FDA To Ban Sperm From Men Who Had Gay Sex

Gold9472

Tired...
Staff member
FDA to ban sperm from men who had gay sex

Thursday, May 5, 2005 Posted: 4:12 PM EDT (2012 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."

In a letter to the FDA, Lambda Legal has suggested a screening procedure based on sexual behavior, not sexual orientation. Prospective donors -- gay or straight -- would be rejected if they had engaged in unprotected sex in the previous 12 months with an HIV-positive person, an illegal drug user, or "an individual of unknown HIV status outside of a monogamous relationship."

But an FDA spokeswoman cited FDA documents suggesting that officials felt the broader exclusion was prudent even if it affected gay men who practice safe sex.

"The FDA is very much aware that strict exclusion policies eliminate some safe donors," said one document.

Many doctors and fertility clinics already have been rejecting gay sperm donors, citing the pending FDA rules or existing regulations of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine.

"With an anonymous sperm donor, you can't be too careful," said a society spokeswoman, Eleanor Nicoll. "Our concern is for the health of the recipient, not to let more and more people be sperm donors."

'Directed' donors
However, some sperm banks, notably in California, have welcomed gay donors. The director of one of them, Alice Ruby of the Oakland-based Sperm Bank of California, said her staff had developed procedures for identifying gay men with an acceptably low risk of HIV.

Gay men are a major donor source at Traiman's Rainbow Flag sperm bank, and he said that practice would continue despite the new rules.

"We're going to continue to follow judicious, careful testing procedures for our clients that even experts within the FDA say is safe," said Traiman, referring to the six-month quarantine.

The FDA rules do not prohibit gay men from serving as "directed" sperm donors. If a woman wishing to become pregnant knows a gay man and asks that he provide sperm for artificial insemination, a clinic could provide that service even if the man had engaged in sex with other men within five years.

However, Traiman said some lesbian couples do not have a gay friend they know and trust well enough to be the biological father of their child, and would thus prefer an anonymous donor.

Dr. Deborah Cohan, an obstetrics and gynecology instructor at the University of California, San Francisco, said some lesbians prefer to receive sperm from a gay donor because they feel such a man would be more receptive to the concept of a family headed by a same-sex couple.

"This rule will make things legally more difficult for them," she said. "I can't think of a scientifically valid reason -- it has to be an issue of discrimination."

Copyright 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
 
WHAT!?!?!?!?!?!?!

my knee jerk reaction to this is "what a bunch of crap!"

They screen all donations anyway

*grr*
 
Gold9472 said:
It's just another shot from our Religious Right Wing nutjob Government at the Gays.

I must not really be a christian. Somewhere I missed the whole, "must hate gays, must vote republican, must choose creationism over evolution" part of my religious upbringing.

shame on them for hating. That is anti-christian.
 
danceyogamom said:
I must not really be a christian. Somewhere I missed the whole, "must hate gays, must vote republican, must choose creationism over evolution" part of my religious upbringing.

shame on them for hating. That is anti-christian.

Where's Ophie when I need her... if I get this quote wrong, I apologize...

Ghandi: "I like your Christ, I don't like your Christians, your Christians are nothing like your Christ"
 
Gold9472 said:
Where's Ophie when I need her... if I get this quote wrong, I apologize...

Ghandi: "I like your Christ, I don't like your Christians, your Christians are nothing like your Christ"

I am familiar with the quote ... and really it can be applied to so many great concepts that went terribly wrong when people became involved. Communism is the first one to pop into my head.
 
danceyogamom said:
I am familiar with the quote ... and really it can be applied to so many great concepts that went terribly wrong when people became involved. Communism is the first one to pop into my head.

Yep... if you want it to get fucked up, make sure you include a person.
 
Gold9472 said:
Yep... if you want it to get fucked up, make sure you include a person.

*sigh*

to quote another, much less great than Ghandi, and very cliche:

"can't we all just get along?"
 
Anyway... this is discrimination in every sense of the word. Gays have become blacks. I can't even believe they have to fight for their rights. They're people just like everyone else, and even better, they come in ALL colors...
 
Gold9472 said:
Anyway... this is discrimination in every sense of the word. Gays have become blacks. I can't even believe they have to fight for their rights. They're people just like everyone else, and even better, they come in ALL colors...

anyway .. enough of DYM's crazy tangents *lol*

you are correct. It is discrimination of the worst kind!

Another crazy tangent ...

have you ever read any of Nancy Kress's stuff? One of her books which I now can't remember the name of but is about a surgical procedure that allows you to experience your past lives ...

***Brainrose***

anyway, in this book being Gay is completely illegal for the same health reasons that are cited in this article.
 
Last edited:
danceyogamom said:
anyway .. enough of DYM's crazy tangents *lol*

you are correct. It is discrimination of the worst kind!

If I was gay, I would do something about it.
 
danceyogamom said:
you won't do someting about it anyway?

I posted the story... made several people aware of it... as far as being a gay activist... I don't think I have the shoes for it.
 
I had a thought on the way home from work. Haven't there been studies that say Homosexuality is hereditary? As DYM already said, they check every sample for diseases before it gets put into storage, so the risk of spreading AIDS isn't decreased. I think this is the religious right's way of killing off the "Gay Gene". If you're gay, chances are you would never procreate with someone else. Of course there are exceptions, but overall, it doesn't happen that often. If they ban gay man juice, they're essentially destroying any chance of the "Gay Gene" being transmitted to someone else.

Didn't the Nazis prohibit the Jews from procreating?
 
Gold9472 said:
I had a thought on the way home from work. Haven't there been studies that say Homosexuality is hereditary? As DYM already said, they check every sample for diseases before it gets put into storage, so the risk of spreading AIDS isn't decreased. I think this is the religious right's way of killing off the "Gay Gene". If you're gay, chances are you would never procreate with someone else. Of course there are exceptions, but overall, it doesn't happen that often. If they ban gay man juice, they're essentially destroying any chance of the "Gay Gene" being transmitted to someone else.

Didn't the Nazis prohibit the Jews from procreating?

There have been several studies, and many attempts to locate the "gay gene." unfortunately no one has been able to prove the genetics of being gay.
 
danceyogamom said:
There have been several studies, and many attempts to locate the "gay gene." unfortunately no one has been able to prove the genetics of being gay.

No one has been able to prove the existence of God, that doesn't mean people don't believe in he/she/it...
 
Gold9472 said:
No one has been able to prove the existence of God, that doesn't mean people don't believe in he/she/it...

I'm not arguing that point. I'm just saying they haven't been able to locate the gene.
 
danceyogamom said:
I'm not arguing that point. I'm just saying they haven't been able to locate the gene.

I think my "Conspiracy Theory" might be justified... who knows.
 
Gold9472 said:
I think my "Conspiracy Theory" might be justified... who knows.

I read something a long time ago, and now can't really quote it or source it ... but it suggested that historically the farming class and the african americans got along with no real issues pre-American Revolution. According to what I read, it was the british who fanned the fires of hatred between the working class Americans and the "lesser" African Americans in order to divert the attention of potential rebels.

I have no idea how true that is ... but the concept seems awfully similar to fanning the hatred of gays.
 
Back
Top