If you believe that two men in a committed, monogamous relationship – where neither partner is living with HIV – face the same risks as an individual who has heterosexual sex with a commercial sex worker or someone who they know is living with HIV then the recommendation on Thursday from an advisory committee of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) will make sense. Otherwise, you might find yourself scratching your head.
First, some context. The FDA has barred blood donations from men who have had sex with another man – even one time – since 1977. The policy originated in the early days of the HIV/AIDS epidemic. In the decades since, our understanding of HIV – how it is spread, how to test for it and treatment of those living with the disease – has significantly advanced. The lifetime ban on blood donations from gay and bisexual men is clearly not reflective of what we now know from a scientific and medical standpoint.
Criteria for determining eligibility as a blood donor must be based on science, not outdated, discriminatory stereotypes and assumptions. While there is no constitutional right to donate blood, government policy regulating the blood donation field must not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation by adopting differing standards for conduct that poses similar (or greater) risks based solely on the identity of those engaging in such conduct. In other words, gay and bisexual men cannot constitutionally be singled out for differential treatment solely because of their sexual relationships.
On Thursday, the HHS Advisory Committee on Blood and Tissue Safety and Availability ending the current lifetime ban and replacing it with a one-year deferral period. While this is a promising step forward, the policy would remain deeply flawed in that it relies on sexual orientation rather than risk assessments in determining blood donor eligibility. Under the proposed policy, two men – neither of whom is living with HIV – who maintain a committed, monogamous relationship would never be eligible to donate blood. In contrast, an individual who has heterosexual sex with a commercial sex worker or someone who they know is living with HIV would face a one-year deferral. Suggesting that a sexual relationship between two men, in and of itself, poses a risk of HIV transmission is deeply stigmatizing.
Thankfully, the advisory committee’s recommendation is but one step in an ongoing process. As it moves forward, hopefully we will see a shift away from focusing on the sexual orientation of prospective donors to a policy based on individual risk assessments.
A found that lifting the exclusion that keeps gay and bisexual men from donating blood would result in an estimated 360,000 men who would likely donate an additional 615,300 pints of blood each year helping to save the lives of 1.8 million people. It is clear that we can safely permit gay and bisexual men to donate lifesaving blood provided the will exists to finally break with the past.
Learn more about HIV/AIDS discrimination: Sign up for breaking news alerts, , and .
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
News & CommentaryMar 2024
HIV
Fighting Back Against Discriminatory Laws That Impact People Living with HIVFighting Back Against Discriminatory Laws That Impact People Living with HIV
The ACLU is challenging a Tennessee law that criminalizes HIV status. This law unfairly prevents people from securing employment and housing. -
Press ReleaseNov 2023
HIV
Plaintiffs File Federal Suit to Overturn Tennessee’s Aggravated Prostitution StatutePlaintiffs File Federal Suit to Overturn Tennessee’s Aggravated Prostitution Statute
MEMPHIS, Tenn. — Tennessee’s Aggravated Prostitution statute and related sex offender registration requirements are unconstitutional and violate the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), according to a federal lawsuit filed today against the state by the American Civil Liberties Union, the Transgender Law Center, and the ACLU of Tennessee in the U.S. District Court in Memphis on behalf of four Jane Doe plaintiffs and OUTMemphis, the state’s oldest and largest service provider for LGBTQ+ people. Plaintiffs argue that the Aggravated Prostitution statute is rooted in fear and discrimination, targeting people living with HIV for harsh punishment and forcing them to register as “violent sex offenders” for the rest of their lives. Criminalizing people with HIV defies evidence-based best practices and is patently unlawful as it singles out people living with HIV — a protected disability — for harsher punishment. “People convicted of Aggravated Prostitution must spend years in prison and then register as violent sex offenders for the rest of their lives – meaning they cannot access the housing, employment, healthcare and community life that they need to get back on their feet,” said Molly Quinn, executive director of OUTMemphis. “This statute solely targets people because of their HIV status and keeps them in cycles of poverty, while posing absolutely zero benefit to public health and safety.” “HIV stigma is becoming a thing of the past, and it’s time for state law to catch up. OUTMemphis fights so that queer people are free to live in safety, with dignity, and we believe everyone deserves that regardless of their HIV status.” Tennessee’s Aggravated Prostitution law was passed in 1991 at a time of national panic over HIV. The law targets people engaged in sex work, enhancing their charges from misdemeanors to felonies solely based on HIV status, making it difficult to find other employment. Since then, many states have moved on from criminalizing HIV, better understanding the rates and methods of transmission and the way criminalization is counterproductive to effective testing and treatment. New treatments such as Anti-Retroviral Therapy (ART) and Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP) can reduce viral loads to undetectable levels, blocking the possibility of transmission. And yet, Tennessee state law enhances sex work from a misdemeanor to a felony, solely based on HIV status, which has long been recognized as a disability protected from discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Tennessee has no comparable law for any other infectious disease, even those that are more prevalent and transmissible than HIV. “Disability discrimination is illegal,” said Alexis Agathocleous, deputy director of the National ACLU’s Racial Justice Program, “and yet the Aggravated Prostitution singles out economically-marginalized people living with HIV for excessively harsh punishment. The results are predictable: Black women are the targets of this archaic, unscientific law – many of whom are simply trying to secure food, a place to sleep, or a way to meet their basic needs.” Entirely divorced from science, Tennessee’s law applies indiscriminately, ignoring that either party to a sexual encounter can ensure against HIV transmission in many simple and effective ways. “Each of us, regardless of our race, our genders, or our HIV status, deserves to be treated with dignity and respect and welcomed as full members of our communities,” said Milo Inglehart (he/him), staff attorney at Transgender Law Center. “With today’s filing, we join the ACLU, ACLU-TN, OUTMemphis, and our individual plaintiffs to challenge the counterproductive and discriminatory Aggravated Prostitution statute that unlawfully singles out people living with HIV, disproportionately impacts Black transgender and cisgender women, and places lifelong, punitive restrictions on those who are criminalized for trying to survive.” “The Aggravated Prostitution statute is a relic from when HIV first emerged in the 1980s and is motivated by fear, misinformation and discrimination — not sound science or evidence,” said Jeff Preptit, ACLU-TN staff attorney. “Instead of criminalizing HIV, which disproportionately targets transgender and cisgender Black women who are already socially and financially marginalized, lawmakers should invest in evidence-based public health responses to support people living with HIV to end the epidemic. All Tennesseans should be able to live a full life free from discrimination and harm, regardless of our health conditions.” In addition to violating the ADA, the lawsuit also argues that, among other things, the law violates equal protection, due process and the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. The plaintiffs are asking the court to strike down the Aggravated Prostitution statute and the resulting lifetime sex offender registration requirement as clearly discriminatory because they unlawfully punish people on the basis of a protected disability. The complaint filed today can be found online at: /cases/outmemphis-v-lee?document=Complaint Background on the legal challenge to Tennessee’s discriminatory Aggravated Prostitution law can be found here: /documents/fact-sheet-legal-challenge-to-tennessees-discriminatory-aggravated-prostitution-law For more information about the case: /cases/outmemphis-v-lee#legal-documents -
TennesseeOct 2023
LGBTQ Rights
+3 Issues
OUTMemphis v. LeeOUTMemphis v. Lee
OUTMemphis v. Lee is a first-of-its-kind challenge to a state-level HIV criminalization law as a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Constitution. Plaintiffs OUTMemphis and Jane Does 1-4 seek to strike down Tennessee’s discriminatory, irrational and cruel enforcement of its “Aggravated Prostitution” law and related sex offender registration requirements. -
PodcastOct 2023
LGBTQ Rights
+6 Issues
How ACT UP Changed the Face of AIDS and ActivismHow ACT UP Changed the Face of AIDS and Activism