►
Description
The Committee will review Resolution 48.61.20(Anane) that calls upon the FDA to consider a blood donation policy, not based upon sexual orientation or gender identity.
A
To
go
okay
good
evening:
everyone
I
want
to
thank
everyone
for
attending.
This
is
a
meeting
of
the
human
resources
and
Human
Rights
Committee
present
we
have
myself
Jamel
Robinson
and
who
is
the
chair
of
this
committee.
We
have
committee
members
joining
us,
councilman,
Richard,
Conte,
council
member
is
Jack
here.
A
B
A
C
19,000
of
those
confirmed
19,000
are
confirmed
deaths
as
of
June
of
2020,
which
is
roughly
one
third
of
the
confirmed
coronavirus
cases
in
the
United
States.
As
a
result
of
this
unprecedented
scale
of
devastation,
this
virus
caused
an
urgent
plea
for
blood
donations
was
made,
and
it's
well
documented
that
gay
men
and
transgender
men
are
desperately
want
to
give
blood
to
their
respective
communities.
C
Currently,
food
and
drug
administration
already
had
12
month
deferment
on
blood
donation
from
gay
men
from
the
time
that
they
have
sex
with
another
gay
men
and
because
of
Cobra
19.
It
was
reduced
from
12
months
to
3
months.
I
feel
like
this
policy
is
discriminatory
in
nature
and
is
focusing
on
the
gender
of
the
individual
rather
than
focusing
on
science.
On
a
personal
note,
I
know
what
it's
like
to
be
discriminated
against
as
someone
who
lived
in
Brooklyn
with
the
arrow
stop-and-frisk.
C
So
when
I
see,
discrimination
happened
to
any
community,
I
feel
that
I'm
being
also
impacted,
and
that's
why
I
felt
it
was
important.
Then
we
sent
a
clear
message
to
the
federal
government
and
also
to
the
the
president,
the
United
States,
that
this
type
of
discrimination
will
not
be
tolerated.
Particularly
these
times
that
we're
in
there
are
people
who
are
looking
at
local
government
for
assistance
and
a
sense
of
hope
and
a
sense
of
someone
who's
watching
their
back
and
someone
who
has
their
back
and
that's.
What
this
resolution
is
intended
to
do.
B
C
D
I
mean
we
passed
a
resolution
on
this
topic
back
in
2016
in
response
to
the
pulse
nightclub.
Shooting
there
have
been
some
changes
in
the
policy
since
then,
including
the
change
in
the
deferral
provisions
and
there's
also
a
change
in
terms
of
how
the
transgender
community
is
treated
which,
back
in
the
prior
policy,
the
sex
was
based
on
the
sex
of
the
individual
at
Birth.
D
The
new
policy
provides
that
it's
based
on
the
self-identification
of
the
individual,
which
does
change
some
of
the
language
and
I
think
one
of
the
issues
that
have
been
raised
has
been
about
the
inclusion
of
whether
it
is
explicitly
discriminatory
towards
transgender
men
or
not.
I.
Note
that
the
congressional
resolution
that
the
sponsor
cites
does
not
include
transgender
men,
and
you
could
argue
that,
since
they
are
a
transgender
male,
is
treated
as
a
male.
D
An
ism,
a
I
mean
good
that
the
issue
here
is
really
comes
down
to
discrimination
against
men
who
have
sex
with
men,
which
tends
which
are
gay
or
bisexual
men,
and
so
I.
Don't
know
if
there's
some
of
the
wording
or
if
it
might
be
better
to
to
look
more
closely
at
the
congressional
resolution
or
not,
but
the
policy
I
have
no
problem.
D
D
B
A
E
A
F
You
know
so
I
looked
into
it
a
little
bit
further
and
I
do
see
that
the
American
Red
Cross
specifically
says
that
there
is
no
deferral
associated
with
being
transgender
and
eligibility
will
be
based
on
the
criteria
associated
with
the
gender.
The
donor
has
reported,
and
then
it
refers
you
to
additional
eligibility
criteria,
so
that
makes
it
a
bit
confusing
for
me,
and
I
am
a
little
bit
concerned
that
by
that
this
language
in
here
gives
people
the
impression
that
all
transgender
men
are
automatically
deferred.
E
This
this
is
one
of
the
points
that
I
when
I
was
researching.
That
I
found
interesting,
it's
right
here,
where
it
says:
I'm,
a
trans
man
and
I'm
and
I've
been
eligible
to
donate,
but
because
my
sign
sex
at
birth
was
female.
However,
I
had
sex
with
another
man,
and
this
is
where
it
goes
that
you're
under
the
deferral
policy
and
then
where'd
it
go
so
a
trans
woman
which
but
I
was
assigned
a
sex
mail,
but
I
had
sex
with
a
man.
Then
there
is
no
deferral.
E
It's
that's
where
I'm
myself
personally
I
get
confused.
I
understand
that
as
a
trans
man,
you
are
a
man
and
it's
just
when
you
put
these
two
questionnaires
up
and
it's
you
read
it
that
way.
I
understand
it.
I
get
a
little
confused
because
when
you
go
to
the
top-
and
you
would
have
transgendered
owner-
goes
sweeping
right
here
saying
there
is
no
deferral.
Yeah.
D
And
that
policy
by
the
way
is
a
slip
or
it
was
when
we
did
this
in
2016
in
question
2016.
The
policy
was
discriminated
against
trans
women
because
the
sex
that
was
considered
was
a
sex
at
birth,
so
considered
a
male
versus
a
trans
women
trans
woman
being
identified
as
a
woman
based
on
her
gender
identity.
So
now.
C
E
And
one
of
the
things
I
noticed
when
I
was
going
through,
the
wayback
machine
is
I.
Thought
I
had
saw
something
different
in
that
portion
is
I,
went
to
the
wayback
machine
and
saw
that
this
particular
website
seen
where
it
has
been
edited
and
in
April.
First,
when
the
policy
was
announced
by
the
FDA
you
see
substantially,
this
portion
of
the
website
has
been
edited
many
times
even
up
until
May
27th
of
last
month.
So
there's
been
a
lot
of
changes
since
then,
even
when
I
was
researching
so
so
I
know.
A
F
F
For
a
long
time
and
I
thought
it's
still
a
policy
while
donors
are
being
tested
for
HIV
or
all
samples
are
all
blood
is
being
tested
for
a
variety
of
things,
and
then
it's
quarantined
for
a
certain
period
of
time.
So
now
we
are.
This
resolution
is
advocating
that
it
looks
like
it's
advocating
at
least
the
language
that
we
do
want
there
to
be
a
policy
we
want.
We
want
the
fth
with
dr.
F
policy
that
essentially
focuses
on
the
unacceptable
degree
of
risk
that
is
receptive,
anal
sex
without
a
condom
as
a
basis
for
a
deferral
and
so
I.
You
know
this
gets
a
you
talk
about
fluid.
This
gets
a
little
bit.
I.
Think
dicey
in
terms
of
of.
Is
that
the
position
that
we
really
want
to
be
taken
I'm
not
really
sure
that
I'm
convinced
that
that's
a
reason
having
done
some
additional
reading?
F
What
was
to
do
with
the
fact
that
sometimes
blood
banks
make
an
error
release
donations
before
there
has
been
the
testing
and
look-back
period,
so
so
I'm
a
little.
You
know
so
I'm
a
little
confused.
This
is
all
these
issues
don't
arise
in
the
hallway
that
the
Congressional
resolution
has
been
laid
out,
at
least
not.
You
know
that
I
am
seeing
because,
while
they
say
you
want
to
look
at
risk
activities,
they
don't
identify
your
particular
activity.
F
That,
then,
is
a
basis
for
a
deferral
and
and
and
I
have
to
you
know,
there's
there's
so
many
potentially
risky
activities
out
there
that
I'm
a
little
uncomfortable,
selecting
a
selecting
one
and
saying
okay.
Well,
that's
the
official
position
that
we
now
want
to
take
the
one
identified
this
particular
activity,
as
opposed
to
some
of
the
other
activities
that
might
be
risky,
so
I
think
with
it.
What
the
what
the
federal
just
so
I
I
don't
know.
F
If
there's
anybody
else
printed
out
the
federal
resolution
that
was
who
referred
to,
but
it
says
that
the
policies
governing
blood
and
blood
product
donation
in
the
United
States
should
be
grounded
in
science.
Minimize
deferral
here
easily
based
upon
individual
risk
factors,
not
unfairly
singled
out
any
group
of
individuals
and
allow
donations
by
all
those
who
can
safely
do
so.
That
seems
to
me
to
be
like
how
do
you
argue
with
that?
F
F
But
my
you
know
a
my
struggle
with
using
trans
gender.
You
know
jr.
brought
up
something
on
the
website
that
I
had
not
seen,
and
I
was
having
a
hard
time
to
digest
about
and
the
little
time
that
it
was
appearing.
I,
don't
I
feel
like
we're
getting
into
we're,
not
necessarily
adding
or
lessening
the
confusion
regarding
this
and
I.
F
Don't
like
the
idea
that
a
transgender
man
then
may
think
that
the
current
policy
is
he
can't
donate
period.
So
those
are
some
of
my
concerns
about
it.
I
agree
with
Richard
I
might
be
more
comfortable
with
using
the
language
in
the
federal
resume,
or
maybe
just
simply
supporting
the
federal
resolutions
as
a
more
simple
way
of
doing.
E
B
H
I
I
guess
my
Stan,
whatever
I
think
it
boils
down
to,
in
my
view
is.
We
are
all
on
the
same
page
that
everybody
thinks
that
this
is
a
pretty
terrible
standpoint
for
the
FDA
to
have
and
we're
all
in
agreement
and
I.
I
also
think
that
we're
all
we
all
understand
that,
while
resolutions
are
certainly
important,
it
is
kind
of
just
us
communicating
to
our
constituents
what
we
believe
in
I
highly
doubt
there
is
anyone,
I'm,
sorry,
sue,
okay,
I,
don't
think.
H
So
I
I
appreciate
whatever
my
stance
is
whatever
is
the
resolution
makes
people
feel
best
is
fantastic,
but
I
also
think
this
is
more
about
a
statement
and
and
with
that
I
I
think
that
the
that
that's
kind
of
where
we
are
with
it
is
that
everybody's
on
the
same
page,
we're
all
like.
We
all
agree
with
this,
and
and
it's
it's
really
not
okay,
and
that
to
me
is
the
bottom
line
with
this
and.
H
That
and
I
don't
think
that
it
says,
like
I,
think
I
didn't
take,
that
there
was
any
specifics
and
what
happens
in
your
bedroom
there,
because
there's
a
lot
of
things
that
a
lot
of
different
people
can
do
that
it
shifts
to
that.
But
I
I
think
it's
more
about.
If
you
are
it's
just
wrong
and
that's
the
bottom
line,
so
whatever
people
feel
good
about
in
terms
of
resolution
is
fine,
but
I
also
think
that
we're
all
on
the
same
page
with
this-
and
perhaps
the
statement
is
the
most
important
thing.
F
C
Agree
what
Jenny
said
at
the
end
of
the
day
we
are
on
the
same
page.
We
agree
that
this
policy,
it
is
discriminatory
in
nature,
and
in
these
challenging
times
we
will
not
stand
for
discrimination
towards
any
demographic.
So
if
it
makes
my
colleague
comfortable,
I
am
okay.
With
writing
the
resolution
similar
to
the
federal
government
supporting
the
federal
government
actions,
federal
Congress
members
actions
and
as
long
as
John
Raphael
could
get
it
on
the
agenda
for
this
for
the
next
meeting
for
both
I'm
all
for
it.
E
E
E
C
I
A
G
D
I
Okay
I'm,
so
sorry,
this
comment
is
submitted
by
Elana
Klein
and
it
reads
as
follows:
I
would
like
to
express
my
gratitude
losses.
Mr.
president,
mr.
chair
members
of
the
committee
I
would
first
like
to
express
my
gratitude
to
councilmember
inany
for
not
only
drafting
this
resolution
and
being
a
constant,
consistent
ally
to
the
lgbtq+
community,
but
in
reaching
out
to
me
at
my
request,
to
explain
it
succinctly.
I
I
I
have
no
edits
to
the
fourth,
whereas
because
I
am
Not
sure
the
technical
wording
of
the
current
policy
on
June
12
2016
49
people
were
killed
and
53
more
were
wounded
in
a
mass
shooting
at
the
at
the
gay
nightclub
pulse
in
Orlando
Florida,
countless
members
of
the
lgbtq+
community
lined
up
to
donate
blood
to
be
blocked
by
a
draconian
rule
that
dates
back
to
the
80s
error.
Fear-Mongering
of
the
gay
community,
this
is
to
put
it
lightly.
Tragically
ironic.
I
have
attached
a
link
to
an
article
defer
referencing
this
policy.
I
Any
difference
in
policy
based
on
sexual
orientation,
and/or,
actual
or
perceived
gender
identity
or
expression
is
unacceptable.
While
the
FDA
may
think
that
this
change
in
policy
reduction
from
12
months
to
3
is
progress,
it
is
not
sexual
orientation,
preference,
gender
identity
and
gender
expression
do
not
equate
promiscuity
or
risk.
Knowing
the
history
of
this
council
I
fully
expect
this
to
have
unanimous
support
both
here
and
in
front
of
the
full
body.
I
I
will
be
giving
comments
on
a
different
topic
for
Monday's
meeting,
but
I
invite
any
of
you
to
reference
the
aforementioned
article
in
your
comments
before
the
boat.
Thank
you
and
she
references
a
website
that
we
can
all
visit.
This
website
has
been
provided
to
all
council
members,
but
for
the
record,
I
will
read
it.
It
is
w
w
cnn.com
forward,
slash
2016,
forward,
slash
0-7,
forward,
slash
12,
forward,
slash
opinions,
forward,
slash
pulse
Orlando,
shooting
gay
men,
blood
donor
ban
quickly
forward,
slash
index.html
and
mr.
chair.
B
A
E
H
F
C
C
H
B
H
B
E
I'm
going
a
little
a
little
fast
because
it
is
I
just
want
to
show
where
the
differences
are
so
then
now,
therefore
be
it
resolved.
The
city
of
Albany,
Common
Council,
supports
House,
Resolution,
nine,
eight,
nine
and
that
policies
governing
blood
and
blood
product
donations
in
the
United
States
should
one
be
grounded
in
science,
minimized,
afropop
pirates
and
be
based
on
individual,
be
based
on
individual
risk
factors
for
not
unfairly
on
a
single
out
any
group
or
individual
and
allow
donations
by
all
those
who
can
safely
do
so.