Approved doesn't mean available

[neadods]

My f-list exploded yesterday with joy that the FDA had approved Gardasil, the vaccine that protects against HPV and therefore against cancer. I would be a great deal more personally joyful if I wasn't so aware that the FDA has also long since approved the pill - which hasn't stopped the growing American Taliban from trying to make sure that just because it's legal doesn't mean it's going to be available to the women who want it.

When we can get Gardasil without a bunch of hysteria about sex and sexuality, THEN I'll rejoice. Because I have yet to see a single article about this vaccine, its testing, its uses, its coverage, etc. without at least one quote from Focus on the Family and its ilk, always beating the drum that abstinence programs - which haven't worked to stop STDs, teen pregnancy, or even abstinence from sexual activity - will magically protect women from cancer. As if that has anything to do with saving women's lives or the many ways in which virtuous girls can become exposed to HPV.

The message being touted here, under all the handwaving about being glad that the vaccine is available just as long as it isn't made mandatory, is simple: Don't make us protect our kids, because we think the little sluts deserve cooter cancer if they don't toe the line. Katha Pollitt states it beautifully in Virginity or Death! It's honor killing on the installment plan... Faced with a choice between sex and death, they choose death every time.

The FDA approval was only the smallest of steps in the right direction. The real battle is not yet begun.

Comments

[redaxe.livejournal.com]

abstinence programs - which haven't worked to stop STDs, teen pregnancy, or even abstinence from sexual activity - will magically protect women from cancer.

Sure. When the Tooth Fairy and the Wizard of Oz play beach volleyball against Peter Pan and Cinderella's Fairy Godmother.

Abstinence propaganda programs are ineffective because they work against human nature. I have no problem with teaching the fact that abstinence (and masturbation) is a guaranteed method of preventing STDs, but it must be done in conjunction with honest, factual teaching about both birth and disease control methods that are available in case people want to get together.

And let's not even get started about emergency contraception (rassenfrassen )*(&%^*% FDA...)

[mtgat]

And you'd be amazed at the people who stare at you blankly when you point out that someday these kids you're afraid of talking to now will someday get married and still need to know about birth control. Even the ones who follow directions and Don't will likely follow the program and have no clue when they Do.

[neadods.livejournal.com]

Bith control within marriage? Bite thy heathen tongue! Don't you know that the purpose of a marriage is to provide a quiverful of children for the woman to take care of? God will take care of anything that needs to be taken care of - and if hubby steps out and brings a bug home, well, that's the woman's fault too. She should have been a better wife and he wouldn't have strayed.

(I know someone who insists that one *only* gets married so that you can have kids and *only* has sex in order to get pregnant. No other reason for either activity is permissable. I have great sympathy for her husband, actually.)

[amilyn.livejournal.com]

Yeah...pointing out that MARRIED people want to control the number of children they have just buggers people's oh-so-wonderful-logic re: morality, abortion, sex, women's medicine and health...

My husband and I have gone to extraordinary lengths to avoid having more children than the two we have (and he stays home to care for while I teach) now.

But...yeah...you're spouting what I grew up with. My paternal grandmother explained (in perfect seriousness) to me that "the reason your parents got divorced was because Delta was never truly submissive to Warren in her heart." [Mom is the most submissive person you've ever met. To everyone. Dad had been having routine affairs--that honest-to-god-no-one knew about--for over 12 years. And grandma's somehow psychic and can check on the condition of my mom's motives?]

I wonder how attentive your friend's husband is. I know that I'd lose interest in sex--and possibly claim some high-falutin' reason (though I'm too honest to do that, really)--if I didn't have SO much fun due to the skill and determination of my wonderful husband. Presuming that this is her honest opinion, though, I am with you: poor husband. If they're not communicating well about how to have Really Fun Sex: poor both of them.

[calenorn.livejournal.com]

I agree completely that this vaccine should be freely available. Anybody who wants to deny a cancer-preventing medicine to pepole is a sicko. Dobson crossed the line from faith into politics a long time ago.

I do feel compelled to defend abstinence, though. Abstinence does indeed protect many people from STDs and unwanted pregnancy. Abstinence is not a bad idea. Trying to compel other people to behave the way you want them to is the bad idea.

Health is not the issue. Sexuality isn't either. Nor morality. The issue is liberty. The question is just this: who is trying to control someone else? The answer to that question clarifies many things.

[neadods.livejournal.com]

Abstinence by itself is a perfectly fine idea, practice it myself. But that doesn't make the "abstinence programs" replacing actual sex ed any more practical.

As you say - all about control. Control through fear in this case; fear of STDs and fear of cancer.

you mean you should never have sex w/your husband?

[bellatrys.livejournal.com]

My mother got cervical cancer from one of her two husbands, the first one of whom abandoned her in a foreign country while pregnant with me, the second of whom she had several children with. I guess you think there should be no people, no human reproduction at all? Or are you going to magically roll back time so that no boys "sow their wild oats" and then marry virgins *after* getting infected with STDs like HPV?

*Think* about the consequences of what you're mandating - it's worth a try.

Re: you mean you should never have sex w/your husband?

[calenorn.livejournal.com]

Well, see, the point is that I'm not mandating anything. Compulsion is evil, period.

All I'm saying is that abstinence works for some of us who choose to follow that lifestyle. I'm not saying that school sex education shuld be abstinence-only, or supporting any other political arm-twisting.

The fact is that when two people practice abstinence prior to entering into a committed, monogamous relationship, they eliminate the possibility of ever contracting a sexually transmitted disease. (Applies equally to gay and lesbian couples and straight couples, by the way.) This is a slice of peace-of-mind that some folks find worth the effort. I'm not saying that everyone should do it. I'm not loony enough to ever expect that to happen. But it is a valid option.

Re: you mean you should never have sex w/your husband?

[starcat-jewel.livejournal.com]

Yes, abstinence freely chosen works just fine... until the choice is taken away from you. And having that choice taken away is something you run about a 1-in-4 chance of happening. After that, if you don't know what to do or don't have the option to do it, you're screwed in more ways than one.

I don't have any problem with abstinence. What I do have a problem with is "abstinence-ONLY". I also think that people who rely solely on even freely-chosen abstinence are taking a risk that I personally would find unacceptable -- but different people have different perceptions of risk. I know far too many women who have been raped to be comfortable with the idea that "abstinence will protect me".

Re: you mean you should never have sex w/your husband?

[calenorn.livejournal.com]

Good points. Rape is the worst form of "compulsion" out there. It does seem like a good idea for women practicing abstinence to get this vaccination. But I need to learn more about this particular therapy. Does the vaccination work for men, too? Viruses are tenacious beasties.

Re: you mean you should never have sex w/your husband?

[neadods.livejournal.com]

Does the vaccination work for men, too?

Some of the articles mention vaccinating men as well, but they don't say whether it is this specific formula or a related one.

The makers seem to be trying for herd immunity; vaccinate enough carriers and the viruses will die out. That, unfortunately, won't work unless a big enough "herd" is covered.

[amilyn.livejournal.com]

FANTASTIC quote. Excellent post. Thank you.

[starcat-jewel.livejournal.com]

IMO there is still cause for joy over this. Remember, the Christofascists were trying their hardest to get the FDA not to approve the vaccine -- and they failed. That's more than a tiny step, it represents a significant reversal of the direction in which things have been going; remember that they were able to block the decision to release Plan B as an OTC drug.

Maybe the country is finally beginning to wake up about some of this stuff.

[neadods.livejournal.com]

Plan B is only about birth control though, and therefore "only" about sex. The maker of the drug successfully reframed the argument into "Are you pro-cancer or anti-cancer?" And there's just no way that anyone could argue the "pro" side for that.

So now it's a rearguard action to make sure that they can still threaten their daughters with death...

[elasg.livejournal.com]

A small victory, perhaps, but I hear you. The fact that these idiots would rather we risk cancer than give us this vaccine is ludicrious, but what's even scarier is that so many people took their argument seriously.

These morons have had their chance out of their respective closets and have shown themselves to be just as wacko as we always thought. They've been preparing the american taliban for the past 40 years. People need to react NOW and realize what kind of real threat these people are to this country. The time to be nice and get along has past.