I just went to donate blood today, but because i'm gay, i wasnt allowed to. IS THAT LEGAL!!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Answer 1

First, it is so UNFORTUNATE that this question became a venue for ignorant gay bashers.
Anyhow, the answer is....it is not necessarily illegal but in certain circumstances it is unethical. As a nursing student we are trained to inquire about and assess certain risk factors--- especially when dealing with blood. However, discrimination or "profiling" is completely unprofessional. For instance, African Americans are more likely to contract HIV than Caucasians. Does that mean we stop taking blood from African Americans? Of course not. Making vast generalizations such as "most gays have HIV" is damaging. As another post said, it may not be that you are gay....but it may be answers to other questions regarding risky behavior. (thats why we ask them) If that's not it, then my guess is that you got a nurse/phlebotomist who was new, uneducated, or overly paranoid. Great question. Very eye-opening.

Answer 2

Yes. And I will tell you why.

In the early 1980's before they knew exactly what the AIDS virus was, how it was transmitted and before they knew about agent zero, they knew that AIDS was transmitted by homosexuals and Haitians. But they never asked about sexual orientation when people donated blood. So, somehow the blood supply got tainted.

People like Arthur Ashe got AIDS from having a blood transfusion after having a heart attack. Hemophiliacs and people who went for routine surgery were getting AIDS. And nobody could figure out why.

In the mid-80's a guy in New Mexico donated blood to the Red Cross. The Red Cross has a virtual monopoly on whole blood products. So, everyone who got AIDS after surgery started suing the Red Cross.

The New Mexico guy was a gay guy. He told the Red Cross he was gay. And the Red Cross asked him if his relationship with his partner was a monogamous relationship. The gay guy told the Red Cross, "Yes, it was a monogamous relationship." And, to the donor, the gay guy who was donating blood, it was a monogamous relationship.

Unbeknownst to the gay guy and unbeknownst to the Red Cross, the gay guy who was donating the blood, his partner was not monogamous. So, the guy who was donating blood didn't even know he had AIDS.

It was a big mess. People who were having surgery or who had to have blood products who were in wrecks or who needed blood for whatever reason were scared to get whole blood. They were asking their families to donate blood to them instead of getting it through the Red Cross.

Congress jumped all over the Red Cross. The Red Cross almost lost all their resources compensating people who wrongfully died because there was no way to test or determine if the nation's blood supply was safe. Then, in the very late 80's, President George I Bush encouraged Elizabeth Dole, the Secretary of Labor, to go to be the head of the Red Cross, so she could work to straighten out the problems with the unsafe blood supply.

Over the course of the investigations, the law suits, the Congressinal hearings and everything else that happened, they decided not to take blood from people who are gay because even if a gay person is monogamous, there is not way to prove that the gay person's partner is monogamous, so they just don't take blood from gay people.

It isn't about discrimination. It is about liability in the event that Red Cross blood is tainted.

Answer 3

It probably is legal, unfortunately. When I donated blood, I was asked if I ever had sex with a man who had sexual intercourse with other men. Seriously. They ask questions about your sexual history to determine your risk for HIV, Hep, and other blood-borne illnesses. However, they should not deny you, instead they should take more precautions. Problem is, testing the blood is never 100% accurate. My own father contracted Hep C from a blood transfusion. Scary.

On a similar note, they may not allow gay men to be sperm donors unless they have been celibate for at least 5 years. In this sense, a gay man who has been monogomous for the past 4 years and has only had one partner in their lifetime could be denied, but a man could have unprotected intercourse with a prositute a year or two ago and would not need further testing. Bullcrap, I think. Nowadays the leading transmission of HIV/AIDs is through intravenous drug use, not gay men. People are scared of homosexuals because of their own biases. Bias should NEVER be allowed to become policy in my opinion.

Thank you from the bottom of my heart for being willing to donate your blood.

Answer 4

Actually you probably weren't being turned down for being gay. If I remember the question correctly you were asked whether you had sex with a man (if you are male) or if you have had sex with a man that has had sex with another man (if you are female) since 1978. The blood bank doesn't care whether you are gay but rather if you engage in behavior that is considered high risk for contracting HIV. That is the same reason they ask whether you have recently gotten a tattoo, are an IV drug user or if you have traveled to certain countries (although this is also for other blood borne pathogens too). It is not about whether you are gay or not, it is about being in a population that unfortunatly has statistically higher HIV rates. Many of the answers you received are from people who are not considering that it isn't your sexuality but rather your behavior (and I am not making a judgement on that behavior, that isn't my business) that is what allows them to prohibit your donation.

Answer 5

First, I want to say that I resent the comment by Mo-z. I am from Kentucky and very well educated.

As for the question, I am sure that no one kicked you out and refused your blood because you are gay unless you have a disease or other compelling reasons. Please do not give us your gay hatred crap just to make us feel sorry for you. Some of my best friends are gay and they certainly do not blame every problem that they face in life on being gay. Here's reality: If you can't stand the punishment do not do the crime and if you wish to be gay do not whine when someone does not bow down and kiss your a##. You are not going to get any special treatment because you are gay.

Answer 6

Here's the problem. For discrimination to be illegal, one of three things needs to happen.

First, any discrimination (public/state or private) based on "badges and incidents of slavery" (basically, race) is illegal under the 13th Amendment. This doesn't apply to the example above.

For anything else, there needs to be state action. In other words, the discrimination must be a result of government (federal/state/local) rules/laws, or by a person/group/company acting with implied authority of the government. Absent state action, there is no constitutional violation under the 14th Amendment.

So, if the rules were made by the blood bank, acting as a private agency and not authorized/required by the government (ie. no state action), it's not illegal.

Even if there is state action, then it becomes a question of what the discrimination is based on. Certain types of discrimination (race, ancestry, national origin) are called "suspect classes" and get the highest level of review (called strict scrutiny). The government must prove that the regulation is narrowly tailored (not over/under inclusive) to achieve a compelling (very very important) interest, and uses the least restrictive means possible to achieve that interest.

Some types of discrimination (gender, children born out of marriage) are called "quasi-suspect" and get lesser protection, called "Intermediate Scrutiny". The interest served only needs to be significant/important (not compelling), and the means used can be a little over/under inclusive as long as they are closely fit to the goal.

Any other type of discrimination (including sexual orientation) is allowed as long as it doesn't involve a fundamental right. There are very very few fundamental rights recognized by the US Supreme Court (right to vote, right to travel, right to use birth control, right to refuse medical treatment, etc.) Donating blood would probably not be recognized as a fundamental right.

Any discrimination that is not a suspect/quasi-suspect class, and which does not involve a fundamental right, gets what's called Rational Basis review. This means that as long as there is any possible legitimate interest (such as protecting the public health) and as long as there is any rational link between the rule/law and the goal (no matter how wildly over/under inclusive) then the law will be valid.

If we assume the rule/law prohibiting donation of blood by gay people was state action, then we have a legitimate interest (protecting the public health). The question then becomes, will the court agree that there is a rational link between the rule/law and the goal, or are the means used completely arbitrary and irrational. Any evidence, even statistical correlation, can be used to support the validity of the means used.

Is it wrong? Absolutely. I think sexual orientation should be at least as protected as gender in terms of requiring a much higher level of scrutiny than rational basis review. But the courts have not agreed with that yet, and don't consider sexual orientation to be a suspect or quasi-suspect class. As a result, discrimination based on sexual orientation is still legal. Even if it is unfair.

Answer 7

Unfortunately, yes.

I'm gay also, but female. This past year, a bunch of my gay guy friends at my University protested the law, but unfortunately, it's national.

The reason for this is simply that the law was made back in the 80s, when AIDS was FIRST becoming an epidemic in this country, and it was known as the gay cancer *at the time*.

Something that people should know is that today, African-American women have the highest statistics of being HIV+. Not gay men.

The law should obviously be changed. I don't see the Red Cross banning black people's blood...

Answer 8

I have donated blood for close to 25 years and I cant ever remember being asked if I was gay. This sounds like a personal problem to me

Answer 9

It is not simply because you are gay, and yes, it is legal. The American Red Cross has a whole list of screening questions.

I am a blood donor, and ANYONE, including gay people, who engages in certain high risk behaviors is ineligible to donate.

It is to protect the blood supply.

They have a whole list of health, behavior, and travel questions. They are trying to err on the side of caution, I think.

Answer 10

Why wouldn't it be legal? They're just trying to keep AIDS infested blood out of the blood supply. They screen all of it, but the less they have to dispose of, the easier their job is. Percentage-wise, way more gay people have AIDS than straight people. Plus, packing the poop chute is a good way to spread other blood borne diseases, too.