U.S. to Allow Homosexual Men to Donate Blood If Abstinent From Sexual Activity

BloodbankWASHINGTON — The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has announced that it will move to loosen its restrictions on blood donations from homosexual men, provided that they are abstinent from sexual activity for at least one year.

“The agency will take the necessary steps to recommend a change to the blood donor deferral period for men who have sex with men from indefinite deferral to one year since the last sexual contact,” FDA Director Margaret Hamburg wrote in a statement on Tuesday.

She said that the decision was made after reviewing scientific evidence over a period of several years in conjunction with other governmental agencies regarding its current policy to ban men who have sexual relations with other men from donating blood.

While the department still prohibits men who are sexually active with those of the same gender from giving blood, it plans to soften its lifetime ban, and allow those who have remained abstinent for at least a year to donate. Heterosexuals who are involved in prostitution, those who have had sex with a prostitute, or those involved in illicit drug activity are also included in the ban.

The FDA first enacted its policy in 1983 during the height of the AIDS crisis, but some have decried the ban as being discriminatory toward homosexuals. The organization Gay Men’s Health Crisis (GMHC) issued a press release on Tuesday stating that they remained in opposition to the policy despite the loosened restrictions.

“Gay Men’s Health Crisis (GMHC) believes the new policy announced by the FDA related to gay and bisexual men donating blood is offensive and harmful,” it wrote. “[T]his new policy does not require heterosexual blood donors to be celibate for one year. Some may believe this is a step forward, but in reality, requiring celibacy for a year is a de facto lifetime ban.”

But the FDA says that its mission is to ensure the safety of the blood supply, and will continue working with other governmental agencies as it moves forward with its proposal.

  • Connect with Christian News

“This recommended change is consistent with the recommendation of an independent expert advisory panel the HHS Advisory Committee on Blood and Tissue Safety and Availability, and will better align the deferral period with that of other men and women at increased risk for HIV infection,” Hamburg stated.

“Additionally, in collaboration with the NIH’s National Heart Lung and Blood Institute (NHLBI), the FDA has already taken steps to implement a national blood surveillance system that will help the agency monitor the effect of a policy change and further help to ensure the continued safety of the blood supply,” she added.

The department plans on issuing a memo next year providing guidance on how to implement the proposal, but will also provide a period for public comment before the policy change is finalized.

“We encourage all stakeholders to take this opportunity to provide any information the agency should consider, and look forward to receiving and reviewing these comments,” Hamburg said.


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, our hearts are deeply grieved by the ongoing devastation in Iraq, and through this we have been compelled to take a stand at the gates of hell against the enemy who came to kill and destroy. Bibles for Iraq is a project to put Arabic and Kurdish audio Bibles into the hands of Iraqi and Syrian refugees—many of whom are illiterate and who have never heard the gospel.Will you stand with us and make a donation today to this important effort? Please click here to send a Bible to a refugee >>

Print Friendly
  • James Grimes

    How would anyone really know if they have abstained from unnatural sexual relations?

    • Gary

      Exactly. The government trusts them. Another in a constant stream of bad decisions by the federal government. Really, I think the government knows this will endanger lives, and that is exactly why they are doing it.

      • thoughtsfromflorida

        “The government trusts them.”

        No more than they trust anyone else. All blood is tested.

        “Really, I think the government knows this will endanger lives, and that is one of the reasons why they are doing it.”

        Toward what end?

        • Gary

          It is no secret that there are those who want to reduce the population. They admit it. Some of them work in the government now.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            If it’s no secret, then you should be able to provide proof.

    • Ambulance Chaser

      What kind of policy do you propose instead?

      • James Grimes

        The original policy whereby men who have had sexual relations with other men and were banned for life seems to have been working. I don’t have any better recommendations.

        • Ambulance Chaser

          You mean when they self-reported that too?

          • James Grimes

            You seem to know more about this than I do. Here’s your opportunity to tell me how wrong I am even to have an opinion about this.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            What’s wrong with just taking blood from anyone who wants to donate it and testing it for HIV?

        • MattFCharlestonSC

          I love how you think that just because you don’t need blood right now means that there isn’t a shortage. Your short sidedness doesn’t change the fact that there isn’t enough and beggars can’t be choosers. You should feel lucky to receive my blood if you’re ever injured because I guarantee you it is cleaner than the general population’s.

    • thoughtsfromflorida

      They don’t for anyone, which is why all blood is tested.

  • MC

    The FDA, killing people and animals since 1906.

  • elizabeth

    Then I have a right as a Straight person to sue the doctor’s , hospital and the donor if they don’t inform me as a patient that I will be getting Homo Blood. Their Blood is harmful and full of disease weather having or not having sexual contact with other’s.

    • thoughtsfromflorida

      “Then I have a right as a Straight person to sue the doctor’s , hospital and the donor if they don’t inform me as a patient that I will be getting Homo Blood.”

      No. You have no such right. Neither the doctor nor the hospital would have any idea who donated the blood.

      “Their Blood is harmful and full of disease weather having or not having sexual contact with other’s.”

      The weather has nothing to do with it.

    • Ambulance Chaser

      “Then I have a right as a Straight person to sue the doctor’s , hospital and the donor if they don’t inform me as a patient that I will be getting Homo Blood.”

      You have the right to sue anyone, any time for any reason. You don’t, however, have the right to win this particular lawsuit. What cause of action would you sue under? How would you measure damages?

      “Their Blood is harmful and full of disease weather having or not having sexual contact with other’s.”

      Cite please.

  • Truthhurts24

    The sadistic eugenic programs continue to operate and the sheeple in america still has faith in a satanic government that is devoid of all human decency.