Blood Donation | Discrimination | News

HHS Committee Votes to Retain Ban on Gay Blood Donation

After two days of hearings, by a vote of 9-6, the HHS Advisory Committee on Blood Safety and Availability has voted against recommending lifting the FDA ban on blood donation by gay men.

Against all science. Outrageous.

The current policy bars any man who has had sex with a man since 1977 from giving blood.

Feed This post's comment feed


  1. So... Let me get this straight. Organ donation is just dandy, but blood donation continues to be a risk?? Insanity.

    Posted by: Brad | Jun 11, 2010 3:55:20 PM

  2. Morons. As though all donated blood isn't thoroughly screened. This is Bigotry 101.

    Posted by: Paul R | Jun 11, 2010 3:56:52 PM

  3. I agree with Paul - they're morons.

    As if all those guys on the DL in the military are going to *say* they've had sex with a man. Hah.

    Posted by: Steve | Jun 11, 2010 3:58:44 PM

  4. Assholes.

    And it's not only gay people touched by this, Trans people are also barred from donating blood since we're "gay" too in the eyes of pols.

    Posted by: missanthrope | Jun 11, 2010 4:01:06 PM

  5. Actually, this is a good thing. Even though all the comments above are correct this is the US of A and you can be rest assured that the so-called religious folks would have used this to scare people.

    Posted by: Observer1000 | Jun 11, 2010 4:02:15 PM

  6. Funny how facts are unimportant when it involves gays.

    Posted by: LiamB | Jun 11, 2010 4:04:42 PM

  7. I remember when I first was made aware of this rule. I was a junior in college, and had some time between classes. Wanted to do my part. Only to read that clause, be mildly offended and explained "Well...I've only done it the one time...and there were condoms. Is this a joke?" The lab tech didn't find any point in sympathy. I left heated and brought it up in my sociology class. Caused an interesting debate at least.

    Posted by: g_whiz | Jun 11, 2010 4:06:53 PM

  8. It's not so much bigotry, guys. These health scientists think they're playing a probability game. They think that by excluding gay men, they are lowering the chances that HIV-infected blood gets through. The problem is that all the people who are honest enough to answer truthfully about having sex with men are the same ones who are likely to know their own HIV status. I know mine, clear as day, and yet I cannot give. But the closet case down the road doesn't know his status, and donates by lying on the questionnaire. Who is THAT benefitting? It's junk science because the screening tools are so subject to fraud.

    Posted by: ColinATL | Jun 11, 2010 4:07:25 PM

  9. No matter what anyone says, being LGBTQQI* is the final threshold of civil rights on this planet.

    In most civilized countries (give or take a few countries that grant some rights and protections), unlike all other identities (women and racial minorities, for example), LGBTQQI people cannot give blood, marry and receive the same benefits of marriage as heterosexuals, serve openly in the military, work openly at a slew of jobs, be protected from gender discrimination in a host of situations and more.

    *LGBTQQI: lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, questioning, and intersex

    Posted by: veg | Jun 11, 2010 4:09:06 PM

  10. I still don't see why this is such a big deal. If they don't want our blood, then fuck them.

    Posted by: DD | Jun 11, 2010 4:11:32 PM

  11. Oh well their loss. I would love to donate my HIV-neg blood which is a rare type that can be given to infants due its purity, but because I had gay sex after 1977 no dice. It kills me that we are still being banned when HIV is in every culture and sexuality. Don't come crying to me when there is a major shortage due to some horrific disaster that will happen here in the US.

    Posted by: Dairyqueen | Jun 11, 2010 4:16:48 PM

  12. It's a big deal because there are a lot of guys who would donate and someone is missing out on possibly having their life saved because of this.

    I still dont see how they can honestly say its not good for someone who is -, has been in a stable, monogamous relationship for 6 years to not give, but someone who is het, had sex last week with 5 different women is ok (of course until they're screened.) ???

    Posted by: uflyguy | Jun 11, 2010 4:21:32 PM

  13. We need a Fierce Advocate.

    Posted by: JeffNYC | Jun 11, 2010 4:23:09 PM

  14. Well of course they don't want gay blood, we bleed acid that burns everything it touches, just like Aliens...don't we?...or is that just me?

    Posted by: Jeff | Jun 11, 2010 4:29:29 PM

  15. Who cares, I was using it anyway. I don’t want to give blood for fear it might save one of their lives. Why are we fighting for the right to give our blood? Fuck them. For that matter why do we want to “serve” in their military? So we can learn to kill and maim? Be killed or disabled and mistreated when we return home to an obese illiterate nation of morons? Let them fight their own stupid wars and when they need blood let them figure it out. You could not pay me enough to give my AB Negative blood to the general public. It could save a Republican.

    Posted by: Dave | Jun 11, 2010 4:35:34 PM

  16. great news for straight high school kids that participate in weekly orgies (I watch Law in order SVU, happens all the time....) with dozens of partners, or "straight" men on the downlow meeting up with prostitutes and god knows hat else with ZERO knowlege of their HIV status or history of sexual partners, etc. Our nation's blood supply IS truly in danger. Now.

    Posted by: William | Jun 11, 2010 4:41:21 PM

  17. Against all science? ...Not disappointed.

    Posted by: TANK | Jun 11, 2010 4:43:25 PM

  18. Give blood anyway if you know with certainty your blood is healthy. This is ESPECIALLY true if you are an "O" type blood. All blood is screened anyway. I know there is the principle that "if they don't want it, fine they won't get it" or "I refuse to lie to them when they ask" BUT "they" and "them" is not the person dying because there isn't enough available blood in a tragic, emergency situation. Saving a life and protecting life (the REAL "pro-life") is something we as a community celebrate. If you are "O," especially, and healthy, please do not stop donating blood. Donate and save lives and, like Service members who serve and defend our country because it's the right thing to do despite the fact that there are people who don't want them there. SAVING LIVES trumps discrimination. Please keep donating.

    Posted by: BreckRoy | Jun 11, 2010 4:49:03 PM


    Posted by: ANDREW | Jun 11, 2010 4:49:03 PM


    Posted by: Disgusted American | Jun 11, 2010 4:50:17 PM

  21. We should be able to give our own gay blood for other gays. Create our own little supply. I'd rather get mine from a gay anyway, as I'm sure most of us would. Imagine a big shot of neanderthal religious zealot rushing through your veins. No thanks...

    Posted by: brian | Jun 11, 2010 4:54:15 PM

  22. Like many laws and policies that discriminate against LGBT people, this ban only encourages people to lie. I agree with what @ColinATL said that for many closeted gay men (specifically) who are married to women can donate blood even though they are at higher risks of contracting HIV for having sex with multiple, random and anonymous men.

    Similarly, not allowing LGBT US citizens and permanent residents to sponsor their foreign-born same-sex partners/spouses will only 'force' them to lie and commit marriage fraud - i.e. setting up fraud marriage with opposite sex people in order for them to get into the country to be with their partners/spouses.

    DADT - force LGBT people to lie about their sexuality in order to serve their country and protect the people who vote for their rights to be taken away, etc.

    The list goes on and on..

    When will "they" wake up and face reality?

    Posted by: gayalltheway | Jun 11, 2010 5:02:28 PM

  23. Could not all of us over the age of 33 just say we haven't had sex with a man since 1977, even though we're LGBTQQI? When they ask about it, our reply should merely be, "Prove that I haven't had sex with a man since 1977." The burden should be on them, not us.

    Posted by: Keith | Jun 11, 2010 5:04:56 PM

  24. What's so bad is we can't even donate blood for our OWN use. I had to have a minor surgery recently, and just in case I donated blood for my personal use during the surgery. I've done this before and it has never been an issue. Go in early, donate the blood, and if I need it it's there. No chance of rejection, it's the right type, and no strain on the blood supply. This time though, I was told that those rules applied even if I was donating for myself. So, basically, blood I donated for personal use was a danger to myself because I have had sex with a man in my lifetime. Medical morons.

    Posted by: Steve | Jun 11, 2010 5:16:31 PM

  25. How silly to think bigots would care about science. A little ACT UP direct action might change their minds.

    Posted by: Jay Jonson | Jun 11, 2010 5:47:18 PM

  26. 1 2 »

Post a comment


« «News: Hair, Jodie Foster, Log Cabin Republicans, Albuquerque« «