FDA Relaxes Rules for Homosexual Blood Donors … They Say It’s Still Not Enough

The FDA recently relaxed its rules for homosexuals who want to donate blood. Apparently, homosexuals are now allowed to give blood if they have refrained from homosexual contact for a year. But homosexuals and activists say this new rule is still too restrictive and discriminatory:

“The revised policy is still discriminatory,” said a statement from the National Gay Blood Drive, which advocated along with the American Civil Liberties Union, Gay Men’s Health Crisis, and others for a policy that approved or rejected donors based on their individual risk factors — not their sexual orientation.

“While many gay and bisexual men will be eligible to donate their blood and help save lives under this 12 month deferral, countless more will continue to be banned solely on the basis of their sexual orientation and without medical or scientific reasoning,” the statement said.

Ummmm. But wasn’t the previous rule banning homosexual blood donors based on individual risk factors? You’ve had homosexual sex? Okay, then. You can’t give blood. Because that’s a risk factor. I don’t really get it. Couldn’t the same argument be made concerning intravenous drug users? Here’s what the American Red Cross has to say on that:

Those who have ever used IV drugs that were not prescribed by a physician are not eligible to donate. This requirement is related to concerns about hepatitis and HIV.

Well, doesn’t that sound like discrimination? Yes, it is. The FDA has a similar note on intravenous drug users, though their rule is less stringent:

Donors with a history of intravenous drug abuse are routinely deferred.

Right. Because their chosen lifestyle puts them at higher risk for HIV and AIDS. Just like the chosen lifestyle of most homosexuals puts them at higher risk. I don’t really get the beef here. Imagine this scenario:

A heroin addict comes in to donate blood and the FDA says he cannot. The addict says, “Why not?” The FDA says, “Because you’re a heroin addict.” The man says, “Hey, man! That’s discrimination! You shouldn’t be denying my donation based on my demographic. You should be denying my donation on the basis of my individual risk factors.” So the FDA replies, “Okay, fine. We’re not turning you away because you’re a heroin addict. We’re turning you away because you stick potentially dirty needles into your arms to inject heroin into your bloodstream, and that puts you at a greater risk for HIV and AIDS.”

This outlines a problematic connection between homosexuals and drug addicts that homosexuals would like for you to forget about. Both addicts and homosexuals have become what they do. I don’t go around defining my identity with my sexual orientation. They did that. So the FDA could say, “You’re banned because of who you are.” Or they could say, “You’re banned because of what you do.” For the homosexual, by their own self-label, who they are is what they do.

Is it easier for the FDA to say “No, because you’re homosexual” or to say “No, because you regularly dip your penis in potentially HIV-infected feces”? Sorry to the squeamish, but apparently homosexuals have to have it spelled out for them in explicit terms. They’re somehow incapable of squaring their expectations with the harsh constraints of reality.