Gay Blood Revisionism: A Critical Analysis of Advocacy and the "Gay Blood Ban"

Abstract

Since 1984, federal guidelines have effectively banned the donation of blood by any male who has had sex with another male since 1977. Despite this seemingly facially discriminatory policy, one of the few federal policies that makes any differentiation based on sexual orientation, advocacy around the issue has been limited. While there have been occasional calls for the policy's repeal, no litigation has been filed, and no national advocacy campaign has emerged. In fact, of the websites of major gay rights organizations, only one even mentions the policy. Yet individuals continue to engage in acts of advocacy calling for change - labeling the policy as absurd, discriminatory, and even unconstitutional. This article examines the social movement activity around the policy, highlighting factual and logical flaws in arguments made by activists, and comprehensively reviewing the actual history behind the policy. Applying legal and social movement theory, it attempts to explain why no legal action has been filed, why social movements have been unsuccessful, and why young gay men, on college campuses in particular, continue to vehemently protest the policy as an issue of basic human rights. The article concludes with proposals to change the conversation around the policy to explicitly acknowledge competing principles: public health's precautionary principle, and a nondiscrimination principle espoused by LGBT activists. Ignoring epidemiological realities, I argue, will never successfully lead to regulatory change.