Blood shortage should encourage FDA to lift ban on who can donate

There is a massive blood shortage in the United States right now due to the COVID-19 crisis and donations are desperately needed. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has long has a restriction against gay and bisexual men giving blood. While these men represent a small number in the population, USA Today reports “Nearly 2,700 Red Cross blood drives have been canceled, resulting in about 86,000 fewer donations.” Every donation today counts and there are millions of honest gay and bisexual men with needed blood types that are willing to donate.

I have long advocated against removing the FDA regulation restricting gay and bisexual men from donating blood. In 2017, I argued in an article for The Federalist about this very topic. “Finally,” I wrote,” it must be absolutely imperative that blood donations be protected. Of all the concerns here, this particular issue threatens truly vulnerable people the most. Laws should evolve when necessary, but society still requires them. The Right should be on the forefront of this battle.” My reasoning was based on the LGBT argument itself and the realities of LGBT attitudes towards disclosure of HIV status.

For several years LGBT and HIV advocates have been arguing that the stigma people face is a far greater concern than the risk of HIV transmission. From shaming gay men for refusing to have sex with HIV positive men to advocating elimination of laws criminalizing the intentional transmission of HIV, the attitude has been one of irrational emotions rather than science.

Zack Ford, an LGBT advocate ran a video titled “Criminalizing HIV Doesn’t Do Anything to Help Anyone” and the Human Rights Campaign argued in a campaign to end HIV disclosure laws, “In more than 30 states, people living with HIV can be tried and imprisoned simply because a partner accuses them of hiding their HIV status. While originally thought to promote disclosure of one's HIV status, there's no proof these laws work. And they run counter to public health by discouraging HIV testing and treatment and perpetuating stigma.”

In addition to this cultural attitude, the Centers for Disease Control has consistently provided data to show the HIV risk is far from over in the gay and bisexual male population:

• Gay and bisexual men accounted for 82% (26,376) of new HIV diagnoses among all males aged 13 and older and 67% of the total new diagnoses in the United States.
• Gay and bisexual men aged 13 to 24 accounted for 92% of new HIV diagnoses among all men in their age group and 27% of new diagnoses among all gay and bisexual men.
• Among all gay and bisexual men living with HIV in 2014, 83% had received a diagnosis, 61% received HIV medical care in 2014, 48% were receiving continuous HIV care, and 51% had a suppressed viral load.

What all of this tells me, and has for some time, is that LGBT media and advocacy believes an HIV positive person has no moral or legal obligation to disclose their HIV status. Donation at a blood bank or event requires only that a person check a box on a form or verbally state they are not a risk in order to be processed. This, at least to me, has always presented a major risk factor in what should be a highly protected and vital healthcare practice.

However, after reading and considering Brad Polumbo’s recent article titled, One easy way to fix coronavirus-caused blood bank shortages, for The Washington Examiner, I can say that my reasoning has changed. As Polumbo points out, the FDA restriction is based on any man who has had sex with another man, regardless of the individual’s married or monogamous status or their HIV status. In addition to this, Polumbo argues, “All blood donations are already tested rigorously before entering the donation pool. Only 1 in 3.1 million HIV-infected donations will make it through the screening process, and tests can detect HIV as early as 11 days after infection.”

Perhaps it is time for the FDA to recognize that despite the threat of dishonest disclosure, protective measures are in place and millions of people currently and unfairly denied the option to donate are willing to help. The FDA must, however, make it clear that the donations are safe and carefully inspected as to maintain transparency rather than to simply cave to the social demands of a vocal group arguing with emotion rather than reason. I think there is a reasonable and scientific argument here to be made, if LGBT advocacy can cease angrily demanding they have a right to donate and instead, recognize the risks in their own community and work to minimize them.

LGBT advocacy has long tried to simply force their way through with typical leftwing bully tactics. But now is the time for LGBT leaders to make the scientific and rational case for allowing gay and bisexual men to donate blood while sending a message to the LGBT community that HIV disclosure is a responsibility to be taken seriously, “stigma or otherwise.” We are facing months of uncertainty, and anyone willing to help ease the public stress should be allowed to do so.