President Bush has nominated Eric Keroack to a post in the department of health and human services. The post oversees a $283 million budget that doles out grants and is in charge of birth control information and it's distribution. The problem? Mr. Keroack previously worked with A Woman's Concern, which is a christian health organization that does not believe in handing out birth control information. They also view birth control as "demeaning" to women. This and other key nuggets of information can be found in an excellent Washington Post article.

Questions for debate:

1.)Is Keroack qualified to lead in the position that he was nominated for?

2.)Will Keroack faithfully carry out his appointment for a job that he obviously does not believe in?

3.)How is birth control demeaning to women? Is hiding information from women and young women detrimental to their health? Why or why not?

1.)Is Keroack qualified to lead in the position that he was nominated for?

I guess he is an MD- that is one tick for "qualified"- HOWEVER- he is against- contraception? That is just freaky and wierd today. Who in thier right mind is against contraception? - Okay- I understand the abortion debate- but against contraception in an organization that promotes contraception? ya, I think that would be the definition of the "poison pill" I think? - so though technically QUALIFIED- he would be, almost immediately, be philosophically unsuited for the position. Since this position is basically a policy making CEO type position- he would be TOTALLY inappropriate for this job- since he would be biased against birth control from the outside.

2.)Will Keroack faithfully carry out his appointment for a job that he obviously does not believe in?

NO- no way, no how. His every move will be behind the scenes attempt to restrict birth control. He has been an advocate of an extremist organization that is AGAINST BIRTH CONTROL. That is just freaky, I am sorry- but, like I said- I can understand the abortion issue, as a debate- but there should be NO debate over birth control. That is an extremist position.

3.)How is birth control demeaning to women? Is hiding information from women and young women detrimental to their health? Why or why not?

If you believe birth control is demeaning to women, you are a nutcase- end of story. There has been no more liberating and an actual invention of freedom for women than birth control- to say otherwise is just, well, straight up lying. Prior to birth control, women had no choice to speak of when she was going to have children, outside of not having sex- a real bummer for married poeple and all- not to mention the fact, until very recent history child birth was the most dangerous thing a woman could engage in- look at the turn of the 20th century- in 1900, there were nearly the same percentage of single parent familes at one point- all led by men though- because thier wives died in childbirth.

I think it is crazy, downright evil, to hide birth control information from anyone man, woman or in between, ESPECIALLY when the man is a Dr, and ob-gyn? I mean, how does the man even do his job ethically? How in the world could giving women information about birth control be harmful to them?

1.)Is Keroack qualified to lead in the position that he was nominated for?
Anyone who is an advocate for, or support women's access to reproductive health and planning will see this appointment as an offense. Yet anyone who believes that access to sexual education, family planning and the encouragement of safe sex in our society is a detriment to our society will likely rejoice in this nomination. So what was Bush's intention to please or anger? And what direction does Bush wish to lead this program? I think it is quite obvious that Keroack is the perfect man to lead the agenda Bush supports in regards to reproduction rights.

3.)How is birth control demeaning to women? Is hiding information from women and young women detrimental to their health? Why or why not?
Oh the article only gave us a tiny glimpse into the logic this man and his organization advocate and preach.
Here is a presentation he made that is now making the rounds on teh internets :
pre-marital sex is really modern germ warfare,

1.)Is Keroack qualified to lead in the position that he was nominated for?

Just a note of clarification. Senate confirmation is not required in this instance. So, Keroack has been appointed not nominated.

This might be a a good place for Congress to hold an investigation, since Keroack is so clearly out of touch with what people want and, in fact, practice.

OH boy- thanks bucket- man, this guy is a total whack-job, no other way to put it. He makes the taliban seem moderate by comparison. Seems like GW got the message alright- from the religious right that said "you abandoned us"- he went with the most extreme version of anti-women religion that exists in America today.

Ok, heres the situation the way I see it- in accordance with Republican social views:
1.We will not have sex education in schools. Teen pregnancy is due to children learning in school what makes them pregnant.
2. We will try to thwart access to birth control, whether teen, single OR Married, raped- condom broke-made a mistake ( the morning after pill) or already have 5 kids, sorry, have that baby! and Abstinence people!
3. Abortion is an abomination against life itself.
5. We will consider you 'marginal' and a problem to society if you have a baby out of wedlock. Welfare recipient, a loser, you will not have help from this society!
4. You can have sex with young male pages with 'heads in the sand' consent as long as you dont get caught! If so we will oust you like the plague.

Where exactly does the Republican party give an 'out' for anyone concerning the issue of birthing babies? We are jammed into a corner with this bullcrap.
Are they really so inhuman and STUPID to think abstinance is the only AND ABSOLUTE solution to all human conception issues? Even amongst married people?

This is not the first time the Bush admin has appointed a total jerk off to womens issues but this guy is a true nutcase.

He teaches that there is a physiological cause [pdf link] for relationship failure and sexual promiscuity -- a hormonal cause-and-effect that can only be short-circuited by sexual abstinence until marriage.


Of course, this is 'women' not necessarily 'men', although he does use 'people' at the end.


He also prescribes the use of ultrasound devices in order to persuade women not to have abortions:


He is extreme Christian Right, anti-female rights to control their own destiny and bodies.
Please, Rebublicans of this board, explain to me WHY we have to continue to go through this sort of abuse and lack of freedom?
Supposedly because Republicans vote with their wallet? And government out of our business?
What a joke! Men on this board wonder WHY my posts are angry?! Live this!
Have the Rebublicans been so responsible with your wallet lately? Because theyve been great at controlling our lives, which they seem to think themselves privy to.

Its time people stopped voting with their wallet and started refusing government INTRUSION in our private lives.
These nutcases need to be stopped in their tracks.

Birth control has been available for a hundred years, even longer if you consider tribal herbs, its a NEED. It keeps abortion and infant murder rates down, teen pregnancy and out of wedlock births DOWN, and for those who think about your wallet, welfare down too.
This is your concern as well as a female concern.

Artemise, no offense, but your anger is not appreciated by at least one female member on this board. You will catch more flies with honey than vinegar.

Is Keroack qualified to lead in the position that he was nominated for?
No. I believe a woman should be appointed to such a position. It's like appointing a deaf man as a sound checker, or a blind man as a bus driver.

How is birth control demeaning to women? Is hiding information from women and young women detrimental to their health? Why or why not?

Of course it is detrimental. Young women, with or without sex education will have biological urges. If they don't know the ramifications and causes and effects they will be at risk for disease, pregnancy and everything else that comes with unprotected sexual behavior. To not allow women the right to sexual education and accompanying information is what demeans them.

1.)Is Keroack qualified to lead in the position that he was nominated for?

Let's make a distinction between "qualified" and "a good choice." I suppose any physician with a great deal of experience in reproductive health is, technically, qualified. I don't think that anybody claims that Dr. Keroack is anything less than a competent physician. However, as most seem to agree, he is a terrible choice for this job.

2.)Will Keroack faithfully carry out his appointment for a job that he obviously does not believe in?

That's asking me to predict how a human being will act in the future, which is a dangerous game. Maybe Dr. Keroack will say to himself "I don't believe in birth control, but I'll do my best to do my assigned task."



(Bold added for emphasis)

Will you excuse me for being cynical enough to think that it is likely that Dr. Keroack will attempt to sabotage his own job? That he will decide that the "information" he should provide is the "abstinence only" message, which has been frequently shown to be ineffective?


3.)How is birth control demeaning to women? Is hiding information from women and young women detrimental to their health? Why or why not?

Safe, effective, and affordable contraception is absolutely necessary to a society in which women (and men, for that matter) can be fully realized human beings. I understand that certain persons have an ethical objection to birth control, usually religious in nature. All I can say is that I disagree strongly with such an opinion, and I see no reason why it should be part of official government policy.

Providing people with accurate information is always a good idea. Yes, I would also include information on the advantages of responsible sexual behavior. Yes, I would also include information about the risks of contraception. However, whenever people have been provided with access to birth control, the majority have chosen to make use of it. A random example:

Link



So what possible justification can there be for appointing Dr. Keroack to this position? Let me start with an article by well-known social conservative Cal Thomas which I happened to read.

Link



Understand what Thomas is saying here. He blames the recent loss of the Republican hegemony to the fact that only 88% of conservative Christians voted for the GOP. You or I might be delighted if we had the support of 88% of any group, but Thomas seems to think that such a "low" level of support spells disaster for the GOP. Thomas, and other members of the Religious Right, strongly believe that they were responsible for the success of the Republican Party in recent decades. I won't argue about whether he is correct or not. However, it seems likely that somebody in the current administration feels that they need to rally religious conservatives back to the GOP.

1.)Is Keroack qualified to lead in the position that he was nominated for?

Qualified, probably. Desirable, not at all. This is obviously a bone George Dubya is throwing the evangelicals who, God knows, never have had or carried out sexual urges unless someone told them about condoms in school!

2.)Will Keroack faithfully carry out his appointment for a job that he obviously does not believe in?

Since when did George W. Bush care about how effective his appointees (or nominees) are in a particular position? Case in point: Harriet Miers. All he cares about is that they spout the party line, i.e., George's line.

I figure Keroack will make some waves in the department and cause a few firings, and then after sustained criticism from Congressional Democrats, he will be encouraged to "spend more time with" his wife and family. That's usually how it goes. Alternatively, he can show some non-partisan, good judgment and realize that the majority of people in this country do not give a rat's behind about what the Pope, James Dobson, or Jerry Falwell think about their sexual lives; in which case he will allow his subordinates to do their jobs.

Perhaps we should be glad he is not in charge of condom distribution. I've heard of some anti-contraception zealots putting pin holes in them before selling them to some poor sap.

In the meantime, woe be unto those young folks who figure they're going to have sex anyway and so they should wear some kind of protection and use contraceptives.

While abstinence until marriage is admirable, I guess these guys don't figure that biological urges trump good intentions. After all, none of our preceding generations succumbed to such base, carnal urges...

3.)How is birth control demeaning to women? Is hiding information from women and young women detrimental to their health? Why or why not?

How is it dignifying to a young woman to be impregnated out of wedlock, only to have the guy skip out or infect her with the "gift that keeps on giving"?

There will be some females who have sex with many different partners. This is not to say that all women who use contraceptives exhibit the same behavior. But when it only takes one instance of heterosexual coitus in order for a woman to become pregnant or for her and/or her partner to get a sexually-transmitted disease, the notion that birth control is demeaning to women is clearly ludricrous.

I guess I'll be a lonely voice here.

How is birth control demeaning to women? Is hiding information from women and young women detrimental to their health? Why or why not?

Can anyone here provide some evidence that Keroack or the association A Woman's Concern has stated that birth control is demeaning to women...like a direct quote, taken in context, perhaps? I haven't found such a statement at their site, yet I've found about 100 hits from prochoice and feminist sites that repeat this and maintain that their site "says so". No, AWC doesn't offer birth control services, but that isn't its function. I would really like to see this, and until I do I will assume that this is unsubstantiated heresay and rumor.

Obviously birth control is not demeaning to women. I just strongly suspect that this is farcical. And no, the abstinance link did not persuade me. This was, afterall, a presentation done at the Absintence council...unless you believe that any doctor who advocates abstinence in any way is unqualified, and I disagree. As a prochoice person, of course I would like to see someone who agrees with me in this position, but that doesn't mean that Keroack is a horrible candidate.

I'll go further and say that I don't really disagree with the oxytocin link either. The cartoons were a little nutty, but in fact we should be teaching adolescents that 80 percent of the sexually active population has a strain of STD that can cause cervical cancer. It is also a fact that oxytocin levels contribute to strong emotional attachments, and they are different in women and men.



The above is essentially the doctor's point in his presentation. Where did I find that quote? It's a female psychologist's answer to a woman's sex question in a soft core pornographic magazine (I had to wait for my husband to go to sleep ). Somehow I doubt that this answer was met with hate mail expressing the same outrage. Do I think abstinence only education is the answer? Absolutely not, but I do think that every teenager should be aware of the facts and leaving out pertinent facts like the above with the simple "you'll figure it out and obviously you will have sex, so here is a condom" is every bit as demeaning to both men and women as abstinence only education. Did anyone learn the above in sex ed class? I certainly didn't, and I have to assume by the outrage at this power point presentation that no one else did either.

There is a middle ground here. Frankly, I don't think we generally advocate abstinence enough. Teens SHOULD take sex very very seriously. It can cause cancer (for women), it can give you an STD, it can make you pregnant. It can alter lives fundamentally on a psychological level, and boys and girls generally approach sex very differently. And the consequences are different as well. Pretending that it isn't so doesn't make the problems go away. We have another current thread on rape that demonstrates this phenomenon aptly.

Have fun reading
Make sure to check out the contraception policy PDF

I am not surprised that the main site does not share any of these views or missions because these types of facilities, that our tax dollars support!, are known for their deceptive behavior for luring young women in.

Report: Women misled on abortion risks

Our tax dollars at work funding antiabortion bunk


EDITED TO ADD :

The quote that this group finds contraception demeaning to women can be found in the contraception policy PDF file second page first paragraph:
A Woman’s Concern is persuaded that the crass commercialization and distribution of birth control is demeaning to women, degrading of human sexuality, and adverse to human health and happiness.

ALSO EDITED TO ADD:

Here is what I found doing a super quick google search about funding ...my free time is over
Massachusetts recently awarded a contract to manage the state’s middle school abstinence-only program to Healthy Futures, developed by A Woman’s Concern, a Heartbeat affiliate in Boston that also receives just under a half a million dollars annually in federal abstinence-only funding.
link

I actually had to delete what I just wrote because I hadn't read the PDF file. I'll have to agree they are a little "out there" at this point.

Doomed Planet
Ok Ill bite.



Well, lets start with the fly catching. I don't believe it, not about flies of course but about power, specifically people in power. Do you have examples of 'honey' catching womens, or anybodies rights in the last 200 years?
The only honey I know that ever worked was "honey, Im going proactive working for my rights!"
Ive been working on women's and discrimination issues in various ways for more than 25 years and its still a constant battle. This guy, and this issue of freedom to control ones life and especially our personal reproduction rights is a BIG deal, enough not to be just angry, but outraged. Im sick of the continuous, constant idiocy that prevails around the lack of womens rights as free and equal human beings and Im just getting too old to be pussyfooting around about it. This is not vinegar, its an acid test.

As far as the rest, I'm a bit tired of you dogging my posts to find fault with me personally instead of dealing with the topic at hand. Did you disagree with all that I wrote, or just my attitude?. Did you agree with any of it? Because I spent time pointing out WHY this guy should be a concern and why I think Republicans give no way out to women and girls with their 'social conservativism'. The last post you dogged me on was saying I hated my own race, which made me wonder if you agreed with Leder and Lordhelmet, or not, your position was not qualified, just that you have a problem with me.

Would you like to start answering my points, or just keep stalking me to take acception with my demeanor?

Why should I care whether you appreciate my attitude, emotions or not?
Ive lived a life through the 60's nd 70's, with the Anita Bryant's, the Feminist Movement, the non ratifiction of the ERA, the Baptists, Ronald Reagan and family values, the Christian Coalition, the Pro-lifer's, very closely I might add. With women who think we should not rock the boat and men who think we should wait another hundred years to be free. Why would your lack of appreciation affect me in the least? Do you have a good resume for that qualification?

The only reason women have ANY rights at all today are because of women like myself, and those much better and more courageous than myself. The only reason for the vote, for equality in the work place, for the little reproductive rights so grudgingly granted and constantly trying to be abridged. Not because of the weak of heart, the anti-feminists, the silent and patient, waiting for a better day, observers, but those willing to stick their neck out; some angry, some logical, some demure, all willing to take a chance , and the take on the insults, challenges and backlash that come with taking a position.

I have many reading and film recomendations for you to get informed:
A room of ones own by Virginia Woolf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Cady_Stanton
Film: Iron Jawed Angels HBO http://www.hbo.com/films/ironjawedangels/h.../1903-1923.html
http://www.un.org/womenwatch/
http://partners.awomansconcern.org/images/...trol_policy.pdf
http://www.alternet.org/rights/21696/ Scroll down to Key player in attack on birth control
Film: V-day Until the violence stops
Im the one that I want, Magaret Cho , hysterically funny, for the lighter side.

Which hardly adresses what is going on in the World:
http://www.jacksonholestartrib.com/article...22c000954f7.txt Afghan women commit suicide by fire. Nov 20, 2006
http://globalpolitician.com/articledes.asp...cid=2&sid=4 Stoning on the rise in Iran
http://www.whrnet.org/ Indian dowry murder, Iraq murders, Africa.
Films: Water by Deepa Mheta
Blossoms of Fire
Sophie Scholl: Final Days
Gods Sandbox

I could go on for a decade. Perhaps YOU should know what I know, or walk in my shoes to pass judgement on my emotions. But as I see it, I have less time now than I did before to be complacent or be 'catching flies with honey', Honey.

But please, feel free to debate the CONTEXT of my posts.

Update on this story:
Apparently the good doctor is not even a certified doctor...
Pearson also acknowledged yesterday that Keroack is not currently certified as an obstetrician-gynecologist. That is not a requirement for the job, but HHS officials had cited Keroack's expertise in defending his selection.

Keroack was certified by the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology in 1995, but that credential expired after 10 years.
link
Also in the article I linked to above it says Democrats are asking for his appointment to be withdrawn:

They said that Keroack is a poor choice to lead HHS's Office of Population Affairs, which funds birth control, pregnancy tests, counseling and screenings for sexually transmitted disease and HIV. Fourteen Democratic senators sent a letter yesterday urging HHS Secretary Mike Leavitt to withdraw Keroack's appointment. Seven House Democrats issued a similar call Monday. The job does not require Senate confirmation.

"Unfortunately, this appointment is another example of the administration allowing ideology to trump science, and it could jeopardize vital services on which large numbers of women and families depend," the letter said. Signers included incoming Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) and Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), who will be chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee.

It was stated on the website of A Woman's Concern:


As found in the New York Times.

Actually it wasn't stated on their main website (the link provided in your opening post). Bucket did provide a link, which I acknowledged above. The New York Times stating that that it "is there" doesn't make it so, unless it can actually be found at that source. Until Bucket's link all I had to go by was heresay evidence (like yours here).

Okay, I found where the statement is. Christopher Hill is a reporter who wrote the Keroac article for the Washington Post and he e-mailed me after I sent him a request for where on the site it is. If you go here and then click on the PDF document titled "contraception policy," you will find it verbatim. It is on page 2 of 5 which can be found here: here.

Mystery solved.

1.)Is Keroack qualified to lead in the position that he was nominated for?

2.)Will Keroack faithfully carry out his appointment for a job that he obviously does not believe in?

He seems to have the professional qualifications, and that doesn't appear to be contested. What is being contested is whether he's the right guy for the job, given his views. Before I get into that, though, I think there's a little bit of a misconception that should be cleared up as to what exactly his job is. The Washington Post article accurately quotes the HHS website as saying that the program which Keroack will be overseeing - the Office of Family Planning - is "designed to provide access to contraceptive supplies and information to all who want and need them with priority given to low-income persons." However, this description by the HHS site does not appear to be an accurate reflection of the law to which it refers: Title X of the Public Health Service Act.

According to CDC.gov, Title X of the PHSA was created by the Family Planning Services and Population Research Act of 1970 - which, according to the website of the Illinois General Assembly, is found in the U.S. Code under 42 USC 300(a)-300(a)(6)(a). Those numbers direct us here. This is a link to Chapter 42 of the U.S. Code. Sections 300(a)-300(a)(6)(a) therefore contain the entirety of what's referred to as Title X of the Public Health Service Act. As you can see from looking over these sections, only Section 300(a)(2) mentions anything at all about contraception, and that only authorizes grants for research into contraceptive development.

My point is, despite what's being stated on the HHS website, nothing in the actual legislation authorizing this program requires that the persons administering it provide funding for contraception, or provide for the counseling of women to use contraception. Now one can argue that his views still make him the wrong guy for the job, but it would be inaccurate to say that his views are facially inconsistent with his mandate.

As for his suitability for the job, this CNN article quotes HHS assistant secretary for health, Dr. John Agwunobi, as saying that Keroack "has been nationally recognized for his work on preventing teen pregnancy." The references at the bottom of this Wikipedia article on him contain plenty of criticisms of him, but nothing to contradict Dr. Agwunobi's praise of his work on preventing teen pregnancy.

3.)How is birth control demeaning to women?

The argument is that the sexual revolution unleashed by easily available birth control has led to the treatment of women as sex objects by men. I'm not a woman, nor have I worked closely with them professionally the way Dr. Keroack has, so I can't say definitively how women are supposed to feel about this, but it's not an argument I reject out-of-hand.

Is hiding information from women and young women detrimental to their health?

I'd say so, though I'd caution that this question seems to imply that Keroack advocates hiding information from them. In fact, AWC's policy on contraception (PDF file, see page 4, item #2) (thanks to bucket and nebraska29 for the link) is that while staff members are not to promote birth control, they "do have educational materials on birth control itself" to provide to clients.

1.)Is Keroack qualified to lead in the position that he was nominated for?

I would say no. I think he was elected because he has relevant experience but more to the point he is also experienced in say an ideology this administration would like to have expressed by means of government.

2.)Will Keroack faithfully carry out his appointment for a job that he obviously does not believe in?

He will do his job, it may not be what the position is for, but now that he has it he will do some kind of a job until another is put in his place.

3.)How is birth control demeaning to women

Well, I am not a women, so I cant speak for them. Personally I don’t see how it is, being its optional, or freedom of choice to use it, so it would be one of those issues where honestly is won via intelligence on the subject. I mean sexual reproduction being what it is, if a female wants to have sex that means she has to run the risk of pregnancy then without birth control, so on that note I cant say I am against a female that would want to use it then to prevent such, or a couple for that matter that wants to have sex, but is not ready yet for children.

Is hiding information from women and young women detrimental to their health?

I would imagine so.

Actually, it IS mentioned quite specifically.

300(a) Authority of the Secretary


The "establishing" and "operation of" components clearly outlines that the secretary is given those privileges.

Contraception itself isn't mentioned specifically in that section. The reference to "a broad range of acceptable and effective family planning methods and services" certainly leaves plenty of wiggle room for whoever's administering the program to come to his own determination as to which methods and services are indeed acceptable and effective.

That's in addition to the fact that being authorized to do something is not the same as being required or even expected to do it.

Splitting hairs isn't it? The terms "contraception" and "family planning methods" are like terms, not unlike terms.



The term "broad range" doesn't necessarily mean that a fringe nominee with unconventional views about birth control and sexuality should cherry pick and ignore the broad range of currently acceptable and effective family planning methods that are common and accepted practices in the medical community and society at large. The methods of birth control that this nominee dislikes, constitute standard practice, which makes his nomination unacceptable as he has left the farm on conventional wisdom concerning contemporary birth control.



If your boss says that you are to organize and establish a bank account, does that mean that he doesn't want you to do so? Likewise, when the nominee is charged with establishing and setting up family planning methods and services, does that mean that he is not to do what he's charged with doing?

One's a subset of the other. They're not synonymous.


Slavery was once standard practice, too, so I don't see what that's supposed to prove. There's no objective criterion as to what is and is not "acceptable". It doesn't mean popular, and it doesn't mean commonplace. It's an inherently subjective judgment.


What definition of the word "authorize" are you operating under here? It does not mean require. These terms like "authorize" and "acceptable" seem intended to confer a fair degree of discretionary power over the person adminstering the program. Now if you want to argue that this guy isn't someone you approve of, that's fine. But the law doesn't support you in the argument that his views disqualify him objectively.

So therefore, they do have a relationship. That also means that condoms, IUDs, the sponge, and other products do have something to do with both "contraception" and "family planning." If it quacks like a duck..........And if a "broad range" of options are to be offered, it woudl be fair to assume that conteomporary birth control devices..........yeah. On top of that, why haven't individuals who have held that post in the past been called on for carrying out something they weren't supposed to do? I'd imagine that it is their view, as well as that of most legislators, that the secretary's job is to continue what the previous occupants did-pay for birth control programs and options, even those that fringe scientists and right wing fundies don't like for subjective reasons.



Science is pretty objective and current birth control devices used by a normally healthy person, are "acceptable" medically and societally. It's Keroac who has the fringe view that isn't accepted by the vast majority of his peers, the medical and professional associations, not to mention medical and science academics. A doctor who states that birth control demans women or says that condoms aren't effective is making a subjective judgment which medicine and society at large, don't accept.

As for the slavery analogy, nice straw man. I guess we could then compare Keroac's views as being the equivalent of the flat earth society.



Unless it's a bad case of reverse psychology, to empower the secretary to "authorize" funding and support for birth control hardly means that the person is to sit on their hands. Permissions aren't granted if they aren't going to be used.

I just got through explaining to you that the wording of the law was designed to confer a degree of discretionary power on those administering it. Do you understand what I mean by "discretionary"?


It's not a straw man at all. It's a very succinct illustration of how it is that, contrary to what you implied, standard practice is not the measure of what's acceptable. Science may be objective, but there's no scientific criterion for what is and is not acceptable. Accept it.


So the federal government is remiss in its duties if it doesn't do every last thing that the Constitution authorizes it to do?

You're wrong here as the scientific criterion is called *research.* It is due to research that we no longer allow things like bloodletting or electro-shock therapy, but allow other things such as birth control.

Research can determine that some things are effective, but that doesn't answer the question of whether they're acceptable. Vivisection of human beings may be effective at learning new things about the way the human body works, but it's not acceptable. And it's not because of any research that we came to this conclusion. It's a moral judgment, and scientific research alone is insufficient for making a moral judgment.

1. Sure, he's a doctor and an OB/GYN, why not?

2. What is that "job" that the doesn't "believe in'? Isn't your question presumptive? The office is "Health and Human Services" only to be focused on the concept of "abortion on demand"? The fact that this highly acclaimed doctor belonged to an organization that believed that contraception information was "demeaning" doesn't change the rules of HHS does it? I read the so-called "excellent" article from the Post and it follows the predictably liberal line on such issues.... labeling those who don't believe in abortion on demand as "anti-choice". Should the good doctor be judged on his own merits... or are his "affiliations" the issue and should "guilt by association" and the "politics of personal destruction" be the norm here?

3. No. Hiding information would be detrimental to their health. Personally, I am pro abortion in some cases. And I'm pro free abortion in others. My big problem with the abortion issue is the lack of candor that the pro-abortion crowd constantly exhibits and their fear from engaging in the proper moral debate on the issue that is lacking on this issue in this country.... but, getting back to the topic in hand, I have seen NO evidence in this article (or any others), that Dr. Keroack's appointment to this post would fundamentally change the existing position of HHS on these issues or be detrimental to this nation.

Can you?

Isn't this a lot of noise about nuthin?

No one has objected on grounds of belief about abortion. The objection is that Keroack does not believe in providing birth control information, and that birth control is demeaning to 'women',( no mention of men.) Keroack believes, according to his writings in his previous job, that women should abstain from sex before marriage ( no mention of men doing the same), when he is being appointed to a Federal position that oversee's education and distribution of birth control materials in a federal family planning program.
This is clearly out of touch with reality on many levels. The fact that birth control likely prevents many abortions, world population numbers vs. resources, the right of women to receive accepted and commonplace education about birth control possibilities available for decades, the rights of women to make educated decisions about their own reproduction, when and/or if they want children at all. Of course, also a mention is condoms for use in avoiding STD's. Not for Keroack, abstinance only.

Can anyone here say that type of ideology works, knowing human sexuality as we do? Or will we, after a Keroack experiment be supporting babies and taking care of HIV patients through public health systems for the next decades?

LH, why do issues have to be repeated to you all the time, and why not read what is written?

Perhaps your opinion has to do with this statement:

Quoted in full from the Discrimination, AA, thread.

Yes, women are women and we are still fighting to get out of the 1800's and have birth control and education about birth control available to us and especially poor women and men (condoms), without our government officials continuously inisting we dont need to have this information or access to... and/or that it is 'demeaning us' or thwarting our 'real purpose in life', or insisting 'we' stay celebate because 'they' think its 'best'.
Those ideas are for the 'fringe element' or personal opinions, not an area for government speculation.
A person who demonstrates such fringe an archaiic beliefs does not belong in a position as a high Federal employee, where he has the ability to dictate such beliefs, especially to the poor and those desperately in need of this commonly accepted information, as they may not have resources elsewhere and their health and well being can be extremely compromised.
But further, Keroack obviously has a problem with female sexuality, he believes the control of women's reproductive lives should not be theirs, but his and others like himself who see women primarily as 'babymakers'.
This is nothing new. This fight is decades if not centuries old. Its just become unbelievably tiresome, completely unacceptable, and STUPID beyond belief.
When population experts are going to India and Africa teaching birth control to lower population explosion and teaching the use of condoms to avoid AIDS and HIV, here in the US, officials are attempting to turn back time and keep women ignorant and pregnant and the population ignorant of education that might protect them from terminal or at least life debilitating disease.

OK, let's back up a little. This question for debate has nothing -- nothing -- to do with abortion. Nobody expects that any person appointed by the current administration to any position dealing with reproductive health will be pro-choice. What we do expect is that someone who is appointed to a job with a specific responsibility will not be opposed to the nature of the job itself. We don't expect police officers to be opposed to the idea of crime prevention. We don't expect the head of NASA to believe that space exploration is blasphemous.

Despite what quibbles may be made over words like "authorize" and "discretion," it's pretty clear that the purpose of the position to which Doctor Keroak has been appointed is to provide people with accurate information about family planning, and to provide them with safe, effective, and affordable means of birth control. (It does not pay for abortion.) It remains to be seen if Doctor Keroak is willing to do so, but some of us have some doubts.

As far as "guilt by association" goes, well, I think it's reasonable to have some concerns when someone is associated with an organization which is diametrically opposed to to that person's job. Somebody who is "associated" with PETA isn't the best possible choice for a position with the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, right? Because I am "associated" with the Freedom From Religion Foundation, I'm not the best possible choice for a position with Focus on the Family, right?

There is even some reason to be concerned with Doctor Keroak's basic medical and scientific qualifications. Much has already been said about his claims that "too much" premarital sex can limit a woman's ability to emotionally bond with a partner. It's interesting to note that Doctor Keroak's claim has been disputed by the scientist who actually did the research on which his claims are based.

Link