Sometimes, as activists, we are forced to break out of our own comfort zones, to set aside our own fears for something bigger. I've found myself in this type of situation plenty of times, whether it be speaking in front of hundreds, or speaking in front of one.  I'm sure we've all been there. 

Last Friday, however, I wasn't obligated to speak or make a convincing argument; I had to let my blood do the talking.

It's healthy blood, really. Although I probably don't eat a balanced diet, or exercise enough, my blood's still red, and it's more than willing to come out of my body. I'm certain I have no blood-borne diseases—just ask my Doctor (she even says I have good veins).

Please, take some. It's a life-saver. If you hire a phlebotomist, and use it within 42 days, it's all yours. Unfortunately, this is how it must be done. The Food and Drug Administration does not allow “men who have had sex with men” (MSM) to donate blood. Despite my health-consciousness, my blood (and that of other gay/bisexual men) is considered too “at risk” for donation.

In abiding by this policy, donation centers, such as the Red Cross, are forced to deny willing donors the possibility of saving lives, and, in effect, they alienate a relatively large sector of the population, and place a greater strain on those who can donate because of shortages.

At a time when it is known that HIV (in particular) can be spread to anyone, gay or straight, and when there are more protections, screenings, and knowledge now, why must this policy live on? It is a question the FDA is looking into this week, and one we tried to answer for them when a group of concerned people got together to do a mock donation. A handful of gay, HIV-negative men donated several vials of blood, signaling the fact that it was unusable, yet could have saved 6-8 lives.

In response to an article written by Angela Townsend of The Plain Dealer, some say lift the ban, while others are much more reluctant (and ignorant, and...uhhh radical).

• This is completely disgusting. I would decline all blood from any homosexual. Because of this sickness, diseases have come into play. If I ever had a blood transfusion from a homosexual there would be one helluva a law suite!

• This means that our blood supply will be less safe. They are risking our lives by doing this. Errors happen in screenings and HIV/AIDS can lay dormant or miss the window for testing. You will be risking your life to draw from the blood supply if they remove this restriction.

• It's about as safe as the blood from the straight guy with the manicure and $1000.00 suit, who sleeps with whatever little skank he can pick up from "the club" every other night....Or the person who has recently discovered the fun of having a tattoos - and got them done at some unclean chop shop because he didn't know better, but who didn't report it to the donor registrar and gives anyhow,

• Why not just have a prohibition against anyone, male or female, having engaged in anal intercourse in some certain period of time? I would think that would solve all of the problems.

• It's time for this ban to go. I am gay and have been in a completely monogamous relationship for 14 years, but am excluded from giving blood, but a straight guy who sleeps with prostitutes and has mistresses can give blood. Specific activities, not orientation, make you more of a risk for contracting HIV. How many straight guys have had sex with women who have had bisexual partners? This ban reinforces the stereotype that all gay men are promiscuous and have HIV.
  

• I am thankful too, to the blood donor whose blood saved my now 12 year old daughter's life when she was just 3 weeks old...I don't know or care either, about the race, sex, or sexual orientation of the person who donated the blood she received.