twenty-something

Here's a report from the Washington Blade about today's movement surrounding the FDA, Red Cross, and the gay blood ban. I'm too tired to decide what any of this means or to comment tonight -- but it's something I'll post for now.

Red Cross calls for equal treatment of gay blood donors
Current FDA policy 'scientifically unwarranted,' blood banks say
By ANDREW KEEGAN | Mar 9, 1:13 PM

For the first time since a ban prohibiting gay men from donating blood went into effect more than two decades ago, the American Red Cross is petitioning the government to revise the guideline.

A federal Food & Drug Administration advisory panel heard arguments against the policy today in Bethesda, Md., at a conference on "Behavior-Based Blood Donor Deferrals in the Era of Nucleic Acid Testing."

The current FDA policy, passed in 1985, prohibits any man who has had sex with another man since 1977 from donating blood for the rest of his life.

The Red Cross joined the American Association of Blood Banks and America's Blood Centers in asking for guidelines that treat all donors equally.

Today could be historic. Today the FDA may reconsider it's 23-year-old guidelines -- born out of fear and ignorance in 1983 -- that bar gay and bisexual men from donating blood during a workshop called "Behavior-Based Blood Donor Deferrals in the Era of Nucleic Acid Testing." According to the Washington Blade, there may be some support from the Red Cross to change the FDA's policy, and that could get us somewhere.

Will today bring some change? Or, more importantly, the right kind of change? I'm hopeful, but I'm not holding my breath.

I have many fears about this, but my hope is that the ban will be discarded altogether and that I'll be finally allowed to donate blood in 2006.

Cross your fingers with me.

While there hasn't been a whirlwind of coverage on Vermont's planned same-sex marriage bill that I mentioned yesterday, there is some, and most of it (from my Googling, anyway) appears to be local.

A quick round-up finds articles at Burlington Free Press.com, The Barre Montpelier Times Argus, Boston.com (The Boston Globe), and 365gay.com.

Don't bother clicking through any of those links, though. Each article is exactly the same (yay AP!). And each article includes that horrible and defeating first paragraph:

A Burlington lawmaker has drafted a bill to expand marriage to same-sex couples and plans to introduce it Thursday, although neither he nor advocates believe it will be debated or adopted this year.

As I understand it, it's unlikely for any bill to be "debated or adopted" in its first year, so unlikely that it's pretty much assumed for any new bill. The mention of this "fact" in the first paragraph of each article, in my opinion, is pretty biased and smacks of homophobia. But, hey, maybe I'm just biased myself. I obviously have an agenda for civil rights for me and mine -- but that's OK, because I'm not a journalist like Ross Sneyd of the Associated Press.

Also? I found no mention of the story on some Vermont "news media" sites, such as "The Champlain Channel" (our NBC affiliate, WPTZ) -- which features a top story headline of "Neighbors Irate Over B&B 'Swingers' Parties" yet no mention of this bill -- or, more disappointingly, my hometown's Rutland Herald -- which won a Pulitzer in 2001 because of its editorials on gay marriage/civil unions. I guess everybody in our little state is so focused on that Cashman controversy to pay much attention.

I'm certainly a long way from my old political and activist days, and I'm not very savvy when it comes to journalism, particularly online stuff, these days -- I haven't had a class on journalistic ethics since '99 -- so I'm sure someone will weigh in to correct me if any of this is wrong.

But I am entitled to my non-journalistic, pro-gay opinion, and it is simple:

that paragraph=biased
same-sex marriage=good
this bill=a big deal

Lawmaker plans bill expanding marriage to same-sex couples
MONTPELIER, Vt. -- A Burlington lawmaker has drafted a bill to expand marriage to same-sex couples and plans to introduce it Thursday, although neither he nor advocates believe it will be debated or adopted this year. [ full article ]

This just showed up in my Inbox. As the accompanying note said, "Food for thought on this beautiful Friday."

FDA to Implement Gay Sperm Donor Rules

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.

Full story at Yahoo! News.