... Based not so much on science. Any Daily Show watchers out there remembering the Frist-tears-pass-AIDS clip?
Though I'm now through with my Sexuality and the Law class - this article caught my eye, particularly because, as it points out, the proposed prohibitions fly in the face (eek, over-used-law-idiom-alert) of current HIV transmission statistics:
"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, Calif., that seeks gay sperm donors. . . .
"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."