Posted on 02/21/2007 3:49:44 PM PST by wagglebee
It doesn't seem fair that legislators are focusing solely on adolescent girls to try to slow the spread the sexually transmitted disease human papillomavirus.
HPV causes cervical cancer, and a new vaccine will stop the growth of the two strains of HPV (of over 100 total) responsible for 70 percent of that cancer.
Lawmakers around the country are introducing legislation faster than sperm swims mandating that 11- and 12-year-old girls be injected with the three-dose HPV vaccination regimen (well, maybe six, or more, since the vaccine has only been proven to last four years).
This legislative thrust comes at the behest of a group called Women in Government, a nonprofit organization that coincidentally receives large donations – which it refuses to disclose – from Merck and GlaxoSmithKline, the two pharmaceutical companies making the HPV vaccine.
While it was reported yesterday that Merck is backing off its lobbying campaign, at least 30 states are considering mandatory-vaccine legislation.
But the feminist in me says this mandated vaccine is patriarchal. After all, women already bear almost all the responsibility for sex-without-consequences. We're the ones who have to ingest birth control pills packed with female steroids, or transport that copper IUD with the weird vibes it sends throughout our uteruses and who knows where else, or insert that clumsy diaphragm, or wear those birth control patches that cause heart attacks. And then we end up pregnant anyway and have to get the abortions or raise the products of conception as single moms.
And now we're being asked to assume accountability for STDs, too? No.
So when the New York Post reported Feb. 16 that the city of New York has launched a campaign to distribute 26 million condoms during rush hour in subway stations, I had an idea.
Why not mandate that every 11-year-old boy carry a condom in his pocket?
I got this brainstorm because New York City officials offered the very same reasons for widespread condom distribution as have proponents of mandated HPV vaccinations, as the article states:
[Mayor Michael] Bloomberg defended the $1.5 million condom program spearheaded by city Health Commissioner Dr. Thomas Frieden. ... "We believe we're saving lives, and it's important to do that." ...The Health Department had instructed the employees not to offer free condoms to minors [JS: why not?], but the Post on Wednesday observed what appeared to be young teenagers taking handfuls of condoms [JS: whew].
Frieden said ramped-up condom distribution will boost safe sex, reducing HIV infection and unwanted pregnancies.
New York City leads the nation in HIV cases. In 2005, 1,400 city inhabitants died of AIDS, the third-leading killer for residents under 65, behind only cancer and heart disease.
"It will save lives and actually save money," Frieden said. He added that he believes young people should abstain from sex, but if they don't, they should use condoms.
"Not enough condoms are being used," he said. ...
The Health Department distributed 18 million free condoms last year through its health clinics and community groups.
It seems to me that mandating condoms in every adolescent boy's pocket would theoretically stop the spread of many more sexually transmitted diseases than an HPV vaccine.
Although I must admit I'm at a loss to explain why the number of AIDS cases in New York continues to rise despite the fact liberals have for years focused on widespread condom teaching and now free distribution.
But let not the facts of history dissuade us.
I hereby call on all feminists (well, at least the ones who won't get some sort of kickback) to resist mandated HPV vaccinations and join me instead in calling for a Condom Nation!
yeah, and that's the day we start Civil War, Part II..
Stanek is a strongly pro-life conservative, she is being sarcastic.
And there it is. Total cure.
He'll have the Feds knocking on his door in no time.
Gotta learn to read the whole article.
Let's hope Gov Perry doesn't cozy up to the Ice Water Enema Coalition.
Count me in.
It's not a sarcastic question. It makes perfect sense. To curb ANY sexual disease or societal sexual problem, one needs to look at the entire problem, not 1/2 of it.
That's fine but the article really wasn't about practicing discretion. The author was suggesting that men be punished for the poor choices women make as if women have done enough for themselves and it is time for men to step up. This is pure Marxist-feminist baloney.
Though I will never give men a pass for poor behavior, I will once again state that individual women are responsible for their own health and well-being. Exercising restraint and abstaining from risky behavior is the best way to prevent disease and pregnancy. It always has been.
If a woman marries a man who carries a disease and she catches the disease from him, it is still a case of bad judgment on the part of the woman for marrying him.
This one sentence with: "raise the products of conception", says it all. The writer is so disconnected from their own humanity that they could not say "raise the children".
Men don't know they carry HPV unless they are tested for it. They don't show any symptoms. If the husband doesn't know he has it, how is the wife expected to know. That is more bad luck than bad judgment.
Then a woman better be certain of who she is messing around with, shouldn't she? Stop trying to excuse promiscuity!
Only "certain women"? I submit that all women and all men need to stop acting like "sluts" in order to curb any and all STD's. Personal responsibility for our own actions and activities should be paramount in this discussion.
Indeed! Women who don't act like sluts don't need to stop acting like sluts now, do they?
If I had said "Women need to stop being sluts" I would have been the recipient of the ire of nearly every female FReeper, not just the FReepers who can't read and understand a simple statement. But I suppose I have to say it yet again.
If you don't practice promiscuous sexual activity, your chance of catching a STD is nearly ZERO. That IS personal responsibility and essentially what I said yesterday.
Sorry. My anal retentive side sometimes takes control and causes me to view things too literally. I wasn't thinking about those who are not engaged in promiscuous behavior.
I'm not excusing promiscuity. A man can be in one monagamous relationship before he is married and still be a carrier of the virus. The woman can get the virus through no fault of her own. That isn't excusing promiscuity it is a sad fact.
I realize the author meant it for a facetious question but it has a perfectly serious answer if not a very nice one, and I think she might agree with it. You could force a little boy to carry a condom but you couldn't force him to use it. A little girl, however, has no choice with respect to a mandatory vaccination. This isn't about sexual hygiene, it's about power.
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.