Surgeon General Nominee Grilled on Church Court Rulings

c. 2007 Religion News Service WASHINGTON _ Senators grilled President Bush’s nominee for surgeon general Thursday (July 12) about his apparent religious objections to homosexuality, based in part on rulings he issued as a judge on the United Methodist Church’s highest court. For the first time, Dr. James W. Holsinger publicly responded to concerns raised […]

c. 2007 Religion News Service

WASHINGTON _ Senators grilled President Bush’s nominee for surgeon general Thursday (July 12) about his apparent religious objections to homosexuality, based in part on rulings he issued as a judge on the United Methodist Church’s highest court.

For the first time, Dr. James W. Holsinger publicly responded to concerns raised by gay rights groups that he would discriminate against gays and lesbians, saying his beliefs would not impact “the health care of anyone, regardless of their personal characteristics.”


Echoing the American Medical Association’s non-discriminatory policies, Holsinger told the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee that “for physicians, it makes no difference what a person’s personal characteristics are, we want to take care of them.”

Committee chairman Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., and others referenced a controversial 1991 report, “Pathophysiology of Male Homosexuality,” written by the United Methodist Church’s Committee to Study Homosexuality.

In it, Holsinger described physical injury and even death that can result from what he called “anal eroticism.” After submitting the report to the church committee, Holsinger resigned, convinced the group’s ultimate verdict “would follow liberal lines,” according to a Time magazine article that year.

Kennedy said the “ideological” report “cherry picks and misuses data to support his thesis that homosexuality is unhealthy and unnatural.”

Gay rights groups, including the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD), said they were pleased that Holsinger’s nomination was drawing attention to the paper, saying some experts debunked the claims from the start.

“You’d have to go back to the 1960s and earlier to find mainstream researchers who could, based on scientific consensus at the time, propose such inaccurate claims about gay people,” said Dr. Jack Drescher, a member of the American Psychiatric Association and former chair of the APA’s Committee on Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual issues.

At the hearing, Holsinger explained the paper’s context and countered claims that he espoused shoddy science. He described the report as a “literature review,” explaining that certain scientific journals were not referenced because “much of that information had already been presented” by others on the committee.


“I’m concerned that people take that as an example of my scientific work,” he said, noting that it was intended only to be distributed among members of that Methodist committee.

While he did not state his personal convictions about homosexuality, he denied that the 1991 report reflected his current understanding of science.

“I don’t even think the same questions are generally being asked today as they were 20 years ago” when the paper’s sources were written, he said.

While Holsinger’s professional career is marked by work as a cardiologist, as well as terms in the Army Reserve, the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Kentucky state cabinet, opponents have questioned his religious involvement.

Holsinger currently presides over the United Methodist Judicial Council, which has handed down two recent rulings that defrocked a lesbian minister and said a pastor could ban an openly gay man from church membership.

He was also a founder of Hope Springs Community United Methodist Church in Kentucky, which offers a “Men’s Sexual Integrity” ministry that gay rights advocates said aimed to change the sexual orientation of gays. Hope Springs’ pastor denied the claim.


Conservative groups have said Holsinger’s church activities should be off-limits in the confirmation process.

“Opposition to any nominee based exclusively on church activities and traditional Christian beliefs sets a dangerous new precedent,” said Mark Tooley, director of United Methodist Action at the Institute on Religion and Democracy, a Washington think tank.

(OPTIONAL TRIM FOLLOWS)

Concerned Women for America called it “inappropriate and unconstitutional to subject Dr. Holsinger to a religious litmus test,” saying his nomination has become “unfairly politicized.“

“Essentially what these radical special interest groups and like-minded senators are saying is that Christians need not apply for public service,” said Matt Barber, CWA’s Policy Director for Cultural Issues. “This is both hateful and discriminatory.“

KRE/LF END RINDELS

Donate to Support Independent Journalism!

Donate Now!