Opinions
Ron Paul’s heartless stance on health care
Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul apparently learned nothing from the death of his 2008 campaign chairman, a gay man named Kent Snyder.
Snyder, 49, died of pneumonia in 2008. He was uninsured and left about $400,000 in unpaid medical bills to his surviving mother. Paul was criticized at the time for failing to offer his campaign staffers medical insurance. The Blade covered the story extensively back then and interviewed Paul about it. His lame defense was that no campaign offered health insurance, a false claim — Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and John McCain’s campaigns all offered health insurance to staff.
At last week’s Tea Party debate, CNN’s Wolf Blitzer asked Paul what should happen to an uninsured 30-year-old man who needed six months of hospitalization.
“In a society that you accept socialism and welfarism, he expects the government to take care of him … he should assume responsibility for himself,” came Paul’s heartless response.
Blitzer replied, “Are you saying society should just let him die?”
In response, the bloodthirsty, unsympathetic crowd yelled, “Yeah!”
You’d think that the death of a trusted campaign aide — who Paul said was instrumental in helping him decide to run in 2008 — would prompt some soul-searching and deeper thinking about the state of America’s health care system. But obviously that’s not the case for Paul, who happens to be a medical doctor.
The full 2008 Blade story is re-posted below:
Ron Paul supporters mourn death of gay campaign chair
With no health insurance, Snyder leaves $400K in hospital bills
By LOU CHIBBARO JR.
Activists belonging to the libertarian wing of the Republican Party continue to mourn the loss of Kent Snyder, a 49-year-old gay political operative credited with propelling the presidential campaign of U.S. Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) into a national, grassroots movement that raised more than $35 million.
Snyder, who served as Paul’s campaign chair, died of pneumonia on June 26 after being hospitalized for about two months and after running up medical bills exceeding $400,000, according to friends and family members, who said he did not have health insurance.
Gay staffers from the Paul campaign, some speaking on condition that they not be identified, said they learned about Snyder’s unpaid medical bills from a web site created by his friends that calls on Paul supporters to contribute to a special fund to help Snyder’s family pay the bills, which come mostly from a two-month hospitalization. So far, the site (kentsnyder.com) has raised about $32,000.
“I can’t believe he didn’t have health insurance,” said one political activist who read about Snyder’s unpaid medical bills in a story published last month in the Wall Street Journal. “I can’t believe that Ron Paul didn’t give him health insurance,” said the activist, who asked not to be identified.
The Journal story did not identify Snyder as gay; a Washington Post obituary reported Snyder died of viral pneumonia but did not mention his sexual orientation.
Craig Max, a D.C. gay Republican activist who sought to become a Ron Paul delegate to the Republican National Convention, said news of Snyder’s death and his lack of health insurance has triggered a behind-the-scenes debate among Paul supporters and libertarian activists over whether or not the Paul campaign should have provided health insurance to its staff.
Among the points raised, according to Max and others involved in the Paul campaign, is the fact that Paul is a practicing physician. Some of the Paul supporters are asking why a medical doctor, whose campaign raised $35 million in contributions, chose not to offer health insurance for his staff.
When asked at the Capitol in Washington on Wednesday about concerns raised by critics that his presidential campaign did not provide employee health insurance, Paul said only that he doesn’t believe any political campaigns offer health insurance.
“I don’t know of any campaign that has health insurance for temporary and other employees,” he said. “I’ve never had it and I’ve been in this business for 30 years. I don’t know any campaign that does.”
At least three gay Paul supporters said it was well known among Paul campaign insiders that Snyder was gay. Although Snyder shunned the public spotlight, activists and political operatives working on the campaigns of rival GOP presidential candidates, including officials with the McCain campaign, recognized Snyder’s efforts in building a major campaign operation for Paul, Paul’s gay supporters said.
“As far as his being out, I don’t think that he was ever in or anything like that,” said Jesse Benton, who served as communications director for the Paul presidential campaign. “But his romantic life was just not something that was discussed. He was the boss and that was that.”
Benton said Snyder confided in him that he had a chronic blood disorder. He said that Snyder told him the name of the disorder but Benton said he does not remember it.
“To my knowledge, Kent did not have HIV,” Benton said. “He expressed to me a couple of times what his blood disorder was, but I believe [the HIV speculation] to just be a rumor.”
Benton said it was Snyder himself who made the decision not to provide health insurance to the campaign staff.
“Kent Snyder as the chairman of the campaign ran the business operation,” Benton said. “So it was his decision as to what would be offered to employees.”
Benton said Snyder’s decision was not unusual in the realm of political campaigns.
“As a general practice, virtually no political campaigns offer health insurance,” Benton said. “It’s just not done. A campaign is a temporary organization that could disband at any minute.”
But gay Democratic activist and political consultant Steve Elmendorf disputes Benton’s assessment, saying that in recent years, a growing number of campaigns have begun providing health insurance to paid staffers, with the campaigns of Democratic candidates offering medical coverage in greater numbers than Republican candidates.
Jordan Lieberman, publisher of Campaigns and Elections’ Politics Magazine, which is considered an authority on American political campaigns, said that in the recent past, health insurance was almost never offered by campaigns operated by either Republicans or Democrats. Now, Lieberman said, the trend among larger campaigns, especially presidential campaigns, is to offer health insurance benefits.
Spokespersons for the presidential campaigns of Barack Obama and John McCain said both campaigns provide full health insurance coverage to their paid staff. A spokesperson for the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign said Clinton also provided health insurance coverage to campaign staffers before she ended her campaign in early June.
On his own web site, Paul called Snyder’s death a “great loss” to the libertarian movement.
“Kent poured every ounce of his being into our fight for freedom,” Paul said. “He will always hold a place in my heart and in the hearts of my family. We deeply mourn his loss.”
Paul praised Snyder for playing a key role in advancing libertarian causes and noted that Snyder began his association with him in 1987, when he worked on Paul’s first run for president.
“Over the next 20 years, we worked together on countless projects in the name of freedom,” Paul said. “It was Kent, more than anyone else, who urged me to run again for president” in 2008.
Gay libertarian activists have praised Paul for his longstanding views calling for all Americans to be free from government intrusion into their private lives through laws and regulations. Paul voted against a proposed U.S. constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.
But according to a scorecard on the voting records of members of Congress on gay-related issues, Paul voted against the interests of gays on all issues other than the marriage amendment. In the Human Rights Campaign scorecard for the 109th Congress (2005-2006), the latest scorecard that the group has issued, Paul received a score of 38 on a scale from 0 to 100. According to HRC, Paul received a score of 25 for the 108th Congress (2003-2004) and a 0 in the 107th Congress (2000-2002).
Similar to most libertarians, Paul opposed bills like the Employment Non- Discrimination Act, or ENDA, which would ban employment discrimination based on sexual orientation, and a hate crimes bill, which would authorize the federal government to prosecute anti-gay hate crimes, on grounds that such legislation improperly expands government powers.
Liberal blogger Rob Kall, in a July 5 posting on Opednews.com, called Kent Snyder’s death and his unpaid medical bills an ironic twist to Snyder’s libertarian philosophy.
“What a testament to the libertarian creed, which abhors the idea of universal health care,” Kall wrote. “This loyal, passionate man who died too young left his family a debt of $400,000 in medical bills,” he said. “Sadly, the libertarian heart apparently does not include health care.”
Benton and others who knew Snyder said he gave up a lucrative career as a telecommunications industry executive to work for one of Paul’s libertarian organizations before becoming the head of the Paul for president campaign. Benton said Snyder’s friends and associates from the campaign are now especially concerned that Snyder’s unpaid medical bills could adversely impact Snyder’s mother.
“I do know that Kent was an extremely proud man and he was basically financially supporting his mother and allowing her to live in a property he owned,” Benton said. “As someone who respected him very much — he had a lot of people who respected him a lot — we all know that he would turn over in his grave if his mother has to leave that property.
“So it was important for us to do what we could,” Benton said. “And I’m not a wealthy man but I made a small contribution, Dr. Paul has made a personal contribution, and a lot of the campaign staff have given what they could,” he said, referring to the special fund to help pay off Snyder’s medical bills.
Opinions
Pride must be inclusive, intentionally intersectional
Organizers of local UK Pride led anti-Israel, pro-Houthi slogans
There are a lot of conversations in the LGBTI community about Prides becoming “too commercial,” but what about grassroots, leftist radical Prides? Well, the idea of community-organized, grassroots Prides is amazing, but unfortunately, it is very human to make mistakes.
While big LGBTI Prides that are organized with help from businesses are trying to be inclusive, grassroots Prides have sometimes gone too far in their attempts to create an “edgy,” rebellious atmosphere. Some slogans that have been used at “independent” Prides create more problems than they solve, making these events non inclusive and unacceptable for a large part of the LGBTI community.
I believe in intersectionality. I was one of the very few activists in Russia who began writing and speaking about the need for intersectional approaches in the LGBTI community — speaking up for neurodivergent, disabled, non-white, Muslim, and Jewish LGBTI people. In the U.K., I’m part of various groups supporting LGBTI refugees.
And this is why I see that some modern attempts by Western LGBTI activists to be mindful of different forms of oppression have actually excluded people from Pride and divided the LGBTI community. I’ve seen these tendencies across Europe, the U.S., and the U.K.
Personally, I’ve never felt less included at a Pride than I did last weekend at a local U.K. Pride, where the crowd was forced to yell: “Death to the IDF (Israel Defense Forces),” “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,” and “Yemen, Yemen made us proud, turn another ship around.”
The last slogan, about Yemen, didn’t even catch on with the crowd — probably because most people at the Pride had no idea why they should be proud of Yemen. And the truth is, they shouldn’t. The slogan refers to Iran-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen, who have hijacked and fired missiles at dozens of commercial and military ships in the Red Sea, supposedly to “protect” Palestinian rights.
Let me make it clear: I have no problem with the “protecting Palestinian people” part of the story. I believe that there are many war criminals in the current Israeli administration, and the bombing of Gaza refugee camps is unacceptable, no matter what.
But at the same time, I couldn’t understand why we were being asked to support attacks on commercial ships or show solidarity with the Houthi rebels, who, according to Amnesty International, are not only responsible for the deaths of dozens of LGBTI people, but are also extremely authoritarian and prone to sectarian violence.
If we’re speaking from an intersectional perspective, I know how triggering those slogans must have been for many Sunni Muslims (and yes, most Muslims from Gaza are Sunni), as well as for LGBTI refugees from Yemen and Iran who may have lost loved ones to the Houthis or the Iranian regime that support them. And I am sure there were likely some queer Iranians at that Pride.
The chanting about the Israel Defence Forces was also extremely disturbing — not only because there were likely Jewish queers at the Pride, some of whose relatives may even oppose Israeli actions in Gaza and support a two-state solution, but who served in the Israeli army due to conscription laws. But the problem is, I’ve never heard people at a Pride chant in support of Ukrainian people, or Chechens, or Uyghurs, or Yazidis — despite the fact that all of them have survived genocide. I’ve never heard queer people at Pride yelling “death to Russian occupiers,” even when Russian missiles destroyed Ukrainian schools and shelters in Mariupol, bombed Aleppo, persecuted Crimean Tatars, or wiped out entire Chechen villages.
China built concentration camps for Uyghurs, but no one is promoting the death of the Chinese government. Moreover, China, Russia, and Assad’s Syria are more homophobic than Israel. So, what is the reason for yelling “Death to the IDF” but not, for example, calling for the Russian government’s collapse or the end of the Chinese Communist Party? There are only two logical explanations:
• It is either antisemitism or ignorance about other wars except for the one that is going on in Gaza. Both reasons are quite bad.
• It is not intersectionality. It is anti-intersectionality, because it erases every other war survivor who isn’t Palestinian from LGBTI community. It also alienated LGBTI Jewish people because only Jewish State had a “special” hatred for war crimes that atheists and Christian don’t have.
It’s also an attempt to turn the LGBTI movement into an ideological club instead of a group fighting for the rights of a specific marginalized community.
Another triggering thing I saw at this Pride was the glorification of socialism. But not all LGBTI people are socialists, and not all countries that called themselves “socialist” have been LGBTI-friendly.
I couldn’t even imagine what a queer person from North Korea, or a gay man who was imprisoned in the Soviet Union for being gay must have felt when hearing calls for a socialist revolution at Pride. It must have been devastating. Pride should feel like a free, anti-authoritarian space.
Pride also needs to focus on the real problems LGBTI people face. In the U.K., the Supreme Court ruled that only cis women can be considered real women. Thousands of trans kids have lost access to hormone therapy. LGBTI books are being censored in libraries. The government is cutting benefits for disabled people: LGBTI disabled people will be among the first to be harmed, because they face double stigma and more challenges finding employment, even when they are able to work.
But none of this was the main point at Pride. For some reason, we were asked to repeat pro-Palestinian slogans more often than slogans defending trans people or LGBTI people with disabilities.
The organisers were so obsessed with Palestine and socialism that, if I weren’t already involved in LGBTI activism, I might have assumed the LGBTI community has no real problems left — and that now we just campaign about unrelated political issues.
But that would be a false impression.
LGBTI people are under attack in countries around the world — from U.S. to Russia to the U.K. Moreover, far-right ideologies are rising across the West. Yes, it’s important to understand the international context, but now, more than ever, it is equally important to unite against the global rise of fascism and not divide the movement based on economic ideology or international political views.
Opinions
What if doctors could deny you insulin for being gay?
The Supreme Court just made that legal for trans kids
Imagine walking into a pharmacy, prescription in hand, and being told, “Sorry, we don’t give that to people like you.” Now imagine the government says that’s perfectly fine—as long as it’s wrapped in words like “concern” or “safety.”
That’s not a dystopian movie plot. That’s United States v. Skrmetti.
On June 18, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Tennessee’s SB1, a state law that bans gender-affirming care for minors. Puberty blockers. Hormone therapy. All of it. Not because the treatments are dangerous (they’re not), or untested (they’re not), but because the kids receiving them are transgender.
Let’s be clear: this isn’t regulation. It’s targeted denial. And it just got the Supreme Court’s stamp of approval.
Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, said SB1 doesn’t discriminate. He argued the law merely regulates treatment based on “age and purpose.” That’s a little like banning seatbelts—but only for gay people—and claiming it’s about “safety.” Here’s the truth: SB1 bans hormone therapy only when it’s used for gender transition. Those same drugs are still allowed for other conditions. That’s not neutral. That’s surgical discrimination, written into law.
Even Tennessee’s legal team admitted it: the law “only affects those who seek to transition.” That’s not an accidental loophole. That’s the entire point.
Even worse, the Court ducked the bigger question: Do transgender Americans qualify as a “suspect class” under the Constitution—meaning they deserve stronger protections against discrimination?
Historically, groups with a long track record of discrimination, limited political power, and immutable traits (like race or religion) have gotten this status. Trans people check every box. Yet the Court said nothing.
That silence wasn’t a technicality. It was a political decision. A willful refusal to say: “You matter. You count. You’re protected here.”
Let’s drop the pretense. This isn’t about medicine or morality. Gender-affirming care is backed by every major U.S. medical association—from the American Academy of Pediatrics to the AMA. It’s safe. It’s effective. And it saves lives.
But these laws don’t ban puberty blockers across the board. They just ban them for trans kids.
That’s not policy—it’s punishment.
We wouldn’t tolerate a law that banned mammograms for women, or insulin for diabetics, only if they’re queer. But that’s exactly what this is: identity-based medical apartheid.
Supporters claim it’s about protecting children. But you don’t protect kids by denying them care recommended by doctors and supported by science. You do that to control who they’re allowed to become.
Here’s the part that should make us all pause: Most Americans don’t agree with this decision. A recent Pew poll found that 64% of Americans support protections for transgender people. Nearly 60% support access to gender-affirming care. Among young adults, those numbers are even higher.
This isn’t a red state vs. blue state issue. It’s a basic civil rights question in the 21st century. The people are not divided. But our institutions—the courts, the legislatures—are lagging behind. Or worse, being weaponized.
This ruling leaves trans youth legally exposed and politically abandoned. But that doesn’t mean we’re powerless.
Here’s what must happen now:
· State legislatures must pass ironclad non-discrimination laws that protect transgender youth where federal protections now fall short.
· Congress must pass the Equality Act—in full—and enshrine civil rights protections for LGBTQ+ Americans nationwide.
· The media must stop framing this as just another “culture war.” This isn’t about ideology. It’s about constitutional rights—access to care, bodily autonomy, and equal protection under the law.
· And we the people must act. Vote. Call your lawmakers. Tell your stories. Make it clear that civil rights don’t depend on your zip code, political party, or gender identity.
This moment is more than a court ruling. It’s a moral test for a country that claims to believe in liberty and justice for all.
You don’t have to be trans to be alarmed. If the state can deny medical care to one group based on identity, what’s to stop them from doing it to you? Your kid? Your neighbor?
History will remember where we stood. Let it remember this: we stood with trans kids and their parents. Loudly. Unapologetically. And without retreat.
James Bridgeforth, Ph.D., is a national columnist on the intersection of politics, morality, and civil rights. His work regularly appears in The Chicago Defender and The Black Wall Street Times.
The felon in the White House, who has lied his way to victory, has now signed his ‘big disgusting bill’ into law. He has managed to get members of Congress to agree to screw their own constituents, and vote for this abomination of a bill.
Republican members of Congress who have said it will be a disaster in their states. Who have said it will force the closure of rural hospitals, and throw seniors out of nursing homes, in their states, because they will lose their Medicaid. Who have said they oppose the bill because it will add $3.3 trillion to the deficit, which young people will suffer for in years to come. They have said they oppose it because it pretends to help those earning tips and overtime, but close reading of the fine print shows it does practically nothing for them. But because their lips are firmly attached to Trump’s ass, they voted for it anyway. It is the biggest transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich in the country’s history. Now if that doesn’t give decent people the incentive they need to fight, to take back their country, nothing will. And when I say fight, I mean with their votes.
To win, Democrats need to stop the self-immolation. Democrats are doing fine across the nation. Winning many special elections for state legislatures and the judiciary. Even when they don’t win, the margins in solid Republican districts are way down. Democrats will win governorships in New Jersey and Virginia this year. So instead of Democrats constantly talking about how bad the polls are for the party, and trashing each other, they need to focus on what it will take to win back Congress in 2026. The best way to start is to trash Republicans. I am concerned about groups like David Hogg’s PAC, and figures like Sen. Bernie Sanders, supporting candidates against sitting Democrats. Spending money and time on primaries against sitting democrats, even old ones, may not be the way to go this cycle. We need one focus — taking back Congress in 2026. That means laser like focus on which seats are winnable; open seats, and Republican seats, in both the House and Senate. Doing this is the only way we can stop the felon in the White House, and his MAGA sycophants in Congress, from doing more damage in his final two years as president. Time to face reality, that is really all that can be done for now.
If Democrats take back the House, they can stop the budget machinations Trump is trying to get done. If Democrats take the Senate, they can stop the felon from getting any more MAGA judges, or disgusting unqualified executive branch nominees, confirmed. Again, that has to be the singular focus for 2026 for anyone serious about stopping Trump. I, too, want younger members of Congress. I would urge older Democrats, those in safe districts, to voluntarily step aside. But spending millions to primary them, when in most cases history shows they will win anyway, seems counterproductive at this time. Choose the best candidates in primaries for open and Republican seats — those with the best chance of winning in the general election. I have given my support at this time to Zach Wahls, running to unseat Sen. Joni Ernst in Iowa.
Democrats must remember that most of the voters in the nation are moderate and concerned with kitchen table issues. So, while there are districts far left candidates can win, like Mamdani who just won the mayoral primary in New York City, we have seen such candidates lose in most of the country. There are takeaways from Mamdani’s win in New York for every candidate, other than everyone likes things for free. I recommend candidates look at the brilliant way he used social media. That is something Democrats around the country need to learn. People, especially young people, get their news that way these days. Then Democrats must accept the midterm elections are really local elections. They will be about what the local Democratic candidate campaigns on, and the contrast to what the Republican Party is doing for, or in most cases to, the voters in that particular district.
If Democrats do anything nationally it should be to flood the airwaves with the negatives of Trump’s bill. If done right Democrats will win. Then stop trashing Democrats who don’t agree with you on every issue. Again, stop listening to the likes of Bernie Sanders, who tells people if they don’t like everything about a Democrat, they can vote for an independent. History tells us that only helps Republicans.
Understand the most important vote any legislator makes is their first one. It determines who will control the legislature. Who will be Speaker of the House, and Majority Leader in the Senate, and most state legislatures. If the vote is for the Democratic leadership, then Democrats control the agenda, and committees. That is how to make a real difference.
Stop listening to those who claim the Democratic Party is not clear on what it stands for. The Democratic platform has been clear for years. Democrats support equality, unions, working people, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. They support the right of women to control their bodies; support equality for the LGBTQ community. Democrats are for a fair immigration policy; doing everything possible to fight climate change, and protect the environment; bringing down prices for groceries, gas, and rent. If Democrats take back control of committees, in both state legislatures, and Congress, they can once again begin to move forward on all those issues.
So, stop the self-immolation, and attack Republicans. They are the enemy of the people, not a Democrat who you may not agree with on every issue. Try to move forward as a united Democratic Party. If everyone understands and does that, Democrats will win in 2025 and 2026, and will stop the felon in the White House before he totally destroys our country.
Peter Rosenstein is a longtime LGBTQ rights and Democratic Party activist.
‘Superman’ is here to to save us, despite MAGA backlash
Dive in: a guide to LGBTQ-friendly pools in D.C.
Pride must be inclusive, intentionally intersectional
Trump threatens Rosie O’Donnell’s citizenship
Trans Bolivian Senate candidate hopes to make history
Calendar: July 11-17
India’s first transgender healthcare clinic reopens
Rehoboth Pride festival to take place July 19
What if doctors could deny you insulin for being gay?
