’ and ‘scientifically unsound’. The American Red Cross, the American Association of Blood Banks, and America’s Blood Centers have recommended ‘loosening the restrictions to allow men who have abstained from gay sex for one year to donate blood’. The American Medical Association has also proposed revising the policy on blood donations by gay men. However, the AMA recommends a five year sex abstinence period.
On the other side of this issue are the various hemophilia organizations, all of which are adamantly opposed to any change in the ban. And other dissenting voices raised in opposition include the latest statistics on the rates of HIV and other STD infections among gay men. The Center for Disease Control reported that gay men account for more than half of all new cases of HIV infection and are the only group in which the number of reported HIV cases continues to steadily increase. The rate of HIV diagnoses among gay men is 44 times higher than straight men. A CDC study also found that half of the men infected with HIV were not aware of their positive status. And condom usage among younger gay men has steadily decreased, with many men believing that HIV infection is now just another manageable STD and not the death threat it once was.
Back in 2007, the FDA upheld it’s policy to refuse blood donations from gay men citing the need to reduce the spread of HIV through the public blood supply:
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 8,000 times higher than repeat blood donors.
The Red Cross and other blood supply organizations had suggested that the lifetime ban be replaced with the 12-month sex abstinence compromise. This 12-month slot would address the ‘window period’, the time period when there is not enough virus in the blood to guarantee its detection. But the FDA stated that current nucleic testing procedures were not always accurate and that no additional scientific evidence had been provided to show that blood donated by gay men was as safe as blood donated by accepted donors. The FDA also bans blood donations from prostitutes and drug users.
I’m sure that many in the gay and lesbian communities consider the ban discriminatory. But I don’t see it that way. This debate is about keeping our nation’s blood supply safe. Blood organizations like the Red Cross may be calling for change, but quite frankly, they have a demand to satisfy and a product to push, not-for-profit though they may be. The fact that the American Medical Association is only willing to compromise with a 5-year sex abstinence period says something about the so-called sacred scientific data that’s being hawked as justification for the ban’s repeal.
The statistics quoted above are scary and sad. If the gay community gave as much attention to eradicating the causes of these sickening stats as it does to its huff and puff campaign over a gay man’s right to give blood, there wouldn’t be any question of discrimination to begin with. I think the obvious is staring us in the face here.
I support the current FDA ban and I hope the Kerry maneuver and the Democrats’ gay-pandering, political agenda fail.