I don't think it's his individual views per se that are the problem, but that he has a demostrated willingness to put those views ahead of decent scientific reasoning -- most famously, his complete trainwreck of a paper on oxytocin and multiple sexual partners. And, moreover, he's been willing to try to impose his own personal moral view of contraception on others, in a way that is utterly inconsistent with being placed in charge of the OFP.

Contrary to the spin presented in the post, there's no problem at all with his being a Catholic; the problem with his being an intellectually bankrupt quack.

While it is some 16 pages folks might want to read a real philosopher (not a quack)at www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles/AnscombeChastity.shtm The easy dismissiveness and the tired cliches about imposing beliefs can be cured by some rigor.

Although G. E. M. Anscombe is indeed a highly respected philosopher, it's not for her work on sexual ethics, but her work on intention and action, and also as a promulgator and interpreter of Wittgenstein's philosophy. I'm afraid that as philosophy essays go, the one you linked to there is a bit shoddy, and in many places just plain wrong about the empirical facts (e.g., her claim that the availability of birth control causes more abortions).

I have to say the tone of this post really troubles me.

Of course President Bush still has the power to make executive appointments. Did Planned Parenthood ever dispute this power? Can you cite any sources to that effect? If not, then the above is little more than a smear.

Moreover, I resent the glib attempt to conflate policy disagreement with hatred. Yes, Bush still has his executive power. I trust that I, as a citizen, have not lost the power to disagree. And if I disagree, it does not mean that I hate anyone. It means that I disagree. That's all.

If I hate anyone, I will gladly tell you that I hate them. You should know me well enough by now to know that I do not pull my punches.

Anyone who upsets PPFA can't be all bad.

"He regularly speaks to youth audiences on sexual risk behaviors and has been nationally recognized for his work on preventing teen pregnancy," Agwunobi said.

Sounds like good qualifications to me.

Here's a nice post documenting some of Keroack's other crimes against intellectual decency:
http://www.slate.com/id/2154249

In theory, we'd all like every director of every government office (and there should be a lot fewer of those, IMO) to be an eminent scholar and a brilliant manager. But while phil's critique reflects what we might ideally expect from public servants, it's obvious that PPFA is mad about this appointment because Keroack won't support their idea of "family planning."

Is Keroack below the average quality of deputy assistant secretaries in the federal bureaucracy? I have no idea, but it seems doubtful.

For a 1977 essay it holds up very well and does weave intention into the discussion. A more recent author has linked contraception to drive by shootings but that may be a stretch, still, it looks sound to me that contraception causes more abortions. Christians can't worship Baal, sacrifice to idols, be a sodomite, practice infanticide, abort humans or do a lot of other things that current philosophers don't mind. That would be a problem with human reason and the limits of mind.

I think that guys like Michael Brown are what pass for basically competent in the Bush administration. But Keroack is in a whole different league, in terms of just making up pseudo-science out of whole cloth & letting his own delusions set policy; he's better put in the Hall of Utter Ludicrousness next to the likes of Doug Feith and George Deutsch.

"Christians can't worship Baal, sacrifice to idols, be a sodomite, practice infanticide, abort humans or do a lot of other things that current philosophers don't mind." I haven't seen too much worshipping of Baal and sacrificing to idols in most philosophy departments -- but I've seen plenty of Christians worship Mammon, and sacrifice their divine power of human reason to the idol of bibliolatry. And I don't know anyone who finds actual infanticide permissible, but it's the Christianists of the far right that tried to block the HPV vaccine, and thus were willing to let thousands upon thousands of young women die needlessly. I'll put the morality of the tribe of philosophers (which happens to include a great many true Christians) up against your own false-idol version of Christianity any day.

the Christianists of the far right that tried to block the HPV vaccine

I'd like to know which "Christian right" group actually tried to block FDA approval of Gardasil. This seems to be a widespread belief on the left, but while mainstream conservative Christian groups have expressed concern over a vaccine for an STD and oppose making it mandatory for school children, I'm not aware of any that opposed its approval.

I'm not aware of any groups trying to block the approval of the vaccine per se; it is, rather, any policy recommending or, especially, mandating the vaccine, that they want to block. The battle involves ACIP, not the FDA.

www.NVIC.org has an article questioning the safety of the shots. I suppose they are right wingers. The cervical cancers supposedly being "protected" against appear to strike about 3,500 women a year...about 1% of the cancer harvest. The drug company, of course, would like to see every woman in the world subjected to its $120 per shot (3 needed)answer to screwing around. Dr. Keroack,no doubt, will look to the interests of women. Is there a place where his views are not filtered by the bigoted Boston press or Planned Parenthood Press releases?

Anon, do you even know what the NVIC is? They exist in the anti-scientific la-la-land of the likes of the John Birchers and the folks off to the delusional left of Chomsky.

(This is what I get for breaking my usual policy of not responding to trolls.)

I'm not aware of any groups trying to block the approval of the vaccine per se

In that case, I don't agree that "opposing making an STD vaccine mandatory for school attendance" equals "willing to let thousands upon thousands of young women die needlessly."

Huh? Even if it adds up to just a couple of hundred women each year, you're into "thousands and thousands" territory inside a generation. And all for no good reason!

Also, like with other vaccination programs, the overall effect is better, the more thorough the coverage of the population. Get everyone covered, and sometimes you can drive a disease out of a population completely (like with smallpox).

Its ok. The Usurpations of Reason (John Henry Newman)will be antidote enough. The bet by the drug company seems to be to coerce its use while getting others (not choice or free market) to pay for it. I've noticed that anyone who disagrees with our philosopher must, ipso facto, be a nitwit. It must be nice to know all things.

phil,

Unlike measles or polio, HPV is not easy to contract (it requires sexual contact). Therefore the case for making vaccination compulsory is much less compelling. In fact, I'd say that there's a very strong libertarian case against forced vaccination--especially given that any vaccine carries a small but non-zero risk of side effects.

In any case, I think any reasonable person can see that opposing mandatory STD vaccination does not imply a callous indifference to loss of life, and claiming such is a transparent smear.