Earlier this year, in April to be precise, the American Food and Drug Administration (FDA) updated its guidance on blood donations. The stated reason? The “unprecedented challenges to the U.S. blood supply” caused by the coronavirus pandemic. Two of the changes announced, read as follows:
- “For male donors who would have been deferred for having sex with another man: the agency is changing the recommended deferral period from 12 months to 3 months.”
- “For female donors who would have been deferred for having sex with a man who had sex with another man: the agency is changing the recommended deferral period from 12 months to 3 months.”
Of course, as is typical of left wing lobby groups and of liberals in general, this concession to their demands did not make them happy. In fact, immediately following this FDA announcement, liberals made it very clear how disappointed they were that there was still a 3 month deferral period.
As the London Guardian reported, Lukus Estok, who had recovered from a traumatic case of Covid-19 that sent him to hospital and attended an appointment to donate his blood, was disappointed that when a worker there learned he was gay; “her face turned cold” and she told him he couldn’t donate.
Estok told the Guardian: “I was just so angry and so embarrassed at the way that that was handled, and I just didn’t see it coming,” he said. “I guess I should have.”
A Washington Post editorial entitled The FDA must move to end its ban on blood donations from gay and bisexual men, described the “gay” sentiment following the FDA’s move to lessen the blood donation deferral period.
“Some in the gay community” reads the piece, “felt frustration that a national blood shortage helped precipitate this change rather than decades of committed advocacy for a less discriminatory policy.”
As previously stated, no concession can please liberals, as they, as a rule, are unhappy.
“The frustration is warranted” adds the WaPo story. “The FDA has shown that it can move swiftly when it wants to. If finding alternatives to a process based on sexual orientation were a priority, would the current system still be in place? A better approach would be individual risk assessment, which Italy found to be just as effective at keeping HIV from the blood supply as blanket deferral. Encouragingly, the FDA is studying the risk assessment approach.”
But this advocacy-based science is not scientific at all and is dangerous.
Science has shown that men who have sex with men are at increased risk of contracting sexually transmitted infections.
Screaming stigma and discrimination at the facts will not change the facts. And with “gays” and other “gay rights” advocates pushing for a complete removal of the ban on “gay” and “bisexual” blood donations, the safety of the general public will be more and more at a premium.