I think I’ve briefly referenced the Red Cross’ gay ban somewhere here before, although I’m too lazy to look it up right now. I happen to think it’s pretty absurd, and it speaks to some very serious problems in this society.

The Red Cross, for all its myriad issues, sets a lot of standards in this country, especially in re: blood donation because it’s big, well known, and has a powerful lobby. As a result, the standards that the Red Cross uses for blood donation are adopted by other blood banks, more or less as they stand. These guidelines are ostensibly intended to protect recipients from contaminated blood, and to save money for the organization.

All donated blood is screened, but by pre-screening donors before selecting them, blood banks can reduce the amount of money they spend collecting and screening contaminated blood. Yes, contaminated blood is going to slip into the pool, which is why it’s important to screen, but it seems obvious that donors with clear issues can be excluded and save a lot of energy.

A lot of the standards make sense: people with blood-borne diseases, for example, can’t donate. Likewise, people with active infections, certain pharmaceuticals in their bodies, etc. There’s also a ban on citizens of certain countries with proved incidents of CJD in the human food supply, which is not entirely unreasonable, given that CJD’s mode of transmission is not fully understood, that it can’t be tested for, and that it has a very long incubation period.

In addition to a list of reasonable restrictions, the Red Cross bans all men who have had sexual contact with other men since 1977. Even once. If you’re gay, the Red Cross doesn’t want your blood. If you experimented in college, the Red Cross doesn’t want your blood. If you are a man who was raped by another man…you get the picture.

Yes, unprotected homosexual contact can elevate someone’s risk of having certain conditions. So can unprotected heterosexual contact. And IV drug use (which, to the Red Cross’ credit, is another ineligibility standard). But the flat out ban on all gay contact for blood donors is ridiculous and short-sighted, and it feeds general social ideas about gay men. Because it’s gay men who are banned, not any others on the LGBQT spectrum, and the implication is that homosexual activity is, by its very nature, dangerous and “bad” when this is not really the case.

This guideline clearly stems back to the early days of the AIDS epidemic, when the virus was spreading like, well, an epidemic among gay men. Gay men, by and large, didn’t use protection, and some were extremely promiscuous. So were some heterosexuals, of course, and outside the United States, heterosexuals were and continue to be most at risk of contracting HIV. But once awareness of AIDS began to spread, so did the use of protection. And many gay donors self-screened themselves, opting not to donate if they thought they were at risk for STIs, which pretty much excluded all gay donors 20 years ago, but not so much today.

It seems like it’s reasonable to have a ban on donors who have had unprotected sex in the last six months (or last year), or on donors who have ever tested positive for HIV. But to ban people who have engaged in a single homosexual sex act? Once? And tested clean on numerous occasions since then? To decide, on blanket terms, that all gay men pose risks as blood donors? Not reasonable.

And, given the supposed constant need for blood, rather short-sighted. There’s a whole pool of people who are perfectly willing and happy to donate, who have clean, healthy blood and who may have rare blood types, and apparently they’re too gay for the Red Cross. This despite numerous recommendations for MDs and epidemiologists who have suggested that it would be perfectly safe to allow gay blood into the blood supply, as risky donors would be identified during the pre-screening process, and any infected blood could be identified and pulled during the testing blood products are supposed to undergo before sale, just as is done with all the infected blood from those virtuous straight donors.

Vote for Brendan!

This representative of Medical Students for Choice comes from a conservative background, and believes passionately in the right to choose. It’s very interesting to read about the evolution of her beliefs, and I admire her greatly for speaking out so publicly.

Speaking of women’s health, I learned some interesting facts about women’s bodies recently.

Ugh. I’ve heard of the “virgin myth” before, but I hadn’t realized how widespread it was.

The Supreme Court has decided that it will not hear a challenge to DADT. Read the first paragraph in this article carefully, and marvel at the hypocrisy of the Obama Administration, which claims that DADT should be repealed while upholding it behind the scenes.

Two American journalists have just been sentenced to 12 years hard labour in North Korea for, uhm, reporting. This is actually a good thing, advocates say, because now there’s something to negotiate, which will hopefully lead to the release of these women.

It looks like another attempt at marriage equality is going to end up on the 2010 ballot, and the political infighting between LGBQT organizations is already beginning. I’m hoping that the disastrous No on 8 campaign was an object lesson, and that the campaign will be better organized and more inclusive this time around.

Sarah Palin aside, the Republican party is a little short on prominent women and women in office. Is the GOP going to address this issue, or is it going to continue lumbering about with antiquated and self-destructive attitudes?