Did you know that in America gay men still can’t donate blood? The ban on gay blood donors is based in the worst kind of anti-gay prejudice and AIDS hysteria from early in the epidemic. America needs to end the ban and allow gay men to donate blood. Science supports lifting the ban, and so does basic fairness.
You can help America leave the ban behind. Adam Bink of OpenLeft explains how:
Today, we are participating in a blogswarm with AMERICABlog, AKAWilliam.com, Bilerico Project, Blabbeando, Change.org, DailyKos, David Badash, Firedoglake-The Seminal, Good As You, Joe Mirabella, LGBTPOV, Mike Signorile, OpenLeft and Rod 2.0. We are asking you to submit a public comment in support of revising the discriminatory and medically unwarranted FDA lifetime ban on blood donations from any man who has had sex with another man (MSM) since 1977.
Today, the HHS Advisory Committee on Blood Safety and Availability is kicking off a two-day meeting to reconsider the FDA ban on blood donations from men who have had sex with men (MSM). The current policy has been in place since 1985 when no HIV testing was available and little was known about HIV/AIDS. Since then, while many policies towards blood donations have changed, and HIV testing has significantly advanced to the point where a permanent ban no longer makes sense, the ban still remains in place. The ban is also discriminatory in that it unfairly targets gay and bisexual men because it does not distinguish between high-risk and low-risk MSM, banning potential MSM donors who are HIV-negative and consistently practice safe sex or are in long-term monogamous relationships, while others with a significantly higher risk of HIV infection are subject to less restrictive deferrals or none at all. The ban also contributes to a dangerously and chronically low blood supply in a country in which approximately just 5% of all eligible donors give.
The NYC and DC City Councils have recently passed resolutions by votes of 42-1 and 13-0, respectively, urging a revision of the ban. Today, we are asking that you join their voices in calling for a more sensible policy.
Dr. Jerry Holmberg is the Executive Secretary of the Advisory Committee, and is tasked with accepting formal public comments from both organizations and individuals. He has made his e-mail available for this purpose. Please take a minute to e-mail Dr. Holmberg via jerry.holmberg@hhs.gov and urge him and the committee to revise the ban on blood donations from MSM.
In writing the note, you can use the facts we have listed below, a form letter we’ve put together at the bottom of this list post that summarizes the rationale for ending the ban, a personal note- or all of the above! These public comment periods exist because good government means advocates should have a chance to weigh in. Now’s our chance to demonstrate that members of the public support sound science, non-discrimination, and a healthier America.
Please take a minute to tell Dr. Holmberg and the Committee that you support these principles by sending an e-mail to jerry.holmberg@hhs.gov. Urge a revision of the policy that incorporates sound medical, scientific, and non-discriminatory guidelines.
The additional reasons you can cite are below.
- Newer tests have shortened the window period in which HIV is undetectable to between 9 and 11 days. A permanent, lifetime ban is outdated and no longer makes sense.
- The U.S. blood supply is frequently at critically low levels. Less than 5% of all eligible donors give, while donation recipients include mothers delivering babies, trauma victims, cancer patients, transplant patients and others. The respected Williams Institute estimates that lifting the ban would result in an estimated 130,150 additional donors who are likely to donate 219,000 additional pints of blood each year, while shortening deferral to one year would result in 53,269 additional men who are likely to donate 89,716 pints each year.
- The ban is a form of discrimination by unfairly targeting men who have sex with men, or effectively the gay and bisexual community. A permanent, blanket ban is instituted on any male who has had sex with another male even once since 1977 and without regard for partner’s HIV status nor for frequency, safe sex practices, or duration since. Yet if one has sex with an opposite-sex partner who is knowingly HIV-positive, he or she can give again in a year. This is discrimination and it is wrong.
- Other countries like Sweden, Argentina, Australia, Russia, and Japan have either revised or completely lifted the deferral period, while Italy, Spain and France screen donors based on risk rather than a blanket ban on a community.
- The American Red Cross, America’s Blood Centers, American Association of Blood Banks, American Medical Association, and a coalition of nearly fifty other organizations all support a revision of the ban.
You can use these reasons in combination with your own personal ones, or the form letter below. Please submit a public comment via jerry.holmberg@hhs.gov, and urge that the ban be revised to improve the nation’s health, meet sound scientific practices, and eliminate discrimination. Thanks for helping improve the nation’s health and eliminating another form of discrimination.
Here is a letter summarizing the scientific and social reasons for revising the ban for your convenience. Feel free to copy and paste into an e-mail:
Jerry A. Holmberg, PhD
Executive Secretary
Advisory Committee on Blood Safety and Availability
Office of Public Health and Science
Department of Health and Human Services
1101 Wooton Parkway, Suite 250
Rockville, MD 20852June 10, 2010
Dear Dr. Holmberg,
I am pleased that the Health and Human Services Advisory Committee on Blood Safety and Availability (ACBSA) is planning to review the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) decades-long ban on blood donation by any man who has had sex with another man since 1977. I strongly urge the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to review its policy prohibiting gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men (MSM) from donating blood.
The FDA’s current blood donor eligibility policies are largely inconsistent, imposing significantly less restrictive deferrals to heterosexual men and women who engage in high-risk sexual behavior, yet banning gay and bisexual men who are HIV-negative, consistently practice safe sex, or are in monogamous, long-term relationships. This policy reinforces inaccurate stereotypes about gay men and HIV, and results in a significant loss of healthy blood donors.
The advent of new HIV testing technologies, which can detect HIV directly and has a window period of only 9-11 days after infection, has provided scientific and technological reasons to reconsider the policy. In the face of chronic blood shortages in the nation’s blood supply, the unnecessary exclusion of large numbers of HIV-negative blood donors may harm patients in need of blood transfusions.
I join a growing consensus of voices who have called for reform of the FDA’s donor eligibility policy. Many public health experts, the American Red Cross, the American Association of Blood Banks, America’s Blood Centers, and others have supported reforming the policy. Additionally, 18 U.S. Senators, as well as U.S. Representatives, have recently sent letters to the FDA calling for the long-standing policy’s review and modification.
It is both timely and necessary that an exhaustive review of alternative policies is conducted. I encourage Health and Human Services (HHS) and the FDA to act quickly to address our mutual concern for expanding the blood donor pool and ensuring the safety and adequacy of our nation’s blood supply.
Sincerely,
Teddy here again. I hope you’ll take a moment to send an email, as Adam suggests, and that you can be a part of this blogosphere-wide action today. We really need to get our government to move on this, in the name of science and basic non-discrimination.
Thanks for helping.
UPDATE: Change.org has a petition up, here, where you can add your name too.



21 Comments




This isn’t everyone’s issue, at first glance. But it really is about the kind of country we want to be. And it’s about recognizing that science, not old-time AIDS hysteria and anti-gay prejudice, should rule FDA decisions.
Thanks for helping. It means a lot to people, especially those who used to give blood and are now denied that chance. As well as those with friends or family with life-threatening diseases, who cannot build the blood supply with their own donations.
Please help.
Thanks for this, Teddy. I’m so glad to see there’s a movement afoot to change this policy. Rec’d.
thank you Teddy ! an incredibly under reported story
have a child with B neg. how’s that for a first glance ?!?! :D
signed and now e mailing
I’m so old, I remember when the ban was instituted. Closeted corporate types were terrified that the Red Cross would inadvertently out them to co-workers or, worse, bosses. In a very homophobic corporate culture, being a single guy in your thirties meant putting up a very closely argued series of fictions — out of town girlfriend, dead fiancee, devoted momma’s boy but very into sports — and guys I knew worried terribly.
It was bad enough to worry that your sexual behavior might make you sick, but that you also had to lie when giving blood, and might therefore endanger others? It was horrifying. Lots of folks who were high-enough up to do so would arrange out-of-town business trips on the days of the in-house blood drives; being seen around headquarters without your “I GAVE BLOOD” sticker raised lots of questions.
For which people developed ready answers, but still. How many times in a year can you claim “coming down with something” as a reason not to have donated blood?
Recommended!!
signed.
171 signers on the petition, add your name here please.
Signed, Teddy. Don’t they test all donor blood for several things like HIV, hepatitis, etc?
I almost died in the early 90′s because they were Afraid Of The Blood.
They’re doctors, right? They can “check” the blood they have to see if it’s tainted, right? We need everyone who wants to donate to be able to do so. It’s an extremely small percentage of folks who knowingly pass on diseases, right.
Go, Teddy, Go.
Would I rather get blood from a lying, hypocritical Tea Person? Not on my life.
They don’t give blood. They have iced tea in their veins.
You’re being too kind. How ’bout anti-freeze?
or dispersant.
An even better answer. You!
End the ban now!
I give every couple months, and the questions are for many things like asprin use, tatoos and piersings in addition to HIV.
I don’t know, do they still allowy you to donate if you answer a question wrong, or do they say, “Thanks, but no thanks?”
Signed, Teddy…! ;-)
Thanks to everyone who signed, please also consider a letter to Dr Holmberg as described in Adam’s communication above.
You guys rock!
Gay Blood.
Of all things.
You do understand that, in the headline, the word ‘gay’ modifies the noun ‘blood donors’ and not ‘blood.’ Right?
The ban is in place for good reason. No repeal.
Reading this I had to chuckle. I am a European permanent resident, I can’t donate blood for that reason. (Heightened risk of mad cow disease)
Does it compare? :)