New FDA rule demands sperm banks to bar donors who've had gay sex

**Squirt** · 05-05-2005, 08:19 PM

Thursday, May 5, 2005 Posted: 6:39 PM EDT (2239 GMT)

NEW YORK (AP) -- 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.

"Under these rules, a heterosexual man who had unprotected sex with HIV-positive prostitutes would be OK as a donor one year later, but a gay man in a monogamous, safe-sex relationship is not OK unless he's been celibate for five years," said Leland Traiman, director of a clinic in Alameda, California, that seeks gay sperm donors.

Traiman said adequate safety assurances can be provided by testing a sperm donor at the time of the initial donation, then freezing the sperm for a six-month quarantine and testing the donor again to be sure there is no new sign of HIV or other infectious diseases.

Although there is disagreement over whether the FDA guideline regarding gay men will have the force of law, most doctors and clinics are expected to observe it.

Behavior vs orientation
The practical effect of the provision -- part of a broader set of cell and tissue donation regulations that take effect May 25 -- is hard to gauge. It is likely to affect some lesbian couples who want a child and prefer to use a gay man's sperm for artificial insemination.

But it is the provision's symbolic aspect that particularly troubles gay-rights groups. Kevin Cathcart, executive director of Lambda Legal, has called it "policy based on bigotry."

"The part I find most offensive -- and a little frightening -- is that it isn't based on good science," Cathcart said. "There's a steadily increasing trend of heterosexual transmission of HIV, and yet the FDA still has this notion that you protect people by putting gay men out of the pool."

FULL STORY

Can you believe this is happening? There's a lot more to this story. I highly recomend following the link and reading the whole story. What's your input on this? Do you think this is legalized descrimination?

Patrick · 05-05-2005, 08:49 PM

Thanks for the story.

This and other 'guidelines' or laws remind be of what happened in Germany when the Nazis took over. Little by little, they took away human rights from people they thought were undesirables. Hopefully, this bigotry will end and humanity will learn from history.

We can't become negative, we have to continue to support officials who are enlightened and little by little we will be treated as equal members of society.

Pat

zewkin · 05-05-2005, 08:51 PM

Pretty soon they'll just be dragging us out of our homes and taking us into small rooms and lopping our heads off on live tv giving holy justice to all those bible thumping christian's.

**Squirt** · 05-05-2005, 08:55 PM

Originally Posted by Patrick

Thanks for the story.

This and other 'guidelines' or laws remind be of what happened in Germany when the Nazis took over. Little by little, they took away human rights from people they thought were undesirables. Hopefully, this bigotry will end and humanity will learn from history.

We can't become negative, we have to continue to support officials who are enlightened and little by little we will be treated as equal members of society.

Pat

It amazes me that it's just allowed?? I remember marching for AB101 in West Hollywood.. through the Beverly center etc. .. when are people going to openly demonstrate their opposition to this kind of outward discrimination? We can't marry, we can't have children, we can't adopt.. is this where things are headed?

desslock · 05-06-2005, 12:03 AM

Originally Posted by Squirt

We can't marry, we can't have children, we can't adopt.. is this where things are headed?

Oh you mean we had the right to marry once, and that changed in the US? Were we living in different countires? I would suggest that we are winning that case as more people --- at a slow rate - become more comfortable with the idea of gay marriage. In the mid1990s California voted via plebicite to define marraige as man/woman. It is not some new, crazy fear.

Also, in the 1990s two states in the US prohibited gay adoption: New Hampshire and Florida. Today it is down to one -- the dubious badge going to Florida. It looks to me that opponents of equal rights for gays would feel that they are *losing* ground on all fronts.

Connecticut just established a domestic partners law. Plus probably the most invasive and unjust law we had to live under - the state sodomy laws - were swept away in a first ever articulated supreme court decision that is possibly as significant as Brown v. Board of Education.

Please Squirt - and other guys --- try not to overreact.

We do live in a democracy, and bad ideas sometimes take foot. But the process is on our side. The marketplace of ideas is on our side.

That FDA decision is pure crap, and I think based on bad science. But in some degree of fairness, look at all the parties that play with science when it comes to HIV. First guilty party that comes to my mind is the New York Times. The second is the New York City Health Department. Both are peddling ideas of "superviruses" and ficticious "new strains" and other scary scenarios that regular man on the street readers would find alarm with. Maybe with "news" served like that, the hysteria rolls down to the FDA and others.

We'll see how it plays out.

Steve

**Squirt** · 05-06-2005, 12:21 AM

Hey Desslock you sexy thing :extat:

Where's the drama if people don't over react?

We will continue to breed, wether people like it or not. This is the FDA though.. they're supposed to be all about science and logic, not hysteria.. they are the ones over reacting. I haven't even heard of one case of HIV transmission through IVF have you? Washing the sperm is pretty simple.. they say it does the trick.

It seems like we're going one step forward two steps back. It's obvious the FDA move is part of a strategy... I can easily see them saying if the FDA says Gay men can't donate sperm, then maybe we should test them all for HIV, tag them, record their moves, make them wear condoms in their porn.. Not allow them to adopt for fear of spreading to children.

A big slap in the face like this has been used to further agendas before... wonder if it's in the process of happening again? :shifty:

**Lee** · 05-06-2005, 12:26 AM

Originally Posted by Squirt

It seems like we're going one step forward two steps back. It's obvious the FDA move is part of a strategy... I can easily see them saying if the FDA says Gay men can't donate sperm, then maybe we should test them all for HIV, tag them, record their moves, make them wear condoms in their porn.. Not allow them to adopt for fear of spreading to children.

Damn Squirt you really are paranoid LOL

You may want to check this site out

Regards,

Lee

**Squirt** · 05-06-2005, 12:31 AM

Originally Posted by Lee

Damn Squirt you really are paranoid LOL

Their was sarcasm in the post not paranoia you dork

Are Gays prohibited from adopting in FL? Are we allowed to marry in most of the U.S.? No. Facts, not paranoia.

I know you probably don't care Lee cause you're British.. but my rights in my country are important to me.

**Lee** · 05-06-2005, 12:33 AM

Originally Posted by Squirt

I know you probably don't care Lee cause you're British.. but my rights in my country are important to me.

Um... you live in Australia dont you?

Oh and you are right BTW, i really dont care about adopting kids, id rather slit my wrist with a rusty spoon than have to take care of a kid, they really annoy me, more than you could ever imagine.

Regards,

Lee

**Squirt** · 05-06-2005, 12:40 AM

Originally Posted by Lee

Um... you live in Australia dont you?

Oh and you are right BTW, i really dont care about adopting kids, id rather slit my wrist with a rusty spoon than have to take care of a kid, they really annoy me, more than you could ever imagine.

Hey at least you're honest and at the end of the day if you're true to yourself that's all that counts.

Yes I live in Australia what's your point? Business is business.

I think you're still mad about the other thread just let it go Lee it's not a big deal. You don't have to be mean to me just because I made a valid point. Life goes on just let it go :francais:

**basschick** · 05-06-2005, 01:18 AM

well, the fda doing this really really makes me angry. does anyone in these organizations even bother to use science anymore, or do they just make stuff up and say it's scientific?

like that anti porn thing the government recently did - their "experts" were not doctors (couldn't risk doctors as they might not agree that porn is hazardous) and some had no real title of any relation to the issue. some were basically religious zealots. the only thing they had in common was that they hated porn, and were already known to be obsessive about it.

what they are attempting to do is to declare porn an addiction - which is not covered by freedom of speech. and they want to do this regardless of any facts.

desslock - i don't believe it's overreacting to see religion overtaking state matters to this degree. the entire reason the u.s. is here was to escape religious persecution and taxation without representation. i feel we're moving backwards fast, and it makes me very sad.

**Squirt** · 05-06-2005, 01:55 AM

Originally Posted by basschick

well, the fda doing this really really makes me angry. does anyone in these organizations even bother to use science anymore, or do they just make stuff up and say it's scientific?

desslock - i don't believe it's overreacting to see religion overtaking state matters to this degree. the entire reason the u.s. is here was to escape religious persecution and taxation without representation. i feel we're moving backwards fast, and it makes me very sad.

You make very valid points Basschick.. consider this:

"According to the 2000 Census, African Americans make up 12.3% of the US population. However, they have accounted for 368,169 (40%) of the 929,985 estimated AIDS cases diagnosed since the epidemic began "

"During 2000–2003, HIV/AIDS rates for African American females were 19 times the rates for white females and 5 times the rates for Hispanic females; they also exceeded the rates for males of all races/ethnicities other than African Americans. Rates for African American males were 7 times those for white males and 3 times those for Hispanic males [3]. " Source CDC Statistics

African Americans are 12% of the U.S. population but account for 40% of HIV/AIDS cases.

More African American women have HIV/AIDS then Gay men!

African American men have 7 times more HIV/AIDS cases then white men..

SO.. are they going to stop African Amerian women and men from donating sperm and eggs as well since their HIV/AIDS statics are HIGHER then those of any Gay demographic? That wouldn't be politically correct.. it's only acceptable to discriminate against the Gay community right? The last legally acceptable group to discriminate against IMO :friancais:

What do you think about the CDC statistics? If the FDA were using science they'd ban all African Americans from donating as well right? Yet no mention of them at all.. or am I mistaken?

CBLCasey · 05-06-2005, 11:57 AM

Thats a very good point. I actually read that story earlier and was discusted with it. Then again nothing surprises me anymore from the US Gov't.

desslock · 05-06-2005, 12:35 PM

Originally Posted by Squirt

You make very valid points Basschick.. consider this:
What do you think about the CDC statistics? If the FDA were using science they'd ban all African Americans from donating as well right? Yet no mention of them at all.. or am I mistaken?

Well Squirt -

Remember --- statistics are like a string bikini.

What they reveal is important, but what they hide is crucial.

Steve