Top 10 Reasons You Should Be Terrified that "Dr." Eric Keroack Runs Bush's Family Planning Program

The following is a guest post from Andrea Lynch, with the kind permission of RH Reality Check.

Not since the appointment of Dr. W. David Hager to the FDA's reproductive health drugs advisory committee have Americans been so abuzz about an anti-family planning zealot appointed by the Bush administration to a federal body responsible for providing family planning information and services. Just over two months into his tenure as Deputy Assistant Secretary for Population Affairs at the Department of Health and Human Services (where he administers $283 million annual budget of federal family planning grants), we are still uncovering evidence of "Doctor" Eric Keroack's staggering lack of credentials. The latest exhibit is "OXYTOCIN: Is this NANO-PEPTIDE a chemical type of HUMAN ‘SUPER-GLUE'?" (emphasis most definitely NOT mine), the PowerPoint presentation that sealed his infamy in the eyes of self-respecting scientists, physicians, and non-crazy people everywhere.

In short, the presentation compiles "evidence" that engaging in pre-marital sex compromises people's (or more specifically, women's) ability to form healthy and lasting relationships. Why? Because, as Keroack argues (or rather, extrapolates from a bunch of studies on mice, voles, and the occasional human female), the more we engage in pre-marital sex, the more failed relationships we have, and the more failed relationships we have, the more we interfere with our body's ability to release and process the "love" hormone oxytocin, and the more we interfere with that process, the more we lose our ability to form healthy, lasting, loving relationships, and as a result, the more miserable and unfulfilled we are. The antidote? Abstinence before marriage, of course.

Or at least that's what I think he's arguing. Truth be told, between the flying leaps of logic, the dense and circuitous argumentation, the distracting reliance on cartoonish graphics and Thomas-Friedman-on-crack mixed metaphors, and the blinding use of caps, italics, "gratuitous quotation marks," multi-colored fonts, and multiple exclamation points and questions marks more worthy of a ransom note than a scientific presentation, I had a hard time even understanding the argument well enough to critique it. However, the following refutations are pretty convincing:

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. AlterNet’s journalists work tirelessly to counter the traditional corporate media narrative. We’re here seven days a week, 365 days a year. And we’re proud to say that we’ve been bringing you the real, unfiltered news for 20 years—longer than any other progressive news site on the Internet.

It’s through the generosity of our supporters that we’re able to share with you all the underreported news you need to know. Independent journalism is increasingly imperiled; ads alone can’t pay our bills. AlterNet counts on readers like you to support our coverage. Did you enjoy content from David Cay Johnston, Common Dreams, Raw Story and Robert Reich? Opinion from Salon and Jim Hightower? Analysis by The Conversation? Then join the hundreds of readers who have supported AlterNet this year.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure AlterNet remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to AlterNet, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.