Bush’s Surgeon General nominee looks even worse

From Crooks and Liars:

By: Steve Benen on June 7, 2007    

HolsingerFollowing up on an item from last week, Dr. James W. Holsinger Jr., Bush’s nominee for Surgeon General, has a record of activism that suggests a strong anti-gay bias. Opposition to his nomination has been growing, but it’s been unclear whether there was enough information available to sink his chances.

Maybe this will do the trick. Holsinger wrote a paper in 1991 arguing that, from a medical perspective, homosexuality is unnatural and unhealthy, a position rejected by professionals as prioritizing political ideology over science.

Holsinger, 68, presented “The Pathophysiology of Male Homosexuality” in January 1991 to a United Methodist Church’s committee to study homosexuality. (Read the .pdf paper here.) The church was then considering changing its view that homosexuality violates Christian teaching, though it ultimately did not do so. Relying on footnotes from mainstream medical publications, Holsinger argued that homosexuality isn’t natural or healthy.

“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.”

Keep in mind, it’s not just the ‘91 paper that’s raising questions about Holsinger’s anti-gay animus. He also helped found a religious ministry that seeks to “cure” gays of their “lifestyle.”

Eek!  It really is scary, albeit unsuprising, that W. would nominate such a nut job to such an important position.

  1 comment for “Bush’s Surgeon General nominee looks even worse

  1. June 8, 2007 at 9:14 am

    although this is entirely not surprising, i am sick and tired of bush’s incompetent nominees, people with a proven record of putting religious idealogy over evidence-based science (i.e. david hager, bush’s nominee for chairman of the Advisory Committee for Reproductive Health Drugs at the FDA).

    is it too much to ask that the nominees for these positions should be people with a proven dedication to the science of medicine?

Comments are closed.