Conservatives, according to the Washington Post, are in fear because — get this — the idea of making the cervical cancer vaccine mandatory would send a subtle message condoning sex before marriage.
Get over yourselves, righties! There's nothing subtle about cervical cancer.
There's nothing subtle about tumors, pelvic pain, vaginal bleeding, the painful recovery and extremely uncomfortable side effects that follows so many hysterectomies, and there's damn sure nothing subtle about the deaths of 290,000 women every year. Never mind that once you have cervical cancer, it's mandatory that you deal with it and maybe even die with it. A mandatory vaccine sure would've been nice for all the dead good girls in the world that the right strived so to protect — and failed.
Does the right actually think there are a bunch of unmarried sex-crazed virgins out there so weak in the knees about whether or not to have sex that something as subliminal as a cancer vaccine's ability to protect someone from an STD is all it would take to send them hoppin' onto the next penis that comes along?
This "fear" is not only an insulting and barbaric assessment of women in general it's completely irrelevant. The pain, suffering, and deaths of so many women trumps the hell out of "oh, oh, I’m scared about something that isn't any of my business!"
Leave it to conservatives to make something that has something to do with sex, no matter how peripheral, into a controversial issue. How did the right even find out about the vaccine? It's not like they were first in line to arrange for the funding of that research. I'm guessing they found out through the settings of their favorite online newspaper and search engine. Eventually, even cervical cancer will show up in your email if you've arranged to be alerted about "sex."
Go home conservatives. The party is on, and even though you were invited, you just had to show up with a flaming bag of poo in hopes of ruining it for everyone else.
Jesus tap-dancing Christ, what some people will do for attention.
Article comments
1 - bhw
Nice rant. I agree 100%.
The conservatives who fear the alleged subtle message that pre-marital sex is okay clearly don't trust their own message of WHY premarital sex is not okay. They're admitting that their religious convictions, passed along to their children, aren't strong enough to convince even their own kids not to have sex before marriage. So scare tactics and threats of disease and death are needed.
These same people would oppose a medical miracle that eradicted the HPV virus from the earth. "But we NEED it to scare people into chastity!"
2 - Nancy
That anybody in their right mind would condemn any girls or women to cervical cancer, whether they die from it or not, when it could be cured or even better, prevented, is insane, heartless, & psychopathic. Not to mention unChristian.
3 - Jon Sobel
I saw this in the paper this morning too. I wonder if any of our right-wing friends will show up here to try to defend this absurdity. It's hard to believe people who think this way come from the same planet as I do.
4 - ryan
such intelligence. such intelligence.
disapproval of abortion isn't the same as disapproval of sex.
5 - diana hartman
ryan, did you mean to post this here?
i don't understand how it relates to the topic...
6 - Joanie
Ahem, before you go condemning all conservatives, let me just say this - cervical cancer can directly relate to sex, especially unprotected sex, be it married or unmarried. Specific diseases can trigger changes in the cervical tissue, leaving it compromised and vulnerable to rapidly multiplying cells. Those cells can lead to tumors, both benign and malignant.
That's from a nurse who has worked in OB/GYN and who happens to be a liberal conservative, or would that be a conservative liberal? I can never remember. I mean, I've been called so many names, I can't tell my ass from my elbow these days, apparently.
Trust me, the agenda of some conservatives might be about sex within marriage only, but they don't represent everyone.
7 - diana hartman
the key phrase in your response is "unprotected sex, be it married or unmarried"...the key phrase in the opposition to the vaccine being mandatory is "unmarried sex"...these are very different keys as the former opens the door to scientific fact, as you noted and as i offered no dispute, whereas the latter attempts to pry open the door into private relationships and use this as a means by which to put unnecessary controls on a long-awaited medical marvel...
the phrase "all conservatives" is not in my article...only those who are conservative and who agree with the assertion of subtle messaging (and that this justifies controls) need take issue with my reprisal...i wasn't speaking of anyone else...
8 - Bennett
Great stuff, diane! I'm looking forward to seeing if anyone can possibly argue against the vaccine.
Thanks for posting this.
9 - bhw
The vaccine would protect against certain strains of HPV, including a couple that are sexually transmitted and have been shown to cause cervical cancer. The vaccine is important because A LOT of people contract HPV and because HPV is often asymptomatic. So these infected people can be developing a more serious health problem, all the while unkowingly infecting other partners.
The CDCM has a lot of information about it on their site.
The point is that a particular moral belief about pre-marital sex should not influence a health policy that can positively affect the vast majority of American women.
10 - diana hartman
They're admitting that their religious convictions, passed along to their children, aren't strong enough to convince even their own kids not to have sex before marriage. So scare tactics and threats of disease and death are needed.
These same people would oppose a medical miracle that eradicted the HPV virus from the earth. "But we NEED it to scare people into chastity!"
well put...i hadn't thought about it from that angle but it would explain the obsession and fear...
11 - T A Dodger
Joanie
Specific diseases can trigger changes in the cervical tissue, leaving it compromised and vulnerable to rapidly multiplying cells. Those cells can lead to tumors, both benign and malignant.
Yes, and it is these diseases (actually different strains of HPV) that the vaccine will prevent, with nearly 100% effectiveness.
The National Cancer Institute (www.cancer.gov) lists strains of HPV as the major cause of HPV.
The same site says that the vaccine under discussion protects against the strains of HPV responsible for approx 70% of cervical cancer.
Of course cervical cancer is related to sex, that's exactly the relationship this vaccine threatans to undermine. The problem is, some conservatives seem to oppose any attempt to decrease the risks associated with sex (through condoms or hormonal birth control or this new vaccine) because they think the only way to force people to conform to their views of sexual morality is to threaten them with cancer or AIDS or unwanted pregnancy.
12 - T A Dodger
Sorry, here's the correct URL for the National Cancer Institute.
13 - T A Dodger
And here's the NCI page specifically on cervical cancer.
14 - Baronius
Interesting article, in that it cited NO ONE who opposed the vaccine.
Christian Medical and Dental Associations - no position; associate executive director indicated support
Family Research Council - no position; indicated support
Medical Institute for Sexual Health - meeting to discuss a position
15 - T A Dodger
Baronius
"Abstinence is the best way to prevent HPV," says Bridget Maher of the Family Research Council, a leading Christian lobby group...Giving the HPV vaccine to young women could be potentially harmful, because they may see it as a licence to engage in premarital sex,"
16 - diana hartman
Baronius
Tony Perkins doesn’t see it that way. Perkins is president of the Family Research Council, a Christian organization that describes itself as a champion of "marriage and family as the foundation of civilization, the seedbed of virtue." He is so critical of cervical cancer vaccines that he has no intention of inoculating his 13-year-old daughter, who the drug companies say would be a prime candidate. The reason: The human papilloma virus, or HPV, which causes cervical cancer, is in most cases transmitted through sexual intercourse. If his daughter were to get the shots, Perkins believes she would be more inclined to have sex outside marriage. "It sends the wrong message," says Perkins.
well all righty then: all men with less than six inches -- to the gallows!
17 - diana hartman
Christian Medical and Dental Associations - no position; associate executive director indicated support
Family Research Council - no position; indicated support
Medical Institute for Sexual Health - meeting to discuss a position
in addition to the shadow cast on the FRC's position, anyone taking the position of "no position" when half a million women are diagnosed and 290,000 lives are lost is about as cowardly as you can get...it's kinda like turning one's back on rwanda...
we sure didn't hear all this hoopla when sildenafil citrate hit the market...if ever there was a medical breakthrough that could be cited with encouraging unmarried sex, i'm thinkin' that would've been the bandwagon to have hitched one's horse...
18 - diana hartman
"Some people have raised the issue of whether this vaccine may be sending an overall message to teenagers that we expect you to be sexually active," said Dr. Reginald Finger, who served as a medical analyst for Focus on the Family before being appointed to the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices in 2003."
in fairness, reginald didn't say he was concerned, but it is interesting that someone associated with the Focus on the Family camp would repeat that particular point of contention...
it's just crazy, this idea that a cancer vaccine could promote sex...doesn't sex pretty much sell itself?
the next life-goodie on the line could be chocolate -- it's good for the heart but it could also tax that good by making you fat if you don't eat it in moderation...
but hey, enough sex will take care of that...
19 - Baronius
Diana, do you think that a government official on the recommendations committee should be giving his assessment prior to the committee decision?
20 - T A Dodger
do you think that a government official on the recommendations committee should be giving his assessment prior to the committee decision?
That has absolutely nothing to do with this post, which addresses the responses of conservative groups, not government agencies or officials, to the vaccine. Basically, the Family Research Council is not the FDA.
That said,
The government official could say "I would rather see young women die of cancer than engage in pre-marital sex" before the hearings, after the hearings, or during the hearings. It would always be irrational and disgusting.
21 - diana hartman
Diana, do you think that a government official on the recommendations committee should be giving his assessment prior to the committee decision?
what decision?
the advisory committee on immunization practices isn't in the business of advising immunization practices based on anything religious...
i'll have to check but i don't think reginald is a government employee...one doesn't have to be a government employee to be on the committee...
22 - diana hartman
another beauty of this vaccine is that it gives parents the perfect opportunity to segway into "the talk" if they hadn't before...
you don't have to tell a baby why they're getting an mmr shot but a teenager is going to want to know...it's also the perfect time to tell the child what the vaccine doesn't protect against like bad lovers, pregnancy, gonorrhea, or heartbreak when your first "love" finds someone else...
there's more to sex than the mechanics and i hope this vaccine will wake people up to more than the reality of cancer and the miracle of this vaccine, but also to what kinds of behaviors and thinking can lead to undesirable consequences and what better roads to take...
23 - Joanie
I'm not denying that the vaccine would be a wonderful thing, far from it. I think it's fantastic!
I just don't like any one political group being painted with broad strokes.
24 - Vitamins & Nutrition
I completely agree. Trying to force people to take a vaccine is wrong. It's a personal choice and could lead to other health issues if it really isn't necessary.