Surgeon General Nominee = Anti-gay Bigot

[antonyh]

Originally Posted by simpleman

Therefore, I see it fit to judge Dr. Holsinger based on his abilities as a physician, not his beliefs on homosexuality. That's what confirmation hearings are about. Believe it or not, I don't necessarily agree with the personal politics of the likes of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, but she was more than qualified to hold her position on the Supreme Court. Clinton nominated a liberal judge, and Bush will nominate a conservative Surgeon General. The positions are to be filled by qualified candidates, even if not everybody agrees on or with their personal beliefs. All presidents do this, not just Bush. Every administration tries to put people into power that agree with them, and believe me, there are qualified people of all political beliefs.

His beliefs could dispose him to starve funding for HIV prevention through the distribution of condoms in favor of a message of abstinence. And that is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of LGBT health.

[simpleman]

Is it really the government's responsibility to pass out condoms? If I go get AIDS because I use a dirty needle, can I blame the government for not subsidizing clean needles for my heroin addiction?

[Emproph]

Clean needles? Is that your "final" argument?
_______

Originally Posted by simpleman

I really think that it is important to consider the evidence of how Holsinger does his job

You mean we haven't?

However a trend towards relentless personal attacks on personal beliefs and policies has arisen in these confirmations.

I AM against anti-American, anti-democracy, and anti-equality (supremacist) beliefs and policies. I think most here would agree with that. Has this NOT been established?

Nominated positions in government...should be based on merit of ability to perform his duties as a government leader.

Who here is disputing the “should be” part? Then why bring it up?

Therefore, I see it fit to judge Dr. Holsinger based on his abilities as a physician, not his beliefs on homosexuality.

Doctor = Hippocratic Oath = First Do No Harm

15 deaths

Dr. Holsinger denied that there were systemic problems and said veterans hospitals were improving ..."At this moment, we really do provide first-rate care," he said

I can’t seem to figure out whether you’re a post-Hippocratic Oathian, or just a believer that the common presidential nominee can turn off their wake of death at will.

[antonyh]

Originally Posted by simpleman

Is it really the government's responsibility to pass out condoms? If I go get AIDS because I use a dirty needle, can I blame the government for not subsidizing clean needles for my heroin addiction?

Let me make a parallel statement out of your statement above because I think you'd want to address both questions:

If I go get AIDS because I use a dirty needle, can I blame the government for not subsidizing clean needles for my heroin addiction?

If I go get AIDS because I have unprotected sex, can I blame the government for not subsidizing condoms for my sex addiction?

I used to volunteer with St. Louis Effort for AIDS and was a buddy to a guy with AIDS. He was dying and his life was saved with the new drugs that came onto the market (he was in the initial clinical trials). About five years later I volunteered for three years at Howard Brown in the largest HIV prevention study ever conducted with MSMs.

The reality is that there is a lot of risky sex going on (especially now that the AIDS scare has subsided) and making safer sex decisions (like using a condom) is more complex that you might think. People go clubbing or get online, they get drunk, they take drugs and it impairs their judgement in making important decisions about staying safe. Some people are depressed under the weight of circumstances in their personal life and the oppression they experience in society. People often don't know how to communicate about safer sex with someone they bring home from the bar or meet online. I am not making moral judgements here, just being descriptive of part of what goes on in both the straight and gay scenes.

There are three components to HIV prevention. First, people need to learn how to navigate the complexities surrounding safer sex decision making. Second, providing condoms is a good way to remind people about the importance of protecting themselves and may be mission critical in poorer communities where they can't afford condoms. Third, anyone who is sexually active outside of a monogamous relationship should be tested for HIV/STDs at least every six months. The reality is that the government is going to have to fund organizations with this type of social service mission.

If you want to take a practical view of the matter, HIV prevention is much more affordabe than the cost of helping someone with their HIV medications which can cost between $12,000 and $15,000 per year.

The problem with a Surgeon General that does not get this and goes with an "abstinence agenda" is that it does not deal with reality as it is. We need to protect people during this phase of their lives. I wish everyone could find a monogamous relationship, but that is not how it is.

As far as the idea of blaming a drug user or a sexually active person for contracting HIV, I think we need to say out of that mode of thinking. I think compassion and love would be the required response.

[Steven E. Webster]

Originally Posted by simpleman

Is it really the government's responsibility to pass out condoms? If I go get AIDS because I use a dirty needle, can I blame the government for not subsidizing clean needles for my heroin addiction?

Simpleman, I believe this statement of yours betrays an ignorance of public health issues. Such ignorance of publich health issues should disqualify a nominee for the office of Surgeon General.

The public health issue involved in the matter of clean needle exchange programs for addicts is not simply a question of morals, or a matter of assessing "who's to blame." The public health issue is only to determine what program is effective in slowing the spread of HIV. A man who uses a clean needle is less likely to spread HIV to his wife or girl friend and less likely to spread HIV in turn to that woman's children, who by any kind of reasonable system of morals are blameless.

The issue is not whether or not the government is to blame for a particular addict's bad decisions--I don't believe government is responsible for that. But government is responsible under our Constitution to "promote the general welfare" and if needle exchange programs are effective (and there is evidence that they are), government is responsible to implement them.

Clean needle exchanges have been shown to be effective in slowing the spread of HIV and saving lives. A government or a public official who substitutes his/her own moral judgments for sound public health decisions is not fit to govern.

Holsinger, in his role as a United Methodist Judicial Council member, has shown that he has no hesitation to substitute his own moral judgments and those of his own right wing faction in the United Methodist Church, for the judgment of the United Methodist General Conference which he was responsible to uphold. Thus the relevance of this behavior to his role as a Public Health official.

The Bush Administration has heavily favored "Abstinence Only" programs in schools that do not include scientific education about condom use. There is evidence that these government-funded programs are ineffective. If they are ineffective, than the government and the Bush Administration is to blame for wasting public resources on a program that is ineffective or even harmful to the public health. Will Holsinger change the administration's course in this matter, or will he, again, substitute his personal morals for sound public health policy?

In some future posts, I think it would be good to look more closely at Holsinger's medical credentials. I gather from sources I've seen that he lacks certain certifications and certain actual clinical experience.

As for the President's right to nominate people who "think" like he does--that right is limited by the Senate's right to "advise and consent" under the Constitution. The Senate's right to "advise and consent" includes the right to advise against and reject nominees it feels are unfit. A smart President would have sought advice from the Democratic leadership of the Senate before bringing forth a nominee like Holsinger. Especially since this President has a record of cronyism and incompetence in his appointees.

I keep pointing to the positive example of Surgeon General Everett Koop who was a Reagan appointee and an Evangelical Christian, but who was not afraid to promote condom use to stop the AIDS epidemic. If Holsinger can show himself to be more like Koop, I could support him.

Koop also denounced the ignorance and bigotry of "Dr." Paul Cameron--I'd like to know where Holsinger stands on Cameron's so-called "research" on homosexuality. Maybe we should be developing questions that we want our Senators to ask this man.

Steven Webster

[Jamie McDaniel]

From 365gay.com
Bush Nominee For Surgeon General Has Anti-Gay Record

The article contains the first quotes I have seen from HRC on this.

"His writings suggest a scientific view rooted in anti-gay beliefs that are incompatible with the job of serving the medical health of all Americans," said Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese.

"Although the church’s theology isn’t being nominated, this discredited practice purports to be a psychological and medical service, and if Dr. Holsinger is involved in any way, it conflicts with his duty to accept and promote sound science in the interest of public health," said Solmonese.

[tdogg]

Originally Posted by RM260boy

thank you steven, my computer is giving me heck on links today as it is.
when computers die do they go to heaven?

Only if they're gay

Based on the information posted by Patrick, I would say that this was not a top-rate physician and would not make a top-rate Surgeon General. I don't think we should support someone and then see if he 'hopefully' leaves his religious opinions at the door. I say we do everything we can not to take that chance.

I think Holsinger's record speaks for itself, and it ain't that good folks.

[Jamie McDaniel]

Attached is a PDF of Holsinger's report titled "Pathophysiology of Male Homosexuality." Note that the report is 16 years old. Basically his argument against LGBT equality was due to male/female anatomy. After discussing various methods of anal stimulation, the report ends with "the thing speaks for itself!" Wow.

[Zerbie]

Originally Posted by Jamie McDaniel

Attached is a PDF of Holsinger's report titled "Pathophysiology of Male Homosexuality." Note that the report is 16 years old.

Every time I click on this, I get a Soulforce login prompt. Okay. I'm logged in. I still get directed to the login prompt instead of to a report.

[BrentRichards]

Wow, plumbing and electrical fittings are called male and female ... well, that convinces me that homosexuality is obviously wrong. This guy has a doctorate? Can we make him the Plumber General instead?

[Steven E. Webster]

Jamie,
Thanks for posting the PDF of Holsinger's paper! It is apparent that this is a paper that Holsinger prepared for the United Methodist Committee to Study Homosexuality that he was a member of during that time period (16 years ago). Holsinger ultimately resigned from that committee saying that he thought the Committee's conclusions would be "too liberal." (This was reported earlier in this thread and a link was given to a contemporary account in Time Magazine.)

Holsinger was probably included on the committee both because he was a physician and he represented a conservative point of view. The committee consulted outside experts, and so they did not rely only on the expertise of committee members. Indeed, the Committee did come forward with what might be considered "liberal" conclusions. Unfortunately, our General Conference adopted a "minority report" and rejected the main proposals of the majority of the committee. However, the Committee's report was published with a small-group study guide for the whole denomination to read, and it was a pretty-good resource that I've used for United Methodist classes.

Someone with access to a medical school library might check Holsinger's use of the studies that he cites. I suspect he is misusing some data. The statistics that he cites are given without little or no information about how those studies selected their samples, etc.

One example is this: "fist fornication . . . during the the 1970's was practiced by approximately 5% of the male homosexual population." [Holsinger defines "fist fornication" as "having the partner insert their hand and forearm into the rectum for erotic stimulation."] Which "homosexual population" does this study refer to? Holsinger seems to have it refer to 5% of all the homosexuals in the world in the 1970's, but it is more likely that the study he is quoting was dealing with a more select group. The question is how that group was selected. It may be, for instance, that the sample in this study consisted only of "homosexuals" who came to Emergency Rooms with some sexually related trauma.

This paper of Holsinger's could be picked apart for misuse or misrepresentation of other scientific studies.

My suspicion is that we have a member of the United Methodist Committee to Study Homosexuality to thank for pulling this old paper out of his/her files and making it public.

Steven Webster

[Emproph]

Originally Posted by BrentRichards

Wow, plumbing and electrical fittings are called male and female ... well, that convinces me that homosexuality is obviously wrong. This guy has a doctorate? Can we make him the Plumber General instead?

They prefer to be called "commode analysts." And given the subject matter of this particular commode analyst, I believe the especially correct pronunciation would be "commode ANALyst."

~~

And speaking of commodes, I'm about ready to pee my pants to send this out to everyone! I can't find it on Google anywhere and this is some GOOD stuff:

Originally Posted by Jamie McDaniel

Attached is a PDF of Holsinger's report titled "Pathophysiology of Male Homosexuality." Note that the report is 16 years old. Basically his argument against LGBT equality was due to male/female anatomy. After discussing various methods of anal stimulation, the report ends with "the thing speaks for itself!" Wow.

Holsinger on Homosexuality.pdf (326.9 KB, 8 views)

Can we share that, or is it about to come online, etc.?

[Steven E. Webster]

Friends,

The Holsinger paper is now out in the papers:

http://www.kentucky.com/454/story/89732.html

Steven Webster

[Emproph]

Originally Posted by Steven E. Webster

Friends,

The Holsinger paper is now out in the papers:

http://www.kentucky.com/454/story/89732.html

Steven Webster

I missed that it was under his picture. Thanks Steven.

[BrentRichards]

Originally Posted by Emproph

They prefer to be called "commode analysts." And given the subject matter of this particular commode analyst, I believe the especially correct pronunciation would be "commode ANALyst."

Okay, I'll compromise and call him a Lavatory Optimization Specialist. If he's on the way, that would make him a Lavatory Optimization Specialist En Route ...

[Steven E. Webster]

Folks,

This is the best article I've seen so far!

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/S...3251663&page=1

Holsinger will need to explain this paper to Senators Kennedy, Clinton, Dodd and Obama

Steven Webster

[Steven E. Webster]

Friends,

Here's Jeff's press release:

http://www.soulforce.org/article/1266

Steven Webster

[Steven E. Webster]

Friends,
Troy Plummer is Executive Director of the LGBT United Methodist organization Reconcililng Ministries Network. I think he states the LGBT United Methodist point of view pretty well.

Here's the link:

http://www.sfbaytimes.com/?sec=article&article_id=6481

“For the last 20 years, James Holsinger has been the worst kind of bully inside the United Methodist Church. As a member of a sexuality study team in 1991, he used his position as a medical doctor to promote skewed and inaccurate information regarding gay men,” said the Rev. Troy Plummer, Executive Director of Reconciling Ministries Network of United Methodists and National Religious Leadership Roundtable member. “As the chair of the Judicial Council, the ‘Supreme Court’ of the United Methodist Church, he has used his power to disregard the Constitution of the Methodist Church and block from membership faithful gay and lesbian Christians. As a pastor, he has promoted ‘reparative therapy’ — a practice that is nothing short of torture of gay and lesbian people and is not condoned by any professional psychological association; in fact, many call it medical malpractice.” Plummer added, “In short, when he has been called to be a leader in the United Methodist Church, to offer the hand of Christian fellowship, he has slammed the door in the face of faithful gay and lesbian persons. What, then, might he do as Surgeon General?” He said, “As the primary medical educator of our nation, I have no faith that Holsinger would refrain from these practices, which are unscientific at best and torturous at worst. When Holsinger’s ‘all’ does not mean ‘all’ in the Methodist Church, can it mean ‘all’ for American citizens?” Plummer said he worried what kind of education from the Surgeon General could gay and lesbian families expect, and what could bisexual and transgender people expect. He concluded, “As a psychotherapist, a pastor, and an American citizen myself, I can only hope that James Holsinger will not be given the opportunity to use the office of the Surgeon General as a bully pulpit for hatred.”

Although there is much to criticize about Holsinger's work on the United Methodist Judicial Council, Troy is right, in my opinion, to point to Decision 1032 which gave the pastors of local United Methodist Churches the right (and encouragement) to deny membership to LGBT persons.

Steven E. Webster

[Steven E. Webster]

Friends,

Here's a link to latest from ABC:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3251663&page=1

Here's the quote from a prominent GOP-friendly commentator, David Gergen:

"A confirmation fight is exactly what the administration does not need," said David Gergen, a former adviser to Presidents Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Clinton, who predicted the paper would cause a "minor storm" among Democrats on Capitol Hill.

"You have to wonder given the quality of some of the nominations that have gone forward recently, whether the selection group in the White House has gone on vacation," Gergen said. "There has been a growing criticism the administration favoring ideology over competence, and this nomination smacks of that."

Things are definitely heating up in Washington for Dr. Holsinger.

Steven Webster

[Jamie McDaniel]

The committee that is responsible for confirming the Surgeon General is the U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. More information, including the full list of committee members, can be found at http://help.senate.gov/About.html

Also, one of the larger antigay organizations here in Kentucky has issued a press release stating that Holsinger "opposed ordaining a practicing lesbian." That's not correct is it Steve? Rev. Karen Dammann was already an ordained Methodist minister. It was about taking away her ordination when she chose not to hide her relationship with her partner of nine years. She was ordained in 1994. Her trial was in 2004. Same situation with Rev. Beth Stroud.

If this mistake was rare, that would be one thing, but it seems to me that antigay groups deliberately misinform in an effort to create a visual of gays trying to "get in the church" when we are already there, leading services, providing music, offering our talents.