Posted on 07/13/2007 10:02:20 PM PDT by monomaniac
Media jumps to claim he has retracted his position - others suggest that is exaggeration
By Elizabeth O'Brien
WASHINGTON, DC, July 13, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - During the Senate hearing yesterday, Surgeon General nominee Dr. James Holsinger Jr. remained studiously ambiguous on the issue of homosexuality. Meanwhile, the mainstream media has been clamoring that he has positively retracted his former views to now favor homosexuality.
Matt Barber, Policy Director for Cultural Issues of Concerned Women of America (CWA), reported that during the meeting, Massachusetts Senator Edward Kennedy began by slamming Dr. Holsinger for his Christian faith and the paper he wrote in 1991. Barber stated that Holsinger "seemed to try to distance himself from his 1991 paper by saying, 'First of all, the paper does not represent where I am today,' he said. 'It does not represent who I am today.'"
On the question of homosexuality, Barber comments, "Holsinger was definitely slipping and sliding all over the place. He came across as a regular Washington insider. In his 1991 paper he stood firm in his position. In the hearing he completely abandoned that firm stance by giving a bunch of non-answers and playing dodge ball…I was very much hoping he would display courage and stand firm on his prior position."
Nevertheless, Media reports have been milking Holsinger's "non-statements" as indications of his retracted position. Brit Hume, reporting on the Fox News Channel, for example, stated, "Holsinger also told senators in a confirmation hearing that he no longer holds the views about homosexuality that he expressed in a controversial paper in 1991, in which he called it unnatural and unhealthy."
Commenting on recent media coverage of the event, Barber continued, "And yes, his non-answers could be construed as 'disavowing' his previous stance. But I think the MSM, including Fox, have grossly exaggerated his statement. They're reporting what they wanted to hear, not what he actually said."
Barber continued, "I was very disappointed that he so clearly waffled and chose the path of least resistance. I'm left unimpressed."
"My point is that he never said that homosexuality was 'natural' and 'healthy,' which is the way that his non-answers are being portrayed in the media. They're saying that he has affirmatively reversed course. He never said his findings were wrong or inaccurate. He never said that today's medical science disproves his previous stance. He could have said all of those things if he believed them and the left would have loved him for it. His confirmation would have sailed through the Democrat controlled Senate."
Barber also told LifeSiteNews.com, "We're left not knowing whether Dr. Holsinger will put scientific substance over political correctness in dealing with the issue of homosexual behavior." At present, CWA is not taking an official position in either support or opposition to Holsinger as nominee.
Tom McClusky, Vice President of Government Affairs, for the Family Research Council (FRC) also stated that the FRC is not supporting Holsinger as Nominee. When it comes to a controversial issue, stated McClusky, "From his public statements yesterday, he doesn't seem to have a problem quickly backing away from it." He stated that the FRC is "not supportive of him as nominee because we don't know what he stands for."
McClusky also noted that when Holsinger was Chancellor of the University of Kentucky, he testified in the Kentucky Legislature against Dr. David Prentice, Senior Fellow for Life, advocating against a certain bill advocating certain restrictions on cloning. A June 10 article in the Kentucky Courier-Journal reports, "Testifying in 2005, he urged state lawmakers to amend or kill an anti-cloning bill, which he said could restrict future research." FRC has never found a public retraction of this statement.
Focus on the Family told LifeSiteNews.com that they have no official statement or position regarding nominee Holsinger.
See previous LifeSiteNews.com coverage:
Bush's Choice for Surgeon Gen. Said Homosexual Practices "Unnatural and Unhealthy" http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/jun/07060802.html
Surgeon General Nominee Denies that He is Anti-Homosexual before Hearing http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/jul/07071204.html
So, demorats, is there a litmus test?
Conservatives disappointed! And in other news...
Conservatives disappointed! And in other news...
Someone should ask Teddy Kennedy if he’s ever sodomized or been sodomized by another man. If he answers no, or refuses to answer, ask him what his problem is. After all, if homosexuality is natural and normal, why hasn’t Ted tried it? What other natural and normal things has Ted been avoiding?
I could tell this guy was gonna be a “compromiser” after the first article I read about him; it’s bush: he’s gonna dissapoint conservatives; get over it: old news..!
Once homosexuality was out of the closet, it was inevitable that Judeo-Christian morality would have to become closeted.
You can’t even go to a ball game anymore without having perverted sex thrown in your face.
Welcome to the world of Satan and all of his anticts. Stay srong and may Christ be with you!
Sounds like you went to the homo day at the San Diego Padres ballgame which was originally billed for kids.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Fortunately, I wasn’t at that game, but I did see the reports about it on TV. It’s particularly appalling that they scheduled homo night on the same night as a kid’s promotion. But even if they hadn’t, what possible reason could there be for having a homo night in the first place?
Even if homo sex was normal and healthy (which it isn’t), what does sexuality have to do with a baseball game? Can you imagine telling earlier generations that in 2007 we’d be setting aside special nights at baseball parks to celebrate homosexuality? How could anyone possibly give a reasonable explanation for such a thing?
What’s next? Will they set aside a special night for people who enjoy bondage & discipline?
I swear, if someone were to start an organization for people who breed finches, within a week there would be a demand for every fourth meeting of the group to be dedicated to the celebration of homosexuality. Start up a new monthly magazine for people with an interest in restoring antique furniture and someone will insist that at least one issue per year be dedicated to homosexuals and their “pride”.
A society that capitulates to this stuff is as sick as the homos themselves.
Thanks, and may Christ stay strong in you as well. It takes a lot of faith these days to keep from just giving up on our society.
Amen to that.
Since when did homosexualiy become “natural and healthy”?
Beats me. This guy shouldn’t flip flop for the Democraps and their marry band of homosexual activists. He should stay true to Christ and his morals. I would. I sure as heck wouldn’t let Ted Kennedy bash my Christian faith.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.