MyDD :: FDA Bans Gay Sperm Donors!

FDA Bans Gay Sperm Donors!

by phemfrog, Thu May 05, 2005 at 10:51:16 PM EST

This is fucking insane--Chris

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7749977/

From the Associated Press:

"NEW YORK - To the dismay of gay-rights activists, the Food and Drug Administration is about to implement new rules recommending that any man who has engaged in homosexual sex in the previous five years be barred from serving as an anonymous sperm donor.

The FDA has rejected calls to scrap the provision, insisting that gay men collectively pose a higher-than-average risk of carrying the AIDS virus. Critics accuse the FDA of stigmatizing all gay men rather than adopting a screening process that focuses on high-risk sexual behavior by any would-be donor, gay or straight."

I don't know about all of you, but this is deeply disturbing. And it is going to slip by unnoticed! The justification that homosexuals have high levels of HIV infection may seem legit, except the rules do not exclude anyone else with high risk factors.

Banning someone because of their sexual preference is appalling. Comments?...

Tags: (all tags)

Permalink :: 27 Comments :: Post a Comment

You're absolutely right. (3.00 / 1)

If they want to avoid risk groups, they have to go after all risk groups, not just the ones that help them stir the bigotry pot. Unless they also go after people who've had unprotected sex, and start asking all the questions about sharing needles and blood transfusions.

No gigolo sperm! No junkie sperm!

That's probably the best talking point, too: they're ignoring real risk factors and focusing on political ones.

Yeah, I'm cynical.

by catastrophile on Thu May 05, 2005 at 05:49:39 PM EST

Its true.. (none / 0)

So do black people...especially people from Africa..

So do poor people..

So why not test them for HIV instead?

That seems to make more sense..

by ultraworld on Thu May 05, 2005 at 07:26:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Its true.. (none / 0)

Actually there's a very cheap, very simple
test available for HIV thats been very
popular in the adult film industry.

someone needs to commercialise that
puppy. Biotech is totally booming right
now but really have we seen any apps
make it to everyday?

Do you know the name of the test?

by turnerbroadcasting on Fri May 06, 2005 at 12:28:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You're absolutely right. (1.00 / 1)

You have to be careful here what
the media actually covers.

Case in point, a prominent
florida representative died
at precisely the two year interval
timespan for variant Crutzfeld-Jakobs
disease, a slow and crippling death.

The news media that pays chris
his paycheck didn't cover the story,
they gave nominal coverage to the fact
that prion-infected beef had been
detected in the american food supply.

So the media entertainment groups made
a decision not to investigate the case.
Putatively it was because this individual
in florida died of the NON VARIANT form
of the disease.

Whats interesting, in my view - are the
statistics. The chance of catching that disease
was one in 10 E 6. , one in ten million.

And everything was sealed up tight.

Editors commonly make a decision about which
story to run based on the advertiser they
want to attract.

I remember distinctly that McDonalds corporation
started the policy of playing happy music
in their food chains when they were discovered
to have found to have purchased this
mad cow chow.

I guess what I'm trying to say is... just beware of the mad cow chow kao tao.

>:)

by turnerbroadcasting on Fri May 06, 2005 at 10:02:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

this is crazy (none / 0)

I agree that this policy is absurd. We've got an additional diary on this topic on our blog as well.
http://badpolitiks.blogspot.com
We can't let this issue silently slide by. I think their motives are obviously dubious, and discriminatory.

by danielfero on Thu May 05, 2005 at 06:55:46 PM EST

blood banks too. . . (none / 0)

It would make sense to just test people for aids before they can make a donation--testing more people for hiv is good regardless of their background. But alas, that would make far too much sense.

Blood banks discriminate against gay men, too. I'm happy to say that my school (Sarah Lawrence College) is boycotting the blood drive until they condemn the discriminatory rules (the blood bank doesn't actually control the policy, but the SLC administration is just asking that the blood bank come out against the ban).

by rufustfyrfly on Fri May 06, 2005 at 12:39:08 AM EST

Odd which things manage to hit you hardest... (none / 0)

After 4+ years of this crap, I'm of course not actually surprised by this, but somehow, when I read this on CNN a while ago it almost brought me to tears. Why should this little thing suddenly seem so incredibly awful, evil and petty, after so much of the same? Maybe it's just me or the time of night, but suddenly it seems like things may get a whole whole lot worse before getting better.

by brackdurf on Fri May 06, 2005 at 12:41:27 AM EST

Strange (none / 0)

If I'm not mistaken each time sperm is "banked" the bank hangs on to it for six months while they wait to verify the donor is HIV-. So it's not like the rule would have any health affect. It does, however, ensure that any potential "gay" genes aren't passed along.

by quoi on Fri May 06, 2005 at 02:41:19 AM EST

Profiling of the 1930's German Fascist Kind (3.00 / 1)

If you are gay, slavic, jewish, gypsy, or communist, then you are not fit to reproduce and not fit to be anything other than a work-slave or dead. That was the German fascist formula.

Many do not seem to know that for many years in the US a gay cannot donate blood under any circumstances and irrespective of any HIV testing that has been done. Sperm donation just adds to this blanket ban.

This isn't about high-risk behaviors or practices in people's lives that might endanger others. This is out and out sexual-orientation discrimination. A drug addict or a male doing unprotected sex with annonymous partners four times a day is fine to donate sperm. Just not gays.

Initially the Nazi's forbid the unfit from teaching. Then they were made non-citizens. Later they were declared to be 'unter menchen' - "under people".

Finally, the Gestapo came silently in the night, and although many knew who was disappearing, those not taken were silent.

And some day they will come for the others. So the US equivalent of the German unter menchen are warned. There are no sirens when they come.

"Pay any price, bear any burden"

by JimPortlandOR on Fri May 06, 2005 at 03:32:41 AM EST

German Fascist Kind (none / 0)

First They Came for the Jews
First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

Pastor Martin Niemöller

by JAmbro on Fri May 06, 2005 at 09:13:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: German Fascist Kind (none / 0)

In this case, the person you will have
left will be seated in the middle of a
ring of fire.

by turnerbroadcasting on Fri May 06, 2005 at 09:58:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Sad;y, its nothing new... (none / 0)

The American Red Cross & its affiliates will not accept blood donated from males who've had sex with a man in the past 6 or 12 months (I forget the interval). Bone marrow transplant organizations have similar rules. All of these people should be screening for HIV. Oddly, they don't consider more the impact of more common STDs like Herpes, HPV, etc. I don't know the spectrum of disease that's tested, but as in the case of HIV tests, the FDA-appoved tests purposely are much more likely to come up with fales positives than false negatives (i.e., they err in the direction of finding antibodies where the disease doesn't exist).

by rich on Fri May 06, 2005 at 09:17:14 AM EST

I would second that (3.00 / 0)

The STLV form - Simian transleukocytic virus - travels rapidly and is now within the
human population. Theoretically contained,
this is a more virulent, and possibly contagious form of the virus.

You may say its f-king insane to ban all drug users, but if it were the case of meth addicts not being
able to donate blood - people like Isaac Asimov
would be alive to write a really cool story
about the STLV mutation and scare the hell
out of us.

As it stands, he's dead because when he had
a heart attack, the blood he received
carried a virus he had no defense for.

The insanity will come when the bugs mutate
to a form that you can't control.

Right now, the policy is a simple extension
of what already exists, and should be viewed
against the backdrop of both
the verified existence of new mutations,
and the simple fact that it makes sense
in some cases to be conservative.

No spankin' the monkey, chris.

by turnerbroadcasting on Fri May 06, 2005 at 09:56:51 AM EST

Re: I would second that (none / 0)

I was going to reply to this until I saw who posted this and realized that I've replied to turner's posts before, which coincedentally, have been about gays.

I will save myself the time and cut right to the chase; Turner, you are an anti-gay bigot. Therefore, you should preface everything you write about the subject with "I don't like or know anything about gay people so..."

At least then you'd have some credibility, or at least more credibility than what your specious arguments present.

by dayspring on Fri May 06, 2005 at 10:57:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I would second that (3.00 / 0)

You should read 'status anxiety' - its great.
Basically whats really going on here and now
is that theres a group who wants to change
the status quo.

Traditionally this is done through politics.
But now they're finding their reach ever limited.

To characterize either my posts, or the actions
of society in large as directed against this
group is really an attempt to invalidate
the position that they weren't activist
in the first place.

For example, the red cross donor policy.
Its already there. Does it deserve a separate
thread?

Nope. I lived in San Francisco long enough to
know that the city is really libertarian,
not liberal. And gays have just as many
problems as straights when it comes to
this issue. If I had a vaccine, I'd sell
it all day long to whomever would buy it.

Thanks for trying to spark a debate, though.
Nice try, bernie.

by turnerbroadcasting on Fri May 06, 2005 at 12:26:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I would second that (none / 0)

First off, my characterization is based on the positions you have taken on other threads that have anything at all to do with gays. It is not limited to this one thread.

Second, just because there is a status quo does not mean that it is right or that it does not warrant change.

Third, I do not agree with the red cross donor policy.

Point is, if you observe the pattern, this is indicative of a systematic attempt to demonize gays. Disavow gays' contribution to culture by censoring anything that has to with gays from schools, demonize them from the pulpit, and castigate them as disease spreaders. The FDA's policy reinforces this.

And you are correct, gays do have just as many problems as straight people. Andif all things were equal that would be the end of it. But all things are not equal and gays have the added burden of being a persecuted minority that is thrown to the political wolves every election.

I really wish there was a better way to make you understand. These things about gay equality really have nothing to do with anyone else. It's just about letting gay people live out their own lives with the same rights and protections that everyone else takes for granted.

by dayspring on Fri May 06, 2005 at 10:48:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hmm, (none / 0)

I'm sort of split on this. The first poster, turnerbroadcasting made some good points that seemd to get lost in the wash, about mutating bugs. These things do exsist, and the gay population HIV rate is steadily creeping back up. If there is a new strain, it's not a unfathomable that they would be one of the first groups exposed to it.
Something else is at play though. Quoi, (the 8th poster) mentioned about stopping the gay gene from being passed on. Let's dwell on that for a minute. One of the primary pillars of gay anti-discrimination is that homosexuality is hereditary, meaning that there is a gay gene. If the gay community really beleives this, then by opposing this practice they are in effect saying that they are trying to spread homosexuality genetically.
That's just not going to fly, and the Dems better stay away from this, because the Repugs are going to have field day.

by Bruticus on Fri May 06, 2005 at 11:03:04 AM EST

Re: Tough. Its all about risk. (none / 0)

oh my god.

i am speechless. almost.

dear friend, you are woefully misinformed.

"Gays have much higher rates of HIV running through their population due to higher promiscuity and the unavoidable bloody biology of forcefully ramming your dick up someones ass."

the group with the highest rising rate of HIV infection right now is black women. using your logic, we should ban black women from donating blood.

and there is absolutely no data to support your assertion that gay men have unprotected sex more often than heteros. do you use a condom every time you fuck your wife? if not, then using your logic you are engaging in risky behavior that justifies banning you from donating blood or sperm.

in addition, you seem to assume that anal sex will always lead to HIV infection. so, do you fuck your wife in the ass? using your logic, if you fuck your wife in the ass you are going to give her HIV, so therefore you shouldn't be allowed to donate blood.

with all due respect, your use of the phrase "bloody biology of forcefully ramming your dick up someones ass" shows your cultural ignorance of the gay community. i really am shocked, which doesn't happen every often.

Visit us at TexasKAOS, where we're taking Texas back!

by annatopia on Fri May 06, 2005 at 12:08:50 PM EST

Re: Tough. Its all about risk. (none / 0)

Minor point, but everyone here probably already
knows this. The cases you are referring to, are
centered in Africa.

And in fact the highest HIV densities are
occuring in India slums not Africa.
Its spreading like wildfire through the
sex trade in certain places like Mumbai.

The Gates Foundation is really doing
great things to stop HIV. I really wonder
why policy wonks even bother to try
to hammer every issue they see... If Microsoft
is paying Ralph Reed to work for them,
and Gates is handing out clean hypos
and drugs in Africa - what do we care?

I would agree with whatever policy decision
limits the spread of the virus. C'est simple.
No need to worry about who or what. Although
the situation does 'out' certain people in
the thread and boards, who really cares
if you're in or out in this case? I'd do
everything I could to stop that little bug
cold in its tracks regardless of who
its going to kill. I'm an equal opportunity
destroyer..

If you were in Africa - would you take
an infusion of blood from a backwater
tribal woman?

'nuff said.

by turnerbroadcasting on Fri May 06, 2005 at 12:21:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Sadly, no! (it's even worse than you think) (none / 0)

During 2000--2003, more than half of new HIV/AIDS diagnoses in 32 states were among blacks, although blacks represented only 13% of the population of those states. In 2003, black men had the highest rate of HIV/AIDS diagnoses of any racial/ethnic population, approximately seven times the rate among white men and twice the rate among black women (1). Black women are also severely impacted by HIV. During 2000--2003, approximately 69% of women who had HIV/AIDS diagnosed were black. In 2003, the rate of HIV/AIDS was 18 times greater among black women than among non-Hispanic white women (1).

Check out the website of the Black AIDS Institute for some factual information about HIV/AIDS and African Americans in the United States and around the world, turnerbroadcasting.

As other commenters have noted this is a blanket ban due to sexual orientation. This is not the first ban of its type however based on sexual orientation: gay men can't donate blood, can't serve in the military, can't donate to sperm banks, can't get married... YOU CONNECT THE DOTS, WHAT MESSAGE IS BEING COMMUNICATED BY THE GOVERNMENT?

The ban on gay men being blood donors is even more stringent (and ludicrous): it precludes any man who has had sex (any kind of sex!) with another man (even once!) since 1977 from dontaing blood in the United States.

by MadProfessah on Fri May 06, 2005 at 01:23:44 PM EST

Re: Sadly, no! (it's even worse than you think) (none / 0)

I get the message...

Crazy theocons...

Homosexuals are demons to them...fuckin bigots... (excuse my language...)

by phemfrog on Fri May 06, 2005 at 01:40:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tough. Its all about risk. (none / 0)

While your logic seems alright at first, i have to disagree with you.

Risk management is of course important whenever one discusses public health, but this is not only about risks. This is about discrimination, pure and simple.

There are other groups (like intravenous drug users, women who have sex with homosexual males, and people from certain african countries, for example) are not excluded in the new rules (like they are for blood donation).

If they want to worry about risks, then they should ban ALL risky groups.

by phemfrog on Fri May 06, 2005 at 01:39:03 PM EST

Let me get this straight: (none / 0)

So, as you can see - its not really gay people that I have a problem with. Its the anal sex and the problems that it causes. So sure, I'm all for it - lets go after all of the fudgepackers, straight and gay.

So, you acknowledge it's not "being gay" that's the issue, it's engaging in anal sex. You acknowledge that one does not necessarily indicate the other -- since straight couples may practice anal sex, and a person might self-identify as gay without practicing anal sex.

That being the case, does this ban on gay sperm -- which ignores other risk factors -- strike you as a logical and reasonable way to avoid AIDS contamination, or does it seem to be politically motivated and intended to stir bigotry and divide the public? You seem to be equivocating on that point.

Yeah, I'm cynical.

by catastrophile on Fri May 06, 2005 at 04:36:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

So I assume (none / 0)

that you think asking people whether or not they're gay is a more effective anti-HIV screening method than, let's say, drug testing.

Yeah, I'm cynical.

by catastrophile on Fri May 06, 2005 at 06:31:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What's Next, (none / 0)

banning Democratic sperm donors?

by Bob H on Fri May 06, 2005 at 03:54:41 PM EST

This Woman's Point of View (none / 0)

I would not ever wish to be inseminated by any semen that has been produced by a male organ that has been, at any time, inserted into any orifice of any man, whatsoever.

As a mother, my highest priority is to guard the health of both my ova and my reproductive system. The future of my offspring is at stake.

That's more important to me than being politically correct.

I do not want the body fluids from any homosexual person who has been exposed to another person's bodily fluids, injected into me in any manner.

As a potential mother, and as a woman, I believe I have the right to discriminate against ANYTHING that has the potential to be inserted into my body. I have a right to say "no," and I have a right to know exactly what is being inserted into me, and from where it came, and the sexual behaviors of that individual.

by daemmern on Fri May 06, 2005 at 11:56:41 PM EST

"Woman's Point of View" (none / 0)

Your ignorance of basic science--and your bigotry--are appalling. I would strongly suggest that you reread your high school biology textbook. Do it for the children.

by qhistory on Sat May 07, 2005 at 01:29:05 PM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.