On July 12, Ryan James Yezak hopes that gay and bisexual men around the country will donate blood.

He also hopes that they’ll be turned away, simply because they’ve had sex with another man.

It sounds confusing and contradictory, but the idea is that he wants to discard a ban on blood donations by gay men by proving that the ban on gay blood is discriminatory.

In a National Gay Blood Drive press release, via the Huffington Post:

“The
 ban 
is 
outdated, 
and 
as 
a 
result,
 countless
 otherwise 
eligible 
gay 
and 
bisexual 
men 
are 
unable 
to 
contribute 
to 
the
nation’s
 blood 
supply 
and 
help 
save 
lives.
 
Especially a 
time 
when 
blood 
shortages 
are 
increasingly
 common.
 Not 
only 
that,
 but
 the
 ban 
perpetuates 
negative 
stereotypes 
and 
stigma. 
Whether
 intentional 
or 
not, 
it
 is 
discrimination
 based 
on 
sexual 
orientation.”

Unfortunately, there isn’t an affiliated National Gay Blood Drive donation site in Tucson — the closest location appears to be in Phoenix — but for more information, head to the National Gay Blood Drive website or Facebook page.

This article appears in Jul 4-10, 2013.

5 replies on “National Gay Blood Drive to Raise Awareness of (and Potentially Change) Gay Blood Ban”

  1. Some discrimination is a good thing.

    According to the CDC gay men account for around 2% of the US population, but accounted for 63% of all new HIV/AIDs cases in 2010; in the 17 to 24 age group this number was 72%, suggesting that this problem is worsening within the gay community, not getting better.

    As of now, gay men account for more than half of the known HIV/AIDs cases in the USA.

    Yes, blood that is donated gets tested for HIV/AIDs but there are occastionally still people whom get the disease from blood transfusions; how so? Well, the disease has an infection window of at least 3 weeks where it is undetectable, there are strains which we cannot screen for and of course clerical errors. Should we increase this risk?

    Why should we let the most at risk group and the group which alone accounts for nearly 60% of all AIDs cases donate blood? The answer is simple; we should not.

    This is a public health issue; not a civil rights issue.

  2. It is estimated that 1 out of every 5 gay men in the USA has AIDS according to the CDC. (20%)

    Scary.

    Another interesting component is that the demographic group most likely to donate blood, according to a number of government studies (google it, this isn’t a term paper), are younger and middle aged white men.

    The group with the highest AIDS rate? White men between 30 and 39.

    Again, this is a public health issue; not a civil rights issue.

  3. The previous commentors failed to address is the fact that 28% of new infections are caused by unprotected HETEROSEXUAL sex, and 8% are from IV drug abusers.

    Drive past any inner city blood bank and look at the drug addicts lined up to sell you their blood for $30. Do you think they lie when questioned about their HIV status?

    My point is, whether you get tainted blood from a drug addict or a gay or heterosexual person who had unprotected sex, THE EFFECT IS THE SAME. That is why they test ALL blood. The chance of getting HIV from a transfusion is about 1 in 2 million, according to the CDC. And yes, that is still too many. But don’t fan the flames of homophobia while giving a pass to groups responsible for the other 36% of new infections.

  5. The facts are pretty simple; Gay men and intravenous drug users account for more than 70% of all HIV cases in the USA, but only account for between 2 and 4 percent of the population. The benefit (huge reduction in AIDS potential exposure risk) of restricting these groups in terms of blood donations far outweighs the costs (possible civil rights infractions/social pressure issues/AIDS exposure during a transfusion).

    This is a public health issue.

Comments are closed.