CT AG Tong seeks to end discrimination against gay men in blood donation, a ‘restrictive and outdated policy’

In a move to “end the wrongful discrimination of LGBTQ individuals,” state Attorney General William Tong joined a group of 21 other attorneys general to call for easing of restrictions that stop many gay men from donating blood.

The coalition formed in support of a Jan. 27 call by the Food and Drug Administration, to adopt “gender-inclusive, individual risk-based questions to reduce the risk of transfusion-transmitted HIV.”

Blood-donation groups have been leery of gay and bisexual men since the 1980s, as AIDS, a bloodborne pathogen, became widespread. Over the decades, blanket bans for these donors have lessened to the current three-month donation deferral.

The proposed guidelines would eliminate deferrals focusing only on men who have sex with men, replacing them with HIV risk assessment for donors of all genders and orientations.

Tong called the deferrals now in place a “restrictive and outdated policy (that) both stigmatizes members of the LGBTQ community and harms all who rely on an adequate supply of donated blood for life.

“Adopting this new, science-based policy will both help increase the available blood supply at a time when we’re experiencing historic shortages and end the wrongful discrimination of LGBTQ individuals,” he wrote in a news release.

The other attorneys general in the coalition to support the policy change are from California, Arizona, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin.

The FDA proposal would revise donor history questionnaires to ask all donors the same questions. Any donor who reports a new or multiple sexual partners, and has had anal sex in the past three months, would be required to defer donating for three months.

All others would be eligible to donate, if no other HIV risk factors are reported. These other risk factors include exchanging sex for money or drugs, a history of non-prescription injection drug use, a past positive test for HIV and a history of taking medication to treat HIV.

Blood banks would still test all donations for evidence of transfusion-transmitted infections such as HIV, hepatitis B and hepatitis C.

The attorneys general’s letter urging FDA Commissioner Robert Califf to adopt the ordinance read “This approach will increase the available blood supply, addressing crucial shortage issues. It also discards the discriminatory aspects of the prior framework, while following sound science to ensure the protection of the blood supply.”

Kevin Hall, a dentist who lives in Rocky Hill and works at Hartford Gay and Lesbian Health Collective, called the proposed policy change “a step in the right direction.”

In college, Hall was a dedicated donor, giving 13 times, to help those who also had the rare A-negative blood type. Then, in the AIDS era, blood banks shut out gay men. Hall never donated blood again until the COVID era.

Even then it was hard, because a blood-bank worker was misinformed about the new state policy.

“They said as long as you have not been sexually active for three months, go ahead. I went to a Red Cross facility. It had been seven months since I had had sex. They denied me, saying I would have to wait several months to quality for a full one-year celibate. I was just dismissed,” Hall said.

Since that issue was straightened out, Hall has donated seven times, keeping with the every-56-days limit. Hall is glad that the questions asked will be more equal.

“Here people are questioning me about the amount of time since my last sexual activity,” Hall said. “I felt discriminated against.

“A straight person could be doing those same behaviors, even right there in the parking lot, and not have those same questions asked of them,” he said. “Behaviors are behaviors. It doesn’t matter who’s doing them.”

Linda Estabrook, executive director of the Hartford Gay and Lesbian Health Collective, said “the FDA and the powers that be should have made this move a long time ago.

“Since the beginning of COVID, I get notices all the time, we need blood, dire need, dire need, shortage, shortage, shortage,” Estabrook said. “Yet they are eliminating a whole group of individuals who want to help and make a difference.”

Estabrook said even if the proposed policy change passes, men who have sex with men might take a while to come round.

“When you’ve been excluded for so long, I don’t necessarily expect a whole lot of gay men to be knocking down the doors trying to get in,” she said.

The American Red Cross, which processes 40% of all donated blood in the country, champions the policy change, too.

Jocelyn Hillard, communications director for the Red Cross Connecticut / Rhode Island region, called it “significant progress toward a more inclusive blood donation process.

“Regardless of whether a change in policy results in an increase in donations, the Red Cross supports medically and scientifically based eligibility criteria that treats donors with fairness, and ensures a safe, sufficient blood supply is readily available for patients in need,” Hilliard said.

Hall heard a story about one of the patients in need whom he helped.

“When I had my first COVID vaccine, I had such a strong reaction, it knocked me out for five days. I went and gave blood three weeks later. They called me back from the Red Cross. They were going to use a component of my blood to give to somebody who couldn’t take the vaccine because my antibody levels were through the roof,” Hall said.

“I helped someone who couldn’t take the vaccine. That gave me even more motivation to keep on giving blood,” he said.

To make an appointment to give blood, visit redcross.org.

Susan Dunne can be reached at sdunne@courant.com.