Bush choice for family-planning post criticized

SuzannePjam

Bush choice for family-planning post criticized
Eric Keroack held post at Christian pregnancy-counseling center
By Christopher Lee

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration has appointed a new chief of family-planning programs at the Department of Health and Human Services who worked at a Christian pregnancy-counseling organization that regards the distribution of contraceptives as "demeaning to women."
Eric Keroack, medical director for A Woman's Concern, a nonprofit group based in Dorchester, Mass., will become deputy assistant secretary for population affairs in the next two weeks, department spokeswoman Christina Pearson said yesterday.
Keroack, an obstetrician-gynecologist, will advise Secretary Mike Leavitt on matters such as reproductive health and adolescent pregnancy. He will oversee $283 million in annual family-planning grants that, according to HHS, are "designed to provide access to contraceptive supplies and information to all who want and need them with priority given to low-income persons."
The appointment, which does not require Senate confirmation, was the latest provocative personnel move by the White House since Democrats won control of Congress in this month's midterm elections. President Bush last week pushed the Senate to confirm John R. Bolton as ambassador to the United Nations and this week renominated six candidates for appellate court judgeships who have previously been blocked by lawmakers. Democrats said the moves belie Bush's post-election promises of bipartisanship.
The Keroack appointment angered many family-planning advocates, who noted that A Woman's Concern supports sexual abstinence until marriage, opposes contraception and does not distribute information promoting birth control at its six centers in eastern Massachusetts.
"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," the group's Web site says.
Keroack was traveling and could not be reached for comment. John O. Agwunobi, assistant secretary for health, said Keroack "is highly qualified and a well-respected physician . . . working primarily with women and girls in crisis."
Mark Conrad, president of A Woman's Concern, said Keroack would be able to make the transition to leading a federal program in which provision of birth control is an integral part. "I don't think it's going to be an issue for him," he said.
The group helps women in unplanned pregnancies but discourages abortions, Conrad said. He said the decision is the woman's but "we do want to give her the opportunity to have all the information and the support necessary to choose life."
Marilyn Keefe, interim president of the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association, which represents 4,000 family-planning clinics, said Keroack's work "seems to really be geared toward furthering anti-choice, anti-contraception policies." She added that despite the congressional election results, the appointment "goes to show you the importance of controlling the White House and how important federal agencies are in the delivery of health services."
Thousands of clinics
The federal family-planning program, created in 1970, supports a network of 4,600 family-planning clinics that provide information and counseling to 5 million people each year. Services include patient education and counseling, breast and pelvic exams, pregnancy diagnosis and counseling, and screenings for cervical cancer, sexually transmitted diseases and HIV.
Cecile Richards, president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, called Keroack's appointment "striking proof that the Bush administration remains dramatically out of step with the nation's priorities."
Taken together, Keroack's appointment, the Bolton push and the judicial renominations suggest that although Bush may work for consensus with Democrats on selected issues, he does not plan to avoid decisions simply because lawmakers will disagree, and he may in fact seek fights in some instances when he feels they may be useful politically.
Confirmation of Bolton and the judicial nominees are popular causes with Bush's conservative base, and a family-planning chief from an organization that opposes contraceptives may appeal to disaffected social conservatives.
White House spokeswoman Dana M. Perino cautioned against reading a larger pattern into the recent moves, saying, "You have to look at these things in isolation."
She added: "The president has said we will look to reach common ground where we can find it. However, he's not going to compromise on his principles."

Staff writer Peter Baker contributed to this report.
© 2006 The Washington Post Company

farfromglorified

I'll criticize him for having the post in the first place.....why in God's name does our government have a "head of family-planning".

chopitdown

farfromglorified wrote:

I'll criticize him for having the post in the first place.....why in God's name does our government have a "head of family-planning".

so they can spend more of our money

farfromglorified

chopitdown wrote:

so they can spend more of our money

Yep -- $288,000,000 of it in 2005.

qtegirl

SuzannePjam wrote:

The group helps women in unplanned pregnancies but discourages abortions, Conrad said. He said the decision is the woman's but "we do want to give her the opportunity to have all the information and the support necessary to choose life."

They do this by "offering" the women free ultrasounds. Once the woman sees and hears the baby, she is much less likely to choose to have the abortion. They have admitted that the sole purpose of the ultrasound is to reduce the number of abortions, not for medical reasons.

http://www.alternet.org/rights/44411/

VictoryGin

farfromglorified wrote:

I'll criticize him for having the post in the first place.....why in God's name does our government have a "head of family-planning".

if you're anti-department of health and human services, then i'd understand. but if there's to be a dhhs, then there should be this position. women's health care is very important, and we're big in numbers.

on a sidenote: just wait until i go to grad school and fix all of this!

farfromglorified

qtegirl wrote:

They do this by "offering" the women free ultrasounds. Once the woman sees and hears the baby, she is much less likely to choose to have the abortion. They have admitted that the sole purpose of the ultrasound is to reduce the number of abortions, not for medical reasons.

http://www.alternet.org/rights/44411/

Why is offering in quotes?

VictoryGin

qtegirl wrote:

They do this by "offering" the women free ultrasounds. Once the woman sees and hears the baby, she is much less likely to choose to have the abortion. They have admitted that the sole purpose of the ultrasound is to reduce the number of abortions, not for medical reasons.

http://www.alternet.org/rights/44411/

absolutely. and i've spoken with some women who have been locked in a room (!), forced to watch their graphic, inaccurate, propaganda.

farfromglorified

VictoryGin wrote:

if you're anti-department of health and human services, then i'd understand.

I am anti-department of health and human services.

but if there's to be a dhhs, then there should be this position. women's health care is very important, and we're big in numbers.

Women's health care is very important. I'm not sure how "importance" equates to a job titled "deputy assistant secretary for population affairs" or an orgnization that spends a quarter-billion dollars a year.

on a sidenote: just wait until i go to grad school and fix all of this!

How?

VictoryGin

farfromglorified wrote:

Women's health care is very important. I'm not sure how "importance" equates to a job titled "deputy assistant secretary for population affairs" or an orgnization that spends a quarter-billion dollars a year.



How?

the person in that position will be developing and implementing programs for women to get health care education and access, particularly low-income women. so i think that's an important position.

and, that's what i hope to do in the future, not necessarily for dhhs.

qtegirl

farfromglorified wrote:

Why is offering in quotes?

I didn't want to say coerced because I have no evidence of that. But I do have a strong feeling that it goes on.

farfromglorified

VictoryGin wrote:

the person in that position will be developing and implementing programs for women to get health care education and access, particularly low-income women. so i think that's an important position.

I'm not sure, then, why this appointment would bother you. I don't see any indication here that women will not receive "health care education" or "access". Furthermore, it still seems that "low-income women" will be the primary clientele.

and, that's what i hope to do in the future, not necessarily for dhhs.

What is "that"?

farfromglorified

qtegirl wrote:

I didn't want to say coerced because I have no evidence of that. But I do have a strong feeling that it goes on.

So you have a "strong feeling" that women are coerced into getting ultrasounds specifically to get them to want to keep a child?

VictoryGin

farfromglorified wrote:

I'm not sure, then, why this appointment would bother you. I don't see any indication here that women will not receive "health care education" or "access". Furthermore, it still seems that "low-income women" will be the primary clientele.

well if you go back and read about his work with a woman's concern, maybe you'll get some indication. also think about bush's past appointments with women's health issues and what the implications of those were. i think it's highly unlikely this guy's past work won't affect the new work.

farfromglorified

VictoryGin wrote:

well if you go back and read about his work with a woman's concern, maybe you'll get some indication. also think about bush's past appointments with women's health issues and what the implications of those were. i think it's highly unlikely this guy's past work won't affect the new work.

I did read it. Again, I don't see any indication here that women will not receive "health care education" or "access". Furthermore, it still seems that "low-income women" will be the primary clientele.

baraka

farfromglorified wrote:

So you have a "strong feeling" that women are coerced into getting ultrasounds specifically to get them to want to keep a child?

Hello, ffg......

In a young, healthy woman, an ultrasound early in the pregnancy is not necessarily indicated. When I was pregnant, I had one ultrasound at 5 months. If the woman is unclear when she got pregnant, a simple blood test (quantitative B-HCG), can determine how far along she is. Some in the health profession will even say that gratuitous ultrasounds might not be good for the fetus. So, what do you suppose the reason is for the ultrasound so early in the pregnancy? Is it reasonable to assume that the ultrasound in these cases are being used as an emotional tool opposed to a medical one?

farfromglorified

baraka wrote:

Hello, ffg......

In a young, healthy woman, an ultrasound early in the pregnancy is not necessarily indicated. When I was pregnant, I had one ultrasound at 5 months. If the woman is unclear when she got pregnant, a simple blood test (quantitative B-HCG), can determine how far along she is. Some in the health profession will even say that gratuitous ultrasounds might not be good for the fetus. So, what do you suppose the reason is for the ultrasound so early in the pregnancy? Is it reasonable to assume that the ultrasound in these cases are being used as an emotional tool opposed to a medical one?

Hey baraka...always nice to see you.

I'm not arguing that such a procedure wouldn't be used as an "emotional tool". I'm well aware that ultrasounds potentially pose unnecessary risks and I'm not supporting their use in such a manner. However, nothing stops people from using ultrasounds in all sorts of potentially inappropriate ways.

What I'm trying to understand here is whether the arguments being made against this guy aren't as "emotional" as what he's doing.

Uncle Leo

As a "tax and spend liberal," my first thought was "why does this position even exist?"

Given that the position does exist, i have this to say:
Of course he is there to prevent abortions. He's not the choice I would have made. But I have said it before (Supreme Court, Ashcroft, etc., etc.)--to the victor go the spoils. People know Bush is anti-choice and they voted for him. They knew they would get this. He is the president. He gets to make these choices.

The hard core pro-choice people (I am a "softer" pro-choice) need to wake up--most Americans are NOT pro-choice.

hippiemom

I won't debate whether or not this agency should exist ... I could argue it either way ... but as long as it DOES exist, it should be staffed by people who believe in and support it's function. It's ridiculous to have someone who thinks birth control is demeaning to women (wtf?) running an agency that oversees making birth control available to low-income women.

Uncle Leo

hippiemom wrote:

I won't debate whether or not this agency should exist ... I could argue it either way ... but as long as it DOES exist, it should be staffed by people who believe in and support it's function. It's ridiculous to have someone who thinks birth control is demeaning to women (wtf?) running an agency that oversees making birth control available to low-income women.

I agree, but it is still Bush's choice and frankly, reflective of what the American people would want. Or at least what they would accept in return for all the other reasons they voted for him. It's his perogitive to do this.

norm

hippiemom wrote:

I won't debate whether or not this agency should exist ... I could argue it either way ... but as long as it DOES exist, it should be staffed by people who believe in and support it's function. It's ridiculous to have someone who thinks birth control is demeaning to women (wtf?) running an agency that oversees making birth control available to low-income women.

That's what I don't understand. How is it "demeaning"?