The FDA Committee is meeting today to discuss proposals of removing the ban that prohibits gay men from donating blood reports The New Civil Rights Movement. Talks of repealing the ban appeared last month when The Health and Human Services Advisory Committee on Blood & Tissue Safety & Availability voted to drop the ban for any man who has not had sex with another man in at least a year. A Williams Institute study finds that repealing the ban would save over 1.8 million lives.

However, the one-year abstinence stipulation is still considered discriminatory, and the few gay men that are eligible to donate would yield little increase in the amount of blood donated. Ryan James Yezak, found of the National Gay Blood Drive, finds the new stipulation discriminatory and absurd.

Said Yezak:

“The policies that are in place, the lifetime ban, perpetuates negative stereotypes and stigma. It assumes that all gay and bisexual men are likely to have HIV and therefore must be blanket banned and that’s just not necessary in this day and age when they have the testing and other countries have moved to deferral time period.”

Although Yezak is disappointed with the methods of the new stipulation, he agrees that it’s at least a step in the right direction toward repealing the ban completely. Of course, the anti-gay right wing disagrees. Anti-gay activist Peter LaBarbera, the head of Americans for Truth about Homosexuality, staunchly affirmed his position on keeping the ban.

Said LaBarbera:

“First of all, HIV rates and sexually transmitted diseases are rising among homosexual-practicing men. So why would we be talking about softening the blood ban at a time when [STDs] are on the rise among men who have sex with men?”

The ACLU disagrees, saying criteria for becoming a blood donor should be based on science, not misinformed assumptions and discriminatory stereotypes. LaBarbera and his fellow constituents choose to ignore the fact that HIV is as much an issue for heterosexual people as it is the LGBT community. Fortunately, President Obama reaffirmed his support of those living with, and affected by, HIV and AIDS in a speech the day before the observance of World AIDS Day this year. 

Minnesota’s largest daily newspaper is doubling down on its decision to publish misleading, fear-mongering, transphobic ads opposing a policy that would allow high school students to participate in athletics according to their gender identity.

But The Star-Tribune of Minneapolis isn’t alone. Also publishing the latest ad from the anti-LGBT Minnesota Child Protection League on Sunday were The St. Cloud Times and The Duluth News Tribune, according to Media Matters. 

The ad states:

“THE END OF GIRLS’ SPORTS? Her dreams of a scholarship shattered, your 14-year-old daughter just lost her position on an all-girl team to a male … and now she may have to shower with him. Are you willing to let that happen?”

The ad calls on people to contact Minnesota State High School League board members, who are set to consider the policy Thursday. 

Back in September, LGBT advocates slammed The Star Tribune for publishing a similar ad from the Minnesota Child Protection League opposing the policy, which was originally set to be voted on in October: 

According to the LGBT Sports Coalition, 15 states have adopted policies similar to the one proposed in Minnesota, with no reported problems related to trans athletic participation:  

“By running the ad again, the Star Tribune has once again contributed to a negative stereotype at the same time as it has potentially put trans youth in danger by fostering a demonstrably untrue accusation. Editorial decisions matter. Research has shown that LGBT teens and young adults are at greater risk for depression and bullying, and that bullying is a contributing factor in many suicides. By accepting and publishing this kind of advertisement, the Star Tribune has empowered the untrue expectation that one minority group — transgender children, no less — are a threat to their classmates.

“Worse yet, the Star Tribune already knew that the content of the ad was deliberately misinformative about trans youth while advocating discrimination, because editors at the Star Tribune have already discussed the first ad (run by the same local hate group in September) with local and national LGBT organizations after they ran the first ad in September. The Star Tribune already knew that the content of the new ad also misrepresented trans lives and endangered trans youth — and elected to run it again anyway.”

The Star Tribune is also taking heat on Twitter, including from NBC Sports writer Aaron Gleeman: 

Sub in basically any other group of humans for transgendered people and try to imagine a newspaper accepting the ad. pic.twitter.com/WE0iqXBEQY

— Aaron Gleeman (@AaronGleeman) November 30, 2014

Representatives from The Star Tribune, which editorialized in favor of the trans-inclusive policy in October, haven’t commented on the latest ad. In September, the newspaper’s vice president of marketing and public relations told Minneapolis City Pages: “The ad in question met all the requirements of our ad policy. Not much I can tell you about it beyond that.”

But it appears that for many, that explanation isn’t cutting it. While the advertising director of The Duluth News Tribune told Media Matters it’s a question of free speech, some are calling on subscribers to make their own statement: 

Honestly if you haven’t canceled your @StarTribune subscriptions already, I will lose respect for you. t.co/2OBoTXXrRz

— Nachiket Karnik (@lockstockspock) December 1, 2014