The Coming Battle Over America’s Family Doctor
June 25, 2007
Get ready for a battle over President Bush’s nominee to serve as U.S. Surgeon General. Nominated by the president in late May, Dr. James W. Holsinger from Kentucky is a superbly qualified nominee who should, based on his merits, get an easy confirmation. In fact, however, Holsinger is facing significant opposition and an uphill battle to get out of the Health Committee, much less confirmation by the full Senate.
Illinois Senator and presidential hopeful Barack Obama fired an early shot at Holsinger when he warned that the “United States Surgeon General’s office is no place for bigotry or ideology that would trump sound science and good judgment.” So what is it about Holsinger and his record that would merit so harsh a set of accusations as bigotry, poor judgment and a rejection of sound science?
In short, Holsinger has (or at least had) traditional views on homosexuality. Opponents of his nomination have focused on a short, 9-page paper he wrote in 1991 when he was on the United Methodist Church’s Committee to Study Homosexuality. Entitled “Pathophysiology of Male Homosexuality,” the paper is an argument based on simple anatomical and physiological science that homosexuality is not normal or healthy. Holsinger does not cite scripture references, nor does he argue that any given act is moral or immoral, rather he argues that, based on a simple look at the human body and the risks of certain behaviors, homosexual behavior is not normal or healthy. The report is blunt and specific, written in an academic tone. It may make for uncomfortable reading, but the simple argument is factually irrefutable.
At the close of his paper, Holsinger points out:
The anatomic and physiologic facts of alimentation and reproduction simply do not change based on any cultural setting. In fact, the logical complementarity of the human sexes has been so recognized in our culture that it has entered our vocabulary in the form of naming various pipe fittings either the male fitting or the female fitting depending upon which one interlocks within the other. When the complementarity of the sexes is breached, injuries and diseases may occur as noted above.
Therefore, based on the simplest known anatomy and physiology, when dealing with the complementarity of the human sexes, one can simply say, Res ipsa loquitur—the thing speaks for itself!
The fight for his nomination in the Senate is a battle to watch, because it will determine whether candor with regard to one’s convictions on homosexuality in one’s private life is sufficient grounds to disqualify a person for public service. If the initial rhetoric is any indication of the opposition Holsinger will get, we are witnessing the creation of a new sort of litmus test. The paper that has Senators Obama, Kennedy and Dodd so worked up really does nothing that should be controversial, in light of the fact that he is a physician who has specialized in anatomy and was writing about the anatomical functions of the human body. Additionally, the paper was written in his private capacity as a Methodist layperson. The paper makes no recommendations or allusions to changes that should be made in public policy. It was a paper written within the context of his private commitment to his church.
Yet, according to June Reinish from the Kinsey Institute for Research in Sex, Gender and Reproduction, “The man doesn’t know anything about human sexuality.” Really?
While the times have changed dramatically, the dynamics bear an eerie resemblance to what tobacco industry insiders must have regarded as the golden age of smoking (the ’40s and ’50s). Images of physicians were then used regularly to reduce angst about the health impact of smoking. One ad for Lucky cigarettes cites 20,679 physicians agreeing that Luckies give “your throat protection against irritation, against cough.” Another television ad for Chesterfields has an actor reading from a report on the health implications of smoking. He quotes a doctor who says, “It is my opinion that the ears, nose throat and accessory organs of all participating subjects were not adversely affected by smoking the cigarettes provided.” The man then looks up and encourages the audience to, “Remember this report … and buy Chesterfield, regular and king size.”
Today, the tide has shifted dramatically on the known health risks of smoking—as well as the tolerance of the public to let at least that industry tell a nation something is healthy that so clearly is not. What Chesterfield and the smoking lobby was selling, we all know, was a king size lie.
But the most powerful lobby today is certainly not big tobacco. The gay and lesbian political lobby through groups like the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) now have incredible influence on Capitol Hill. News reports cite how friendly Senator Edward Kennedy is towards the lobby when talking about Holsinger’s chance of getting through the Health Committee that Kennedy chairs.
Lobbyists and activists from HRC have already gone public, arguing that Holsinger’s view is outrageous, outdated and based on poor science. When they try to argue based on science, they echo the white coats of the tobacco industry in the ’40s and ’50s.
But the question for the country is whether or not we want to establish another litmus test for eligibility for public service. Joe Solmonese of the HRC was on “Good Morning America,” decrying Holsinger’s writings as “incredibly disturbing.” Awkward, yes. But what is disturbing is that such a qualified man, having once uttered such criticism, is deemed ill-suited and ineligible for service to the country.
Russell Shubin is Deputy Director of National News and Public Affairs for Salem Communications. Contact him at russells@salem.cc.
Originally published June 25, 2007.
