FDA's Blood Ban

1. The media will try to spin this, but it is essentially just asking the public for comments.

2. That is only happening because some politically-motivated politicians and advocacy groups who are putting "LGBTQ science" over actual medical science.

3. The national media isn't reporting on this on a wide-scale basis, so this effort is being allowed to continue, under the radar from most Americans.

4. The narrative that "the ban is based on discrimination, not science," is absolutely flimsy and fatally vulnerable to the truth.

I've researched this subject and posted about it extensively here.

Key quotes from FDA's report on keeping the blood donation ban for gay men (very useful reference)

Democrats and the media push for lifting the blood donation ban on gay men

Lifting U.S. curbs on gay blood donors seen years away: experts

I Am a Gay Man From Orlando. Why Can’t I Donate Blood? (N.Y. Times)

Ban on gay men giving blood 'discriminatory': Murray, Cantwell, other senators

My advice: get educated on this issue. Tell others about it. And contact the media, politicians and the government, when comments are taken about this.

This Chicago Tribune story is actually quite helpful, too. It helps explain why the ban is necessary:

Coming to terms with blood donations and men who sleep with men

From the article:

"And loosening restrictions on these men is tricky. A blood surveillance survey run from 2011-13 collected data on more than 50 percent of the blood supply. It found that the two leading risk factors for donating HIV-infected blood were sex with an HIV-positive partner and a history of male-to-male sexual contact."

And this:

But this requires an evaluation of specific sexual activities that individuals may be reluctant to reveal. When the lifetime deferral was in place, a study found that 2.6 percent of male blood donors had engaged in sex with a man, despite the questionnaire screen. Adding even more intrusive questions about sexual practices for all donors could cause further compliance issues with people who are unwilling to reveal these personal details. And although advocates say ending the ban would increase the blood supply, in-depth interviews about sexual acts could cause regular donors to take a pass on contributing.

Opponents of current blood policy have a right to demand further research, but they do not have the right to demand a decision now. Donating blood is inherently a recipient-centric transaction — all attempts to change blood policy should be made out of concern for the recipient.