So the Bush admin has picked a pro-life person to head the family-planning programs at the Department of Health and Human Services.
This person, Eric Keroack, says that contraceptives are “demeaning to women.”
I would have put this in the Pit, but I just can’t find the words.
:eek: :eek: :eek:
Isis, Isis, Ra, Ra, Ra! Birth control is “demeaning”? IMHO, being a pez-dispenser of babies is demeaning. Of course, I still haven’t found the logic behind the current fetus-fetish: A zygote is a “life” with rights until its born. Then its a burden on the system. Unable to get decent health care and have its education funding cut. 
There aren’t enough roll-eyes in the world. Picture a major malfunction of a conveyor belt at a glass eye factory.
Well, since birth control is demeaning, I sure hope they’re finally working on that standardized maternity leave. I’d hate to lose a job because of those babies that don’t demean me.
I’m going to wait and see what kind of job he does before judging him on his personal beliefs. If he puts those aside and does his job fairly and capably, it doesn’t matter.
Actually his organization says that the “commercialization and distribution of birth control is demeaning to women” which is equally as stupid and still doesn’t make any sense. (According to the article, it was on the website, but that doesn’t seem to be there anymore)
Yes, I misread the first paragraph:
I read that as “[he] regards…” instead of the correct way which was “[the organization] regards…”
Thanks for the correction.
How has this worked out for the rest of the Bush appointees?
And the prize for the best mental image created on the SDMB goes to harriet the Spry :rolleyes: 
There are two websites that have the “A Woman’s Concern” title.
In a quick glance over both, the .org one seems pretty noncommittal. The .com is more blatantly anti abortion. I don’t know which is the right website.
Hell, my IUD can demean me all it wants if it means that I don’t have a second child within a year or two of my first.
“Your uterus SUCKS! Can’t even get pregnant!”
E.
The .com site has pages titled “Why Sexual Relationships Before Marriage Sets You Up For Trouble” (sic) and “Consequences of Immodesty.”
Looks as though that conveyor belt of rolling eyes isn’t going to stop anytime soon. :rolleyes:
I’ve always found the consequences of my immodesty to be delightful!
I find your viewpoint intriguing and would like to subscribe to your newsletter. 
Argh. Why isn’t this in the Pit?
This makes me really, really, really mad. I ranted about it on my blog, but I can’t use the colorful language here that I did there.
I’ll just say: You know what’s demeaning to me? Not giving me control over my own body when there are perfectly safe medical means to do so. Forget the abortion debate- this has nothing to do with abortion. I honest to God want to know how birth control (pills, condoms, etc) are demeaning to me? I think that I- like most women- feel that birth control is actually empowering. Why? Well, it gives me the opportunity to be a bit more like a guy- I don’t have to worry about getting knocked up and putting my life on hold- a luxury that men have always had.
You know, they’re right. I’m totally demeaned by having some semblance of control over my body in a society where no matter what, I’m going to get paid less and treated differently than the Y chromosome having among us. This is also degrading to human sexuality because, well, men should be able to bust one in me and force me to carry a child to term- that empowers men and isn’t that what counts? Human health and happiness? Totally ruined by birth control. I know being knocked up would be good for my 20 year old body and mind- it would really make me happy too!
Oh, and now I see the link to the Pit. I need to preview more.
My favorite part?
-Source
How the hell does contraception increase pregnancy, whether in or out of wedlock?
It’s always amusing to watch people get so OUTRAGED! and smugly condescending whenever anyone dares to suggest that self control, restraint, or modesty might be a good idea. Are we so uniformly hedonistic that we can’t even handle someone saying, “hey, might be good to rein it in sometimes, ya know”?
I don’t know the appointee or the organization, so I’m only going on the posts here, but what is so inherently wrong and roll-eye worthy in those titles? Such a knee-jerk defensiveness.
Again, I’m only going on the titles because you seem to think that the titles alone indicate that the topic, the organization and some guy who once “worked for” it are candidates for mockery. I look at the titles and think, “hmmm, yeah, sex before marriage can set you up for trouble sometimes” and “yeah, immodesty can have consequences.” Doesn’t mean I would agree with everything the group says, but I can handle the thought of someone suggesting that a little modesty now and then could be a good thing.
And it’s interesting to note that the posts went from the guy saying contraceptives are demeaning to women, to the organization saying that, then the organization something much more specific that doesn’t mean the same thing. But he worked for this group at some point, so bring on the roll eyes!!
Well, you know, if he was heading up a group that holds such fundamental beliefs to be truth, deductive reasoning can tell us that it is quite probable that he holds those same beliefs.