February
6, 2007
Daily Kos
|
If You're Having Sex, You Deserve To
Die. by RenaRF
I have an hour or
so to post this diary so forgive me any misspellings in my haste to get this
done and posted. I generally watch Countdown with Keith Olbermann
at 8pm on weeknights. Last night, however, I was out running errands at
that time. MSNBC is not included in my Sirius Radio news coverage, so I
was stuck listening to CNN's Paula Zahn Now (which I usually dislike). I
heard an interview that almost made me drive off the road as I was traveling
from point A to point B. The subject was
the cervical cancer vaccine. The arguments against this vaccine
constitute some of the most egregious dreck I have
ever heard. Follow me. ·
RenaRF's diary :: :: ·
I had to wait
until today after some morning meetings for the transcript
to be available. Let's start there. Now, if there were
a vaccine that would protect your child from a kind of cancer that kills
thousands of people every year, chances are, you would make sure your child
gets it. But the next story
we're bringing out in the open is not that simple, because it involves sex, parents' rights, and women's health.
The governor of Ed Lavandera has story tonight from (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) JULIANNE JACOBS,
STUDENT: You should do it before you're sexually active. LAVANDERA
(voice-over): Julianne Jacobs is ahead of the class, one of the first young
girls in The federal
government says, the recently approved vaccine can prevent most types of cervical cancer.
Julianne's parents have told her it's
not a free pass to start having sex. JACOBS: And,
because, you know, that vaccine doesn't guarantee -- guarantee safety. It can
still -- you can still get past it, and you could get that disease, even if
you have the vaccination. LAVANDERA: But,
when Texas Governor Rick Perry signed an executive order, making it mandatory
starting in September of 2008 for sixth-grade girls to receive the vaccine,
many parents were angry. UNIDENTIFIED MALE:
The government should let parents
make their own decisions for things like this. Oh yes? I
beg to differ. The school district where
I live requires the following:
All of the above
represent an attempt by the state to safeguard students from communicable
diseases that are a danger to the public health and welfare. Should a
parent be able to decide that their child receive or not receive a
vaccination and place another child at risk in so doing? I don't think
so. Continuing: LAVANDERA: Dawn
Richardson is lobbying DAWN RICHARDSON,
LOBBYIST AND PARENT: There's no proof that this vaccine is going to affect
the rates of cervical cancer, because the vaccine is being administered to
11-year-old girls. It's only been tested for four years. LAVANDERA: The FDA
says, the vaccine is safe and effective, requiring three shots over a
six-month period. But some critics worry that making the vaccine mandatory
will promote premarital sex,
instead of abstinence. PETER SPRIGG, VICE
PRESIDENT FOR POLICY, FAMILY RESEARCH COUNCIL: We feel it's very important
that people not be told that this is a vaccine that will make it safe to have
sex. LAVANDERA (on
camera): Governor Perry is a staunch conservative. And he says this idea protects life and promotes women's health.
And he says parents will ultimately be allowed to decide whether or not their
daughters get this vaccine. They can apply to opt out of if they object to it
for religious or moral reasons. (voice-over): The Republican governor is receiving support
from unlikely places, Planned Parenthood and even many Democrats, who see
this strictly as a public health issue. BINGO. It's
the sex, stupid!! So even though researchers are working hard to
develop a vaccine to prevent or lessen the instances of HIV contraction, kids
shouldn't be able to have it because (GASP!!) it's promoting SEX!!!
(cue fire and brimstone) Now get a load of
the discussion with the panel of experts: ZAHN: There are
10,000 cases of cervical cancel -- cancer, that is, every year, 4,000 deaths. Out in the open
tonight: the controversy over requiring sixth- grade girls to get the HPV
vaccine to prevent the sexually transmitted disease that can lead to cervical
cancer. Let's go back to
tonight's "Out in the Open," panel, Clarence Page, with his
mike on -- yes -- Tara Wall [RNC
mouthpiece], Rachel
Maddow. ZAHN: So,
Clarence, should this be mandatory... PAGE: I think... ZAHN: ... and made
mandatory by state government? PAGE: You know,
what troubles me is making it mandatory before the public is adequately
educated, because I saw what happened with Roe vs. Wade, which I personally
support as a decision. But I saw the
backlash, which we're still feeling politically across the country, because
it was imposed on the country. This is a very personal thing. Whenever
government gets into something as personal as, say, 12-year-olds, like --
like, my 12-year-old niece, mandating that she has got to get a shot that
many people think is connected to sexual promiscuity -- I don't think it is. ZAHN: Sure. I don't know what
I think about Page's argument. Frankly, if the fundamentalist MINORITY
in the PAGE: But so many
people think that, we obviously need a lot of public educating out there. So,
it troubles me to do it do it too quickly. ZAHN: But, even
with public education... MADDOW: Yes. ZAHN: ... there is
a strong view that you're promoting
promiscuity. There are people think, since this vaccine has
been around only for four years, that it really
won't convincingly reduce rates of cervical cancer. So, what difference is it
going to make if there's a time lag before you make it mandatory? MADDOW: It's --
well, here's the thing. If we were talking
about a vaccine for any other kind of cancer, as a person in your previous
segment described, we would be singing hallelujah right now. But the fact that this is a disease that is
spread by sexual contact, human papillomavirus,
which leads to cervical cancer, all of a sudden, we get hysterical and lose
the ability to think reasonably about this. (LAUGHTER) MADDOW: Once you bring up sex, we lose all public health
rationality about this. And, so, I think
that, really, what you need to consider is whether or not this going to be
treated as a public health and
safety issue, or whether this is going to be another thing about which we
have a hysterical sex conversation involving teenagers,
because we can't -- we have that debate. THANK YOU Rachel Maddow. If you would like to thank her as well, you
can use this form.
Maddow nets it out - it's all about dirty
nasty SEX and a vaccine somehow giving carte blanche to young women to have
it. ZAHN: But you know
it will be a little bit of both of them. (CROSSTALK) WALL: Listen --
listen, you talk not having the buy-in, and the public not having the buy-in
of the legislature. The governor did this on his won [sic]. The governor, whom
I respect -- and, actually, he's my governor. I voted for him. But he's
wrong. (CROSSTALK) ZAHN: He's a
conservative governor. He is your governor. WALL: He is. He
has been a very good conservative governor. But he's wrong on
this issue. As my mother says, a person can be sincere, but they can be
sincerely wrong. (CROSSTALK) MADDOW: How can a vaccine for cancer be wrong?
And here we go. WALL: There's --
there's no -- there's no -- there was no parental -- you're usurping parental rights. You're
usurping the legislature. (CROSSTALK) WALL: Make it an
opt-in, as opposed to an opt-out. There is an opt-out provision, of course. I'm not a legal
expert - but I found this
article that talks generally about the legal basis for mandatory vaccines
and it states pretty clearly that the process and procedure is ALWAYS to opt-out, NOT opt-in.
What a ridiculous argument on Wall's behalf, that flies in the face of
how every other religious
or moral issue with a vaccine is handled. ZAHN: Sure. WALL: But why not
make it an opt-in, as opposed to an opt-out. See above.
See the law. See a bunch of cases. But most importantly, see a shrink - because that's the
only thing that's going to help you explain why you don't want to protect
women from contracting cancer. MADDOW: Would you do that for measles? Would you do that
for rubella? Would you do that for polio? Would you do that
for... (CROSSTALK) WALL: This has to
do with a very sensitive... (CROSSTALK) MADDOW: With sex. WALL: Absolutely
-- issue... MADDOW: Right. WALL: ... that is
a family issue,
that parents need to discuss with their children amongst themselves,
and not to have the government impose upon them. MADDOW: How has that been working so far? (CROSSTALK) WALL: That's not
for the government to decide. (CROSSTALK) ZAHN: If you want
to see how it's working so far, I want you all to look at the screen right
now... Here's where it
gets good. Facts are a bitch, aren't they? ZAHN: ... because
this is a staggering statistic. This is the
incidence of HPV hitting young kids in this 14- to 19-year-old age group. We
know that about a third of kids
that are 13 to 16 are sexually active. So, do you think
parents have their heads in the sand? (CROSSTALK) PAGE: Well, of
course, yes. Parents do have their head in the sands about sex and drugs. We
know that. But there's also
the question about, do parents who want to take responsibility for their
kids, should they be entitled to have opt-out or opt-in choices? I think that
is really what at issue here. (CROSSTALK) PAGE: You talk
about rubella and several other contagious diseases which you can catch
without having sex, I mean, there's a reason to want to control a contagion
that travels in the air, and -- and to mandate that. Point of fact: Hepititis B is not transmitted in the air yet is mandated
in (I think) 35 states. MADDOW: But look
at that figure. (CROSSTALK) PAGE: When you're
talking about something that is more personal -- well, look at the figures... MADDOW: This is --
it's endemic. (CROSSTALK) MADDOW: If you're a teenager having sex, basically,
you're going to get HPV. (CROSSTALK) PAGE: Just to play
devil's advocate, which I'm very good at... WALL: But what if
you're not having sex? (CROSSTALK) WALL: What if you're not having sex? (CROSSTALK) WALL: There are
plenty of teenagers out there who -- who -- who have had discussion with
their parents who choose to remain abstinent or virgins until they're
married, until... (CROSSTALK) ZAHN: But you know
what the manufacturers... (CROSSTALK) ZAHN: Hang on one
second. The manufacturers of the vaccine say, that's a good thing... Oooh!! Here come
those pesky facts again. MADDOW: Yes. ZAHN: ... because
they said that the vaccine is more
effective when you're inoculated before you start having sex. (CROSSTALK) WALL: Well, the
other factor is -- and my mother is a nurse as well. And some of the issues
that are being raised is how new this is. It hasn't
been tested and tried. It needs to be given some time. The other portion, again, opt-in, not make an opt-out. Let parents
decide. This is the government assuming parents don't know what's best for
their children. I think that's a little bit elitist. Ah... So it ISN'T
about sex? It's about the relative newness of the drug itself and the
safety of the drug? I thought it was about family decisions and the
distinction between opting in and opting out... Silly me. The fundamentalist
Christian groups who oppose this vaccine are essentially making this
argument: If you weren't having sex, you wouldn't contract HPV and possibly
contract and die from cervical cancer. And if you ARE having sex and
get HPV and contract cervical cancer, you deserve to die. How's that for
values? Jesus weeps. |
Back to Articles
Home | Bio | Forum | Blog | Media | Fan Resources | Contact
