Posted on 05/27/2006 5:20:46 AM PDT by RKV
Imagine a vaccine that would protect women from a serious gynecological cancer. Wouldn't that be great? Well, both Merck and GlaxoSmithKline recently announced that they have conducted successful trials of vaccines that protect against the human papilloma virus. HPV is not only an incredibly widespread sexually transmitted infection but is responsible for at least 70 percent of cases of cervical cancer, which is diagnosed in 10,000 American women a year and kills 4,000. Wonderful, you are probably thinking, all we need to do is vaccinate girls (and boys too for good measure) before they become sexually active, around puberty, and HPV--and, in thirty or forty years, seven in ten cases of cervical cancer--goes poof. Not so fast: We're living in God's country now. The Christian right doesn't like the sound of this vaccine at all. "Giving the HPV vaccine to young women could be potentially harmful," Bridget Maher of the Family Research Council told the British magazine New Scientist, "because they may see it as a license to engage in premarital sex." Raise your hand if you think that what is keeping girls virgins now is the threat of getting cervical cancer when they are 60 from a disease they've probably never heard of.
I remember when people rolled their eyeballs if you suggested that opposition to abortion was less about "life" than about sex, especially sex for women. You have to admit that thesis is looking pretty solid these days. No matter what the consequences of sex--pregnancy, disease, death--abstinence for singles is the only answer. Just as it's better for gays to get AIDS than use condoms, it's better for a woman to get cancer than have sex before marriage. It's honor killing on the installment plan.
Christian conservatives have a special reason to be less than thrilled about the HPV vaccine. Although not as famous as chlamydia or herpes, HPV has the distinction of not being preventable by condoms. It's Exhibit A in those gory high school slide shows that try to scare kids away from sex, and it is also useful for undermining the case for rubbers generally--why bother when you could get HPV anyway? In 2000, Congressman (now Senator) Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, who used to give gruesome lectures on HPV for young Congressional aides, even used HPV to propose warning labels on condoms. With HPV potentially eliminated, the antisex brigade will lose a card it has regarded as a trump unless it can persuade parents that vaccinating their daughters will turn them into tramps, and that sex today is worse than cancer tomorrow. According to New Scientist, 80 percent of parents want the vaccine for their daughters--but their priests and pastors haven't worked them over yet.
What is it with these right-wing Christians? Faced with a choice between sex and death, they choose death every time. No sex ed or contraception for teens, no sex for the unwed, no condoms for gays, no abortion for anyone--even for that poor 13-year-old pregnant girl in a group home in Florida. I would really like to hear the persuasive argument that this middle-schooler with no home and no family would have been better off giving birth against her will, and that the State of Florida, which totally failed to keep her safe, should have been allowed, against its own laws, to compel this child to bear a child. She was too young to have sex, too young to know her own mind about abortion--but not too young to be forced onto the delivery table for one of the most painful experiences human beings endure, in which the risk of death for her was three times as great as in abortion. Ah, Christian compassion! Christian sadism, more likely. It was the courts that showed humanity when they let the girl terminate her pregnancy.
As they flex their political muscle, right-wing Christians increasingly reveal their condescending view of women as moral children who need to be kept in line sexually by fear. That's why antichoicers will never answer the call of prochoicers to join them in reducing abortions by making birth control more widely available: They want it to be less available. Their real interest goes way beyond protecting fetuses--it's in keeping sex tied to reproduction to keep women in their place. If preventing abortion was what they cared about, they'd be giving birth control and emergency contraception away on street corners instead of supporting pharmacists who refuse to fill prescriptions and hospitals that don't tell rape victims about the existence of EC. David Hager (see Ayelish McGarvey's stunning exposé, and keep in mind that unlike godless me she is a churchgoing evangelical Christian) would never use his position with the FDA to impose his personal views of sexual morality on women in crisis. Instead of blocking nonprescription status for emergency contraception on the specious grounds that it will encourage teen promiscuity, he would take note of the six studies, three including teens, that show no relation between sexual activity and access to EC. He would be calling the loudest for Plan B to be stocked with the toothpaste in every drugstore in the land. How sexist is denial of Plan B? Antichoicers may pooh-pooh the effectiveness of condoms, but they aren't calling to restrict their sale in order to keep boys chaste.
While the FDA dithers, the case against selling EC over the counter weakens by the day. Besides the now exploded argument that it will let teens run wild, opponents argue that it prevents implantation of a fertilized egg--which would make it an "abortifacient" if you believe that pregnancy begins when sperm and egg unite. However, new research by the Population Council shows that EC doesn't work by blocking implantation; it only prevents ovulation. True, it's not possible to say it never blocks implantation, James Trussell, director of the Office of Population Research at Princeton, told me, and to antichoice hard-liners once in a thousand times is enough. But then, many things can block implantation, including breast-feeding. Are the reverends going to come out for formula-feeding now?
"It all comes down to the evils of sex," says Trussell. "That's an ideological position impervious to empirical evidence."
I only posted it here in the interests of opposition research. Happy to report that doing so, didn't result in any revenue to that rag.
Classic projection.
Some factual information in this article. But, bashing higher morals is silly and the author misses the mark. I am not for our public schools current teachings on sex education. Perhaps the author should endorce the teaching of high morals or just stick to the scientific facts.
It was not the STATE'S job to keep her safe or educate her as to the dangers of premarital sex.
Where were her parents?
Once again, we slide a BIT further down that slippery slope. There is not an argument in here that was not used for the Pill, and not one "dire prediction" of rampant sex that didn't come true.
I worked in the medical device industry for a number of years, and I can tell you that getting a new device or drug approved by the FDA is a long and risky business. That said, the author says nothing about the company's science, progress or study results. It's all invective and damn little information to base such charges on.
While the author is unclear on the details, I believe she is referring to a child who was a ward of the state.
Agree
The only thing the article reveals is the author's own condescending views of Religion.
That's why antichoicers will never answer the call of prochoicers to join them in reducing abortions by making birth control more widely available: They want it to be less available. Their real interest goes way beyond protecting fetuses--it's in keeping sex tied to reproduction to keep women in their place. If preventing abortion was what they cared about, they'd be giving birth control and emergency contraception away on street corners instead of supporting pharmacists who refuse to fill prescriptions and hospitals that don't tell rape victims about the existence of EC. David Hager (see Ayelish McGarvey's stunning exposé, and keep in mind that unlike godless me she is a churchgoing evangelical Christian) would never use his position with the FDA to impose his personal views of sexual morality on women in crisis....
Never mind the fact that if these people had tried abstinece and a little personal responsibility, they wouldn't have to exercise their "right" to choose whether their child should live or die. Besides, only the Left should be allowed to force their moral beliefs (or lack thereof) on other people. There's a difference you know. Their good people and we're bad, didn't you read the press release?!
If the vaccine is safe and effective, I think it should be offered with parental consent. Any kid of mine would be vaccinated. I have seen 3 relatives nearly lose their lives to cancer because of HPV infections that they caught decades ago. If we have the means to stamp out a disease, by all means, do so! All that being said, there are plenty of moral, emotional, and practical reasons for minors to remain abstinent.
Agreed. For my part, the accusations made by the author are unsubstantiated. No mention of the science involved. No summary of the clinical trials. No statistical evaluation of the effectiveness of the vaccine. Every one of those items (and more) affect how the FDA review of a new drug will go. BTW it's not unusual for the FDA to come back to a company and say - run more trials, answer these questions, etc.
I think the vaccination is a good idea. Just because you are faithful, doesn't mean your spouse is. Being infected with HPV, means ceasarean section birth. Hopefully they screen for that early on in pregnancy.
HPV vaccination does not prevent HIV, or the old STD's.
The thing is that this vaccine works. But, the only way it can work is to give it before a person engages in sexual activity that can spread HPV.
The onset of puberty would seem to be a good time for that, I think. It doesn't matter if the person getting the vaccine is having sex or not. It's just the right time to get vaccinated.
This is not going to be a mandatory vaccination. Nobody is forcing anyone to have their youngsters vaccinated. Further, even if someone is vaccinated, they needn't have premarital sex.
The Christian bashing in this article sucks, but the fact is that having this vaccination could save many lives. Cervical cancer sucks worse than this article.
Wildmon and the others who are condemning this vaccine are wrong-headed on this one. The vaccine does no harm, but can prevent death from cervical cancer. If I had a pubescent daughter, I would make absolutely sure that she had this vaccine, but would advise her against sexual activity before marriage.
Would she listen to that advice? Maybe. If she didn't, she'd be protected against HPV, though, and I'd be able to rest easier.
"Their real interest goes way beyond protecting fetuses--it's in keeping sex tied to reproduction..."
I am confused?! I thought sex was about reproduction. Color me stupid.
exactly--when the nyc bd of ed made it mandatory that by 7th grad all children were to be fully immunized against hepB none of them could answer why ? just because of our zipcode all must get this ?
why not add bi-annual norplant too ?
---
"Whatever happened to get your laws off my body? Should the entire nation be submitted to any sort of vaccination for the purposes of avoiding STD's just because some succubus from the Nation demands it?"
Well, it does have other associated aspects which, well, are pretty entertaining. At least from what I have experienced;>)
It was not the STATE'S job to keep her safe or educate her as to the dangers of premarital sex.
The article says she was in a "group home." I don't know if that means an orphanage, a treatment facility (for, say, severe mental retardation) or a detention facility. If the state was acting in loco parentis, it is most certainly responsible.
Where were her parents?
I'm guessing dead, unfit, or unable to care for her. I'm not familiar with the case in question.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.