Canada ends sperm donor restrictions for gay & bisexual men in “precedent-setting” move

The government agency Health Canada announced last week it has ended its restrictions on gay and bisexual sperm donors.

Aziz M. told CBC he has “had a wonderful experience” as a sperm donor, with one child conceived with his sperm remaining an active part of his life. But when he encouraged other queer friends to donate, he realized it wasn’t an option for many.

Health Canada’s policy until 2024 banned men from donating sperm if they had sex with other men within three months due to an alleged higher risk of HIV and other STIs. Aziz challenged the policy in 2023.

“It kind of reminded me of all the prejudice that we gay and bisexual men get in life and all the negative opinions that society often holds against us,” he explained. “It felt like it was a group judgment. Like, anybody from that group is having, you know, risky sexual behavior and they’re diseased.”

He decided to continue the suit even after Health Canada changed the language from banning men who have sex with men to anyone engaging in anal sex. Aziz felt that was merely transferring “an explicit discrimination to an implicit one” since “the same group of people are more likely to be disqualified.”

Affidavits submitted by three medical experts explained that the process in place to screen sperm for infectious disease was sufficient without needing to ban anyone for sexual behavior, CBC reported.

Dr. Mona Loutfy, who specializes in infectious diseases, reportedly wrote that HIV testing methods today “are highly sensitive and accurate, such that there is effectively no residual risk associated with current testing methods.”

And now, before Aziz presented the case in court, Health Canada announced it will completely eliminate the sexual behavior questions targeting gay and bisexual men from the donor screening process. In a statement, it said, “The Government of Canada is committed to making sure that sperm and ova donation policies are safe, non-discriminatory and based on scientific evidence.”

Bennett Jensen, legal director for the LGBTQ+ advocacy group Egale Canada, called the case “an important opportunity to examine long-standing assumptions about sexual orientation in relation to HIV.”

Jensen also told CTV News he is “filled with so much gratitude towards Aziz for tirelessly fighting this issue and not being willing to give up. It’s incredibly burdensome to be handling litigation, especially with respect to something that’s so personal. And I think that he’s done just an incredible public service for Canadians.”

Gregory Ko, a lawyer on the case, called the move “an important and precedent-setting step in ending decades-long discrimination against gay and bisexual men.”

Another lawyer, Frank Nasca, said the change “really took a massive push from Aziz and from others to get the government to really look closely.”

Canada does not allow payment for sperm donation and so suffers from a lack of supply. Emily McIntosh, executive director of the Canadian Fertility and Andrology Society, told CBC eliminating the unnecessary rules could help.

Aziz is excited about the update and hopes more queer men will donate as a result. “For a lot of queer people, it’s very hard to have to build our own family and to have our own kids,” he told CBC. “It takes a lot of money and a lot of effort. This is a way to contribute and enrich our lives at the same time.”

August 15, 2026 0

Nebraska Supreme Court Affirms Ban on Gender-Affirming Care and Abortion Restrictions

In a significant ruling, the Nebraska Supreme Court voted 6-1 to uphold a ban on gender-affirming care and abortion restrictions beyond 12 weeks of pregnancy.

The case, Planned Parenthood of the Heartland v. Hilgers, challenged Legislative Bill 574, which restricts abortions after 12 weeks and limits gender-affirming care for minors. The Nebraska legislature passed the bill in 2023, and it was signed into law by the governor in May. In response, the ACLU of Nebraska, representing Planned Parenthood of the Heartland, filed a lawsuit against Attorney General Michael Hilgers.

The ACLU contended that the bill violated the Nebraska Constitution’s single-subject rule, which mandates that a bill should focus on only one subject. However, the court found that both abortion and gender-affirming care are medical procedures, making it acceptable for the bill to address both issues.

The court stated, “We disagree with Planned Parenthood’s contention that it is not possible to identify a single purpose of L.B. 574 that withstands single subject scrutiny. L.B. 574 does regulate both abortion and gender-altering care, but both abortion and gender-altering care are medical procedures, and L.B. 574 prescribes rules that define if and when such procedures can be performed.”

Justice Lindsey Miller-Lerman was the sole dissenter, offering a partial dissent. She argued that the bill’s unrelated provisions did not adequately meet the single-subject requirement, stating, “Unrelated provisions that happen to do similar things at some level of generality do not dispel the criticism that the bill contains more than one subject.”

Mindy Rush Chipman, executive director of ACLU of Nebraska, expressed disappointment with the ruling. “We respectfully disagree with the court majority’s determination, and we had hoped for a different outcome. However, it is crucial that Nebraskans remain aware of the impact these restrictions will have. Nebraskans have been affected every week since the governor signed LB 574 into law. Despite this setback, we will continue to fight for the rights of Nebraskans to make their own private decisions about their lives, families, and futures.”

A similar case, United States v. Skrmetti, involving a Tennessee ban on gender-affirming care for minors, will be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court later this year.

LGBTQ Nation reached out to the ACLU of Nebraska and Planned Parenthood for comment but did not receive a response before publication. This article will be updated if they provide a statement.

August 5, 2024 0

Supreme Court to rule on pivotal abortion cases two years after overturning Roe v. Wade

This blog originally appeared at NBC NEWS.

The justices will decide whether to impose new restrictions on the abortion pill mifepristone, and whether a federal law requiring emergency room treatment conflicts with a state abortion ban.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court is poised to rule this month on two significant abortion cases that could have nationwide repercussions. This marks the first time the justices are revisiting the issue since overturning Roe v. Wade.

The 2022 decision to revoke the right to obtain an abortion caused widespread upheaval, prompting a wave of new state-level abortion restrictions and encouraging anti-abortion activists to seek further limitations.

The most closely watched case involves the court deliberating whether to implement new restrictions on the widely used abortion pill mifepristone, including tighter regulations on mail-order access.

In a less publicized yet potentially impactful case, the justices are examining whether Idaho’s near-total abortion ban conflicts with a federal law mandating emergency medical care for patients, including pregnant women.

Rabia Muqaddam, a lawyer at the Center for Reproductive Rights, which supports abortion rights, referenced the 2022 ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization “set off a chain reaction that we are seeing in all sorts of ways,” including the two cases now before the court.

Theories that were previously considered “the fringe of the fringe” are now “sufficiently mainstream to make it to the Supreme Court,” she added.

The new cases show that the court’s stated aim of getting out of the business of deciding what conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh called “difficult moral and policy questions” was easier said than done. As such, the upcoming rulings will provide further evidence of how far the court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, is willing to go in curbing abortion access.

In the mifepristone case, the court is weighing whether to impose new restrictions on the pills’ availability, including access by mail. Such a move would dramatically decrease the ability of women to obtain the pills, especially in states with new abortion restrictions.

The legal question in the Idaho case is whether a federal law that requires stabilizing treatment for patients in emergency rooms trumps the state restrictions in certain circumstances when doctors believe an abortion is required to protect the health of a pregnant woman.

Jim Campbell, chief legal counsel of Alliance Defending Freedom, the conservative Christian legal group that is representing anti-abortion interests in both cases, said the legal issues in each of them reflect overreach by the Biden administration in response to Roe being overturned.

“They’re both instances where the federal government is doing things, whether directly or indirectly, to interfere with state pro-life laws,” he added.

Based on oral arguments earlier this year, it seems likely that anti-abortion groups will lose in the mifepristone case, leaving the status quo unchanged. That means the Idaho case could have a bigger practical impact if the court backs the state, which seems possible based on questions asked by the justices.

Rulings are expected by the end of the month when the court traditionally concludes its nine-month term that begins in October. The court will also be issuing a slew of other rulings on hot-button issues, including former President Donald Trump’s claim of immunity from prosecution in his election interference case.

June 10, 2024 0