I've Got Rhythm! I've Got Rhythm!

Ok, as is as written in the article below, I too would expect Bush to put an abortion foe up for any sort of family planning position. It is a given. But why an anti-contraceptive person?

At least with abortion (full disclosure: I am pro-choice) the anti-abortion groups can make the argument that a life is being lost. This belief is greatly informed by what sort of religious (and scientific) beliefs that you hold or reject - but at least it is not hypocritical.

If you believe that life begins at the moment of conception, then abortion is something that you would probably not be able to support. Personally, I believe it is a right that has to be available to women. But at least I can see the thought process that would lead someone to hold an opposing view.

(Although in my opinion; being against something and being against the right of others to feel differently and thus live accordingly are two different things. Or should be.)

But with contraception, no life or even potential life is lost! To put someone who is unilaterally opposed to contraceptives in charge of the government's family planning office is ridiculous and insulting.

And I don't care if he supports the Rhythm Method. That is like putting someone who is against missiles but favors rocks and sticks in charge of the Department of Defense.

I really wish someone could explain to me what the difference is between using a latex sheath, a pill, or a thermometer, pen, and "ovulation journal" to prevent pregnancy! Why is one method acceptable, while the others are not? In all three cases the intent is to actively prevent conception by artificial means. Are pens, paper and thermometers any less artificial than drugs or latex? I just don't get it.

Or is it because condoms and oral contraceptives are a lot easier to be successful with?

(from Projo.com)

Anti-family-planning chief
01:00 AM EST on Tuesday, November 28, 2006

President Bush has made a truly inappropriate, and bizarre, choice to oversee federal family-planning programs at the Department of Health and Human Services. The new official, Eric Keroack, a gynecologist, works for a Boston-based concern that opposes birth control, except presumably such methods as the rhythm method. That goes for unmarried and married people!
The appointment recalls the appointment of Dr. W. David Hager to the Food and Drug Administration's Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee. Dr. Hager opposes the prescription of contraceptions. Thus, his appointment, like that of Dr. Keroack, was an ideological statement, not a practical public-health one.
The organization whence cometh Dr. Keroack, who is now deputy assistant secretary for population affairs, promotes abstinence or "sexual purity and self-mastery." The group, A Woman's Concern, won't provide information about artificial birth control of any kind. We expect Mr. Bush to name an abortion foe to such jobs, but naming someone who opposes birth control is outrageous, except to a tiny sliver of the population with intense theological views.
The means to plan their pregnancies is women's right, and a societal good. A string of unplanned pregnancies can condemn women to a life of poverty. Dr. Keroack's appointment is a slap in the face of good public policy.