Donald Trump

How Much Do We Still Need to Care if a Potential Cabinet Member Is Anti-Gay?

Possible new health secretary not a fan of LGBT rights. Does it matter?


Tom Price
Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call/Newscom

Georgia Republican Rep. Tom Price is being floated as one of President-Elect Donald Trump's likely picks to serve as secretary of Health and Human Services. It shouldn't come as a surprise (at least for people who know who Price is). Price, current head of the House Budget Committee, is a doctor and huge opponent of the Affordable Care Act as it exists.

But Price is more than just somebody who doesn't like Obamacare—he's one of the Republicans responsible for actually putting together a substantive plan for reforms. Peter Suderman analyzed Price's ideas to repeal and replace Obamacare in a 2014 issue of Reason magazine.

Price is also extremely conservative in just about every way—including holding socially conservative views opposing gay marriage and gay rights laws. Price regularly scores a zero on the Human Rights Campaign's scorecard evaluating legislators' votes on LGBT issues. He put out a statement after the Supreme Court mandated government recognition of same-sex marriages as "legislating from the bench" and "a sad day for marriage." He has previously supported a constitutional amendment defining marriage as being between one man and one woman.

So his history of comments on LGBT issues has popped up on gay blogs and sites as a source of concern. But would his positions opposing gay marriage actually mean anything in office? Legal recognition is a settled matter. It seems unlikely he would be able to implement policies that, for example, assist families headed by a heterosexual couple but not gay ones.

There is a quote from 2013 people are noticing that could be instructive. Price is no fan of LGBT folks, but he's also clearly a policy wonk. When asked by an antigay rabbi about whether the legislature should take into account the "health impact and economic impact" of "promoting" homosexuality, abortion, or pornography, he responded:

The consequences of activity that has been seen as outside the norm are real and must be explored completely and in their entirety prior to moving forward with any social legislation that would alter things. I'm always struck by people who wake up one morning and think that they've got a grand new way of doing something when as you all know that the tried and true traditions in history that made us great are preserved and have survived because they are effective. I hear you, medical health and costs; you talk about a huge cost-driver to state pensions and other things, many of these areas would significantly alter state balance sheets.

The quote is kind of fascinating in the sense that homosexuality, abortion, and pornography are hardly "new" and are part of those traditions of history that have survived because some people happen to be gay and lots of people love porn. Liberal elites aren't the only folks who live inside bubbles sometimes.

But as for his concerns about the cost impact to state pensions and balances, I can only assume he's talking about what happens to benefits when states are legally required to recognize same-sex partners as beneficiaries. In that case, let's suggest that if it's too costly to treat couples equally under the law for these benefits, the problem then lies in the benefits themselves, not with equality. Given Price's interest in cost controls and reducing government spending, maybe that's something he should think about.

There will likely be fights between the LGBT and a Price-run HHS in issues raging from whether transgender people can have treatments covered, access to the latest medicines that are showing to be increasingly successful in preventing the spread of HIV, and even the unending debate over how much to teach children about sexuality and/or abstinence.

If anything, these examples show the problem with the government having so much control over what we do with our own bodies and how we do it. If we want government out of our bedrooms, we also need to stop demanding the government get involved in our bedroom-related matters in the first place. If access to important treatments and medicine is dependent on having a friendly face in a top cabinet position, maybe we should be rethinking what that agency is doing entirely.

NEXT: When Art Made by an American Indian Doesn't Count as Being 'American Indian-Made'

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Does it matter?

    Of course, how am I going to fill my daily rage quota otherwise?

    1. If anyone watched those lefty freak-out compilation videos yesterday that Rufus posted you’d know it matters to some high strung individuals out there.

      1. Humans thrive on conflict, and overcoming tough situations. We live in an extremely comfortable time in history, where most natural sources of conflict have been done away with. All this is, is an effort to replace those natural sources of conflict with manufactured ones so your life doesn’t feel so empty.

  2. Aaaaaand the Trumpocolypse begins.

    *yawns, lights a cigarette*

    1. If anything, these examples show the problem with the government having so much control over what we do with our own bodies and how we do it.

      TDS! TDS!

  3. …because some people happen to be gay and lots of people love porn.

    We as a country will be okay as long as there isn’t an overlap in that Venn diagram.

    1. Fist…sorry to be the one to break this to you…

  4. if it’s too costly to treat couples equally under the law for these benefits, the problem then lies in the benefits themselves

    Yeah, that would imply that single people are being robbed to pay the benefits of other people’s spouses. I have a few choice words to describe that situation.

  5. AIDS has been a huge expense. Not because men are gay, but because gay men found a more efficient way to spread disease. So, he has a point.

    Gay marriage is a solution to this. Encourage monogamy and eliminate coverage of domestic partners.

    1. Gay marriage is a solution to this. Encourage monogamy and eliminate coverage of domestic partners.

      Eh, marriage does not equal monogamy.

      1. Well, he did say encourage, not ensure.

      2. I thought marriage meant abstinence?

        1. Q: what’s the one food guaranteed to kill a woman’s sex drive?
          A: wedding cake

        2. +1 bean jar

    2. because gay men found a more efficient way to spread disease

      Thanks for discrediting yourself and saving me the trouble of doing so.

      1. It’s weird to think that the term ‘one true gay Scotsman’ can have more than four things wrong with it.

    3. a more efficient way to spread disease found gay men


      Not counting disease fetishists, gay people don’t have sex for the purpose of spreading disease.

  6. The LGBT activism crowd will HATE him, if only because they desperately, DESPERATELY want to avoid looking at the public health angle. Male on male sex is seriously unhealthy. Of course, so are most other sorts of promiscuity. And debating the public cost of ‘gender reassignment surgery’ is likely to get into actual analysis of the benefits of same, and it doesn’t seem all that clear that there are any.

    I favor Gay Marriage, but if the LGBT crowd thought that that argument was over, they were sadly mistaken. And using the power of the State to beat up on small businesses wasn’t a good tactic for gettng it to settle out.

    1. using the power of the State to beat up on small businesses wasn’t a good tactic for gettng it to settle out.

      It was a totally unforseeable consequence!

      In short what the senior officers of OKCupid were hoping to do was to intimidate the opponents of gay marriage into silence. Rather than being gracious victors who foster peace, they wished to continue fighting. And in doing so, they will only embolden their opponents in the culture war to fight harder.

      Most of the opponents of gay marriage fear the cultural upheaval that would result from such a massive change to an institution that they see as the foundation of society. The way to get them to accept the change is by showing them that the inclusion of homosexual relationships in the set of legally sanctioned unions will not destroy society, that their lives will continue, their communities prosper, and their children will be allowed to grow to realize their potential.

      Attempting to destroy their livelihoods and drive them out of civil society will go against that goal. Persecuting them will only harden their hearts against those who persecute them. OK Cupid did not strike a blow for tolerance. Rather, they flamed the fires of intolerance, and who knows what those flames will consume should those fires burn out of control.

    2. Gay sex isn’t inherently more promiscuous than straight sex, wtf are you on about?

      1. My understanding is that gay men tend to have more partners than straight men; it’s not because gay men are more promiscuous than straight men, but because men tend to be more promiscuous than women. Straight men are limited in their promiscuity by the lack of receptive partners. Gay men who want to be promiscuous have better odds.

        1. ^This. Men don’t slut-shame each other.

          1. … as much

        2. My understanding is that gay men tend to have more partners than straight men; it’s not because gay men are more promiscuous than straight men, but because men tend to be more promiscuous than women.

          Uh… this is the definition of a distinction without a difference. Gay men tend to be more promiscuous because their partners, who tend to be other gay men, are more willing to engage in sex. People can’t be more or less promiscuous than their partners.

          1. I wonder, did you bother reading my next sentence before you typed out your reply?

            1. I read the whole thing. I’m not disagreeing with what you say just pointing out that you’re doing lots of mental backflips to accommodate people’s feelings. You take the long way of saying gay men are more promiscuous because they’re gay and men. Then you go into frivolous distinctions, I assume, to allow some false notion of wiggle room.

              Keeping in mind that the Social Sciences are complete bunk, the labels are completely arbitrary and the numbers don’t exactly tell a story one way or the other, think about it like this; straight men could have more partners/be promiscuous but, and your intellectual accommodations strive to leave this as some manner of mystery, they’re completely content to have (or identify as having) fewer heterosexual partners.

              Assuming atomic/singular sexual encounters; actual numbers say purely heterosexual women can’t be more/less promiscuous than purely heterosexual men in a given population (10 men having sex with 1 in 10 women is still an average of 1 partner for both sides). This is the law of averages. The only way men get more promiscuous is if you include homosexuality or the numbers are otherwise fudged (i.e. there’s an outside population of uncounted women, sex acts without partners counts as promiscuity, m partners in x acts counts as m+f(x) promiscuity points, etc.)

            2. Let me say it like this; gay men are more promiscuous than straight men and, if men are more promiscuous than women, it’s because (assuming the Social Sciences aren’t garbage) gay men are disproportionately so.

      2. It is not just the promiscuity but the specific acts engaged in.

        Yeah sure not all gay hookups result in anal but it is at least 10x as likely to do so as any given straight or lesbian hook up and anal is significantly more likely to spread disease than any other sex act.

      3. He meant to say “luscious.”

        Gay sex is inherently more luscious than straight sex.

        1. What word do you use to describe chitinous female organs that can gnaw the foot off of a man?


          1. Erotic. That’s the word.

          2. What word do you use to describe chitinous female organs that can gnaw the foot off of a man?


    3. Male on male sex is seriously unhealthy.

      Shoe, meet Bubba; Bubba, Shoe. You lads should get on well together.

    4. There is no “public health angle” when the public is not paying for health care.

      1. There is, but the threshold for something becoming a public health issue becomes much harder to reach.

        I don’t think a minarchist state is going to sit idly by while smallpox ravages its population, for example.

        1. I suppose. But it’s rather contradictory to say that a disease is spread almost exclusively through risky behaviors yet also constitutes a threat to the health of the general public in that sense.

    5. “nd using the power of the State to beat up on small businesses wasn’t a good tactic for gettng it to settle out.”

      If those of us who approve of gay marriage make some accommodation for bigots (ok, homophobic asshole, I’ll just go down the street to have my cake made) that hate fags will you stop complaining about this obvious red herring?

        1. And a dumb one to boot.

        2. I’m just wondering if we should tell gay people that they can’t get married because it might hurt feelz of bigots.

          1. Sounds important to you, so you should stop wondering and go tell them. Preferably ‘them’ being a three-hundred pound six-foot-six queen.

      1. He actually has a point here, if you ignore his part about it being a red herring. There are libertarians or at least libertarian leaning conservatives who attack those who supported gay marriage on the grounds that what is going now – the continued assault on freedom of association or expanded carveouts through discrimination laws – was foreseeable.

        The issue there is that I don’t find it particularly believable that those people would soften their position on gay marriage or some other issue even if this wasn’t happening.

    6. Male on male sex is seriously unhealthy. Of course, so are most other sorts of promiscuity.

      Are you saying that male on male sex is itself a form of promiscuity?

      1. You do realize that promiscuity is typified if not outright defined as being non-traditionally monogamous, right?

        Like saying, “Are you saying lesbians have more orgasms over their lifetimes than straight women?” considering group A’s loosely tentative aim/agenda is to give themselves as many orgasms as possible and group B’s loosely tentative aim/agenda is to mate and raise progeny… duh.

        1. Er… *not* traditionally monogamous. That is to say, promiscuity is oriented to the notion that one man and one woman connotes faithful behavior.

  7. They gonna put y’all back in discreet nightclubs!

  8. It doesn’t matter because thanks to Harry Reid every Trump nominee for a cabinet position will pass on a party line vote.

    1. Except for Rand.
      He’s the only one not to vote for Comey.
      Fucking splitter.

    2. So many Iron Laws…

  9. If we were inclined to speak honestly about these things, we would be able to name male homosexuality as a public health hazard just as much as IV drug use, opioid addiction, or for that matter, heterosexual divorce and single parenthood.

    But we’re not supposed to speak honestly about any of these things. And it’s probably just as well, since frankly I don’t want the government involved in any of that shit.

    1. While you’re busy redefining “public health hazard” out of any meaning, you might as well as “automobile driving” and “jaywalking” to that list. Those probably cause more deaths.

      1. Isn’t “distracted driving” already considered a “public health hazard”?

        1. I didn’t say “distracted driving”, I said “driving”. That’s my point. He is ascribing risky behaviors to entire categories of people without merit.

          1. My point is not to contradict yours but only to note that there is no slope too slippery for the state.

      2. I’m not ‘re-defining’ anything, but thanks for proving my point by taking less than fifteen minutes to come out swinging (no pun intended) on behalf of your pet vice, whatever it might be.

        I guess I was wrong. Anal sex with multiple partners is totally healthy, kids growing up without parents is totally not related to “public health” (however one defines it) in any way, and you totally won’t get angrily confronted by some proud gay man/single mom/video games-‘n-porn addict if you publicly suggest otherwise.

        1. What is to be done about “public health” issues, exactly?

          The answer to that question is far more important than the definition of the term.

          1. Agreed.

            Also, all this talk about gay sex and slippery slopes has got me all hot and bothered. I’m gonna head over to inches-dot-com to unwind for a bit.

        2. You’re playing the exact same game as leftists do. Stop it.

          1. I admit to being a bit of a sensitive bitch myself now when it comes to these discussions. I was compared to Confederate slaveowners by my own friends on campus (who knew me to be in an interracial marriage with bi-racial children) for daring to question ‘gay marriage’ back in 2009.

            In other words, I wound up in bitter screaming matches where I endured accusations of hateful bigotry for daring to adhere to the definition of marriage then espoused by Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, and all of Western civilization for a good thousand years.

            That college experience dramatically changed my theretofore-rather-liberal perspective on All Matters Gay. And not necessarily for the better.

            1. …all of Western civilization for a good thousand years.

              You performed the Sacrament of Marriage in a Catholic Church, took the Eucharist, and won’t divorce without permission from the Pope?

      3. Actually, suicide now causes more deaths among middle-school children than do automobiles, according to this site.

        But I’m sure that has nothing to do with divorce, broken homes, drugs and porn. I bet it’s because of increased automobile safety.

        After all, the world has only gotten and can only get better and better, according to the people being paid to run it. Pay no attention to the increasing suicide rates of 10-14 year olds behind the curtain. The great and powerful Oz has spoken.

        1. Yes, but none of those are “public” health issues.

          And neither is suicide for that matter.

          1. In prog-world, anything that makes CO2 – one of the most ubiquitous molecules in the fucking universe and vital to all life as we understand it – is apparently a public health hazard.

            So anything can be a public health hazard if prefaced with a chart and appropriate word-salad.

            Anything except risky personal behavior that is.

            1. Fucking releases all kinds of CO2. Ipso facto, it is now a public health issue since it adds to global warming.

              Jeez, those guys don’t try very hard.

  10. How Much Do We Still Need to Care if a Potential Cabinet Member Is Anti-Gay?

    I do think it would be kinda awesome to have a Trans person as head of the Department of Transportation

    1. I’d prefer a Transformer.

      Devastator, in particular.

      1. What about a female robot that turned into a male dinosaur?

        1. go on…

        2. Have you any idea how it feels to be a Fembot living in a Manbot’s Manputer’s world?

          1. People mock you for your inability do dunk despite your mastery of basketball fundamentals?

            1. OUT ME WAY!

          2. You guys quoting Futurama are beautiful. And I say this in a way that is totally not a public health hazard.

        3. That reminds me of the slave mine on Gargana 7.

        4. a female robot that turned into a male dinosaur

          you just described my last girlfriend after she stopped taking her ‘meds’.

          1. Trannysaurus Rex

            1. Not a pegasaurus?

              1. Tricerontopper.

      2. Devastator, in particular.

        Nobody would follow an uncharismatic bore like you!

        While I prefer Soundwave as a more polished candidate I prefer Devastator’s approach to trimming the fat; Starscream/Devastator 2020.

  11. I hang out with tradesmen/construction workers mostly. So there is a British engineer dude who lets loose that he has to take a few days off after Thanksgiving to get married. Pipefitter Ray doesn’t miss a beat: “Congratulations, what’s his name?”

    What strikes me about his little joke is how guileless it was. It would have been mean 30 years ago, now it’s just a little joke.

    1. I think American working men have always suspected engineers and Brits of having… certain effeminate tendencies.

      1. Judging from the Britishism, engineer as used above is probably more like service technician.

    2. 30 years ago it probably would have ended with one or two broken jaws as well.

  12. The consequences of activity that has been seen as outside the norm are real and must be explored completely and in their entirety

    Let’s see a show of hands: how many think Tom Price is trying his best to cover up th fact that he regularly attempts to completely and entirely explore activities outside the norm at a truckstop men’s room just outside Doraville?

    1. No shit. That is one of the first things that crossed my mind.

      We had a state rep here locally who got caught doing just that. His excuse? “I was helping the man tie his shoes”. Right. On your knees in a bathroom stall. got it.

      1. Come on. What man hasn’t helped another man tie his shoes in a public toilet?

  13. Who could be against being happy?

    1. You don’t have children do you? My kids apparently never want me to be happy again.

      1. I do. Two girls. They’re older. Still stress me sometimes, not nearly as often though. Oldest will be the one that gives me the heart attack I’m sure .

        1. The nice thing about them being grown and out of the house is that I can drink more which definately helps.

    2. Ass paddling nuns?

      1. Go on…

      2. You have a number?

  14. All government officials should need to swear their absolute allegiance to the protected classes, and swear on a copy of Das Kapital that they will steadfastly protect them from the scourge of straight white males.

  15. “Legal recognition is a settled matter.”

    It is?

    1. Please don’t feed the troll.

      1. You’re the Trump buttkisser here, troll, not me.

      2. He’s still holding out for the re-criminalization of Asian-White miscegenation.

        Hope springs eternal!

        1. I’m aghast that we can’t bring up such matters because we’re afraid to offend the liberals’ delicate sensibilities. Half-slant children are 93% more likely to be born retarded than pure blood Europeans. America’s rejection of the proven science of eugenics is tantamount to national suicide.

          1. Its weird to hear Progressive policies spouted by Conservative Republicans, innit?

            1. Not when you realize they are both progressives. Just one thinks all that stuff came from God.

          2. “Pure blooded Europeans”

            I can never keep track of whether racialists count Slavs as white nowadays.

        2. I’d sure like to outlaw whatever produced Vanessa Hudgens. Ewwwww.

          1. Just googled. Kinda has a Mila Kunas thing going on. Yum.

            1. Agreed. Not sure where the ewww is.

              1. Crusty’s level of attraction is inverse to the normal man’s.

        3. Would I have a chance to dissolve my marriage with my wife in order to comply with this new law (and keep at least half my shit)?

          Give me that petition!

        4. What a monster. I’ve had some good times with Wasians…

      3. We could talk about food. Good food can take anyone’s mind off of a troll.

        Sriracha Hot Wings are on my mind (recipes are easy to find).

        My favorite side to go along with them: Potato wedges brushed with a mix of olive oil and sesame chili oil, sprinkle a bit of salt, pepper, and rosemary over and bake.

        1. Meh. Wife was gone for a week. It’s no fun to cook if you don’t have anyone to cook for. I made a huge pot of dirty rice and that’s all I have eaten for nearly a week.

        2. You ever try the Huy Fong Chili Garlic Sauce? Liquid gold. A little more heat than Sriracha. Sometimes I’ll mix them. I have a pretty good shrimp stir fry recipe I like with that sauce..

          1. I’ll have to give it a shot, I do like it hotter than Sriracha. I don’t even really consider Sriracha to be a hot sauce, just a delicious sauce. 😉 About as hot as I’ll go is Mrs. Renfro’s salsa/nacho cheese with (a small amount of) ghost peppers in it. Delicious and very hot at the same time.

  16. It is one thing to be tolerant of homosexuals and persons with personality disorders, such as the transgender people, and quite another thing to advocate government protections and special laws for them. I am just fine with Price! Advocating for homosexuality is a Democrat effort to gain support and votes. Why is this “issue” of importance to Obama? Because he is at least a Bisexual and most likely ninety percent Homosexual. Look at a county-by-county election map and see how the rest of the nation views these Democrat issues. Having earned a living as a psychotherapy doctor for many years and knowing the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders backwards and forward, I know what I am talking about on this issue of homosexuality and “transgenderism.”

    1. You know the DSM inside and out, but don’t know that personality disorders are on axis II and have nothing to do with various body dismorphias that are found on axis I? Beyond all of the other bullshit you have in that rambling excuse for a comment, you’ve objectively contradicted yourself in the span of a single paragraph. If you’re going to troll, at least put some effort into it.

      1. In his defense, the DSM can’t be used to diagnose a mass murderer at virtually any time before he/she is to commit a mass murder and has generally been about as effective as the food pyramid. So, not knowing it at all and knowing it inside and out and then functionally discarding it could easily be mistaken for one another.

    2. Because [Obama] is at least a Bisexual and most likely ninety percent Homosexual.


      1. I know. It’s Block Insane Yomomma, you shill.

    3. Because he is at least a Bisexual and most likely ninety percent Homosexual.

      What the fuck new people, this is HnR, you can’t just hurl an idiot grenade like that in here.

      1. The Guardian has sent The Best People our way.

        1. My god, I just saw that article. Damn you The Guardian!

          I want all new liberal media refugees vetted before we let them in, I nominate STEVE SMITH for the job.

  17. Does this guy enjoy firing people? That’s the quality I’m looking for in all these Department and Agency heads.

  18. It’s really too bad that, while not all SoCons are limited-government types, if you’re looking for a Republican limited government type you’ll generally find a SoCon.

    The “liberaltarian” snipe hunt may sometimes produce a Gary Johnson, with a history of caring about spending – though with serious blind spots with regard to entire constitutional amendments (1st, 9th and 10th).

    But even Johnson is a best-case scenario – most of the putative “liberaltarians” are Bill Weld types – reliably progressive, not so reliable when it comes to liberty.

    In contrast, if you imagine a bunch of liberty-minded elected officials (as opposed to Reason staffers or whoever), and you reach into the group at random, the chances you’ll pull out a prolife, pro-true-marriage SoCon are extremely high.

    A movement which excommunicates people like Tom Price while embracing the Welds of the world…we’ve seen the results.

    1. It’s really too bad *for you guys*

      1. Two questions, Eddo: Did you read the article, and can you please name a SoCon who actually wants to reduce spending? I’m sure they exist somewhere, but they are not plentiful.

        1. Ron Paul / Rand Paul / Massie / Darrell Castle / maybe even this Price fellow

        2. Every “libertarian-leaner” in Congress is a SoCon, every single one.

      2. The self described non-libertarian SURELY has no ulterior motive in holding up SoCons as a gold standard.

        1. If I was into ulterior motives I would have pretended to be a libertarian, the better to deceive you.

    2. What does “liberaltarian” even mean? Libertarians are more accurately described as liberal in the classical sense of the word, so every libertarian should be liberal.

      1. “What does ‘liberaltarian’ even mean?”

        Let’s look at the article which supposedly launched the idea. It was published in 2006 and it was by Brink Lindsey at Cato:

        “Can a new, progressive fusionism break out of the current rut? Liberals and libertarians already share considerable common ground, if they could just see past their differences to recognize it. Both generally support a more open immigration policy. Both reject the religious right’s homophobia and blastocystophilia. Both are open to rethinking the country’s draconian drug policies. Both seek to protect the United States from terrorism without gratuitous encroachments on civil liberties or extensions of executive power. And underlying all these policy positions is a shared philosophical commitment to individual autonomy as a core political value….

        “If such an exploration could be launched, liberal and libertarian thinkers would begin talking with one another and engaging one another regularly. Over time, they would come to see themselves as joined in a common endeavor. And, in the shared identity that would emerge, there would be plenty of room for continuing disagreements, even sharp ones, just as there is in any robust political movement.”

  19. Bringing up politics usually brings out the stupid, but nothing more so than bringing up culture war issues like homosexuality.

    Good grief.

  20. Man, he keeps picking the worst people. Seriously.

    1. Do you know who else kept picking the worst people?

        1. Whatever happened to her? Or Episiarch for that matter?

          1. Nicole either got fed up with the place, or collapsed into a worst singularity from which no snark can escape.

            Epi is either trapped in Warty’s basement, or was working on something political that precluded him posting here.

      1. Winston’s mom?

  21. Boys continue to cry “Wolf!”

  22. “There will likely be fights between the LGBT and a Price-run HHS in issues raging from…the latest medicines that are showing to be increasingly successful in preventing the spread of HIV”

    I’m genuinely curious…is there any evidence that Price wants to limit the right of gay people to try new medicines? It’s a serious accusation which, if true, might actually make him anti-gay, as opposed to just opposed to the government promoting alternative sexualities.

    From what it’s worth, I found this article from back in May:

    “Price also advocated streamlining the Food and Drug Administration’s approval processes for new antibiotics and medical devices, and giving scientists more discretion in how federal research dollars are allocated.”

    He was also quoted as saying he wants the government to get out of the way of innovation (albeit in the context of speeding up federal grant awards).

    Why can’t someone at Reason ask him about this instead of assuming what he’s going to do about drug approvals?

    1. Had the same thought. Same issue with the headline. Opposition to one aspect of the gay agenda doesn’t inherently make someone anti-gay. Not all Socons are cartoonishly bigoted individuals who want gays to die or who blame them for hurricanes.

    2. Because Shackford is more interested in identity politics (Homosexual chapter) pearl clutching than in the actual policies someone like Price advocates. It is a disservice to Price to assume he is going to take the position on an issue opposite to what gays might be interested in just to spite them. It is monstrous to assume that because someone rejects your high profile dogma that tgey are,always an enemy.

  23. Dr. Price isn’t actually Dr. Mengele . He’s pretty middle-of-the-road politically as far as Georgia Physician/U.S. Congressmen go.

    Price didn’t support Trump and is/was a professor of orthopedic surgery at Emory

    If tapped for the HHS ig I hope his congressional replacement is much more “conservative”.

  24. If anything, these examples show the problem with the government having so much control over what we do with our own bodies and how we do it.


  25. I think it’s an unfair reading of the quote to say that he is claiming that homosexuality, porn, and abortion are “new”.

    What he’s saying is that many proponents of those things are the ones claiming that they are new and novel, when, in reality, they’ve been around a long time and society has tried to accomodate them and found them lacking compared to more traditional mores. This is a position I happen to personally agree with, that “progressive” isn’t always synonymous with “better”, and we have a lot to learn from those people who are inclined to more conservative and reactionary politics.

    However, I think the more overarching conclusion – that there is something wrong philosophically with a government position of power that depends so much on the personal opinion of the person wielding the power – is the more important one.

    (Also, I’ve been positing here for at least 10 years, so don’t accuse me of being a newb. There seems to be a lot of that going around.)

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.