Taking abstinence-only to the next level

May 25, 2005

The logic about contraceptives encouraging pre-marital sex, particularly among teens, has never really made any sense to me. First, there are ample studies that prove otherwise. But putting actual evidence aside, the logic behind the argument seems fundamentally flawed. If a teenager is told, “Don’t have sex, but if you do, protect yourself,” the right says it’s a mixed message that promotes sex. To me, if one follows the conservatives’ logic, we shouldn’t show kids where fire extinguishers are because it might encourage them to play with matches.

But I thought these dangerous and irresponsible lessons for young people were about the dumbest aspect imaginable to the conservative abstinence-only agenda. I was terribly wrong.

Now conservative Christian groups are preparing to battle a new scourge: Vaccines that could prevent more than 200,000 women from dying of cervical cancer each year (including 5,000 here in the United States).

The vaccines, which have been developed by Merck and GlaxoSmithKline, immunize against infection with human papillomavirus (HPV), a common STD that is responsible for the vast majority of cervical cancer cases. But “abstinence only” advocates love HPV. That’s because the virus can be spread by skinto-skin contact other than intercourse, meaning that condoms are less effective at preventing HPV infection than blocking the spread of other STDs. Abstinence groups don’t want a vaccine to eliminate this fear factor. “Giving the HPV vaccine to young women could be potentially harmful because they may see it as a license to engage in premarital sex,” says Bridget Maher of the Family Research Council, a Christian lobby that plans to fight a Merck campaign to make HPV vaccination mandatory for all girls by the time they enter junior high. Of course, absolutely no evidence supports Maher’s claim. But there’s plenty of evidence that an HPV vaccine will prevent thousands of needless deaths.

Now what was that about a culture of life?

It’s truly breathtaking. Which is scarier — that groups like the Family Research Council would block a vaccine that could save lives, or that Republicans who control the federal government consider the Family Research Council a serious policy organization whose advice should be followed?

Isn’t the fear of an unwanted pregnancy or HIV or a number of STD’s enough?

  • This has been an interesting series of posts today. Each one is hammering at the illogic of the radical right’s “culture of life.”

    Now if we could only come up with a snappy sound bite that symbolizes the Carpetbagger’s arguments, we might make some progress with the general public.

  • My daughter has this. It was discovered when she was pregnant, and so it could not be treated until after she had the baby. Then, as with most that discover it late, she had to have an operation to remove part of her cervix. As noted above, HPV spreads by skin/skin contact, and there is no known sure way to prevent it. Having all females innoculated at an early age can go a long way to prevent women from having to deal with undiagnosed cervical cancer when it is too late to do anything about it.

    This is the silent STD.

  • It seems only a short throw from punishing women for having sex by denying them a vaccine which could save their lives, and just out-and-out stoning them to death for having sex. I think that’s where the religious right would take us.

    Handmaiden’s Tale, here we come.

  • Mr Carpetbagger? Your fire extinguisher analogy is brilliant. I will be using it at the next oppertunity with wingnuttia. On a related tangent, for those who think because something is legal amounts to governmetal approval, does any thinking person believe that because cigarettes are legal means the government wants you to smoke them?

    • Comments are closed.