![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
neadodsToday's Washington Post has an op-ed piece by Peter Sprigg, billed as "vice president for policy at the Family Research Council." Although the title is Pro-Family, Pro-Vaccine, the point to it is that Gardasil must not be made a mandatory vaccine because it's so much more important that fundamentalists still be able to threaten their daughters with death before dishonor.
It starts off so promisingly. Honestly, the article says all the things that you'd expect it to say if it really was pro-science and pro-health: Various strains of HPV are sexually transmitted and produce infections that are responsible for virtually all cases of cervical cancer. Cervical cancer kills 10 American women a day. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has already found the vaccine to be both safe and effective. Development of a vaccine for HPV is a tremendous medical achievement and a boon to public health. It holds the potential to protect the health of millions and preserve the lives of thousands of American women each year.
Having established that a proper pro-life position is to be against something that kills women (although his numbers are a bit low; the previous statistic I saw was 4,000 American women a year, which is closer to 11 women a day), he goes on to admit that yes, not supporting the vaccine would be political suicide. After extensive study, we and other pro-family groups have concluded that the clear benefits of developing an HPV vaccine outweigh any potential costs. The groups welcoming it include leading conservative pro-family organizations such as the Family Research Council, Focus on the Family, Concerned Women for America and the Medical Institute for Sexual Health.
The rot starts in at the very next paragraph. With tortured politeness and an air of clearing the public record of liberal lies, Mr. Sprigg then announces There are, however, two important concerns that must be emphasized. The first is the accurate communication to the public of what the vaccine does, and does not, prevent. Gardasil is being touted by its manufacturer, Merck, as the world's first vaccine to prevent cancer. And, Mr. Sprigg hastens to inform us, it doesn't. It merely targets four strains of HPV, and those four strains account for merely 70% of the cases of cervical cancer, so you see, Gardasil doesn't REALLY cure cancer.
Or, as he puts it, But 70 percent is not the same as eradication.
Which, no it isn't. They never said it eradicated all cancers, but Mr. Sprigg makes it sound like he's airing some deep dark lie when he says The public must understand the undisputed scientific facts regarding the HPV vaccine. Most important, it is only "100 percent effective" against the strains of HPV it targets, leaving 30 percent of cervical cancer cases untouched. This means that even if every person in the country were vaccinated, women would still need to get yearly Pap tests. And, tragically, some women will still die even when all precautionary measures are taken against cervical cancer. Claims that "the new vaccine, when used appropriately, will virtually eliminate cervical cancer" are simply false.
They never said "virtually eliminate." They did say that they would save many lives. You know, like 70% of them. Close to three-quarters of the women now afflicted. It is simply true that Gardasil is enough to save the lives of 7 of those 10(.958) women who die every day without the vaccine. Seven lives a day; 2555 lives a year in America alone. I'm sorry that's not good enough for you Mr. Sprigg. It beats the hell out of the status quo, though, especially for those two-and-a-half-thousand women.
The second "concern" is, of course, exactly what I've been sounding the clarion call to expect -thatfathers' parents' rights include the "right" to play dice with their daughter's lives. In other words, they shouldn't be "forced" to protect their daughters from dying. But before he goes there, Sprigg throws pretty bright sparkles in the air to confuse the issue. If use of the vaccine becomes part of the recommended standard of care, and if the federal Vaccines for Children program pays for vaccination of those children whose families cannot afford it, then vaccination should become widespread without school mandates. Mr. Sprigg soothes. In other words, there is no problem here... so why is he bringing it up?
Because there's a problem here.
The real battle ground is the schoolyard, and just as cancer prevention is being reframed as being "about" promiscuity, death prevention is being reframed as a schooling issue. Namely, that Gardasil (although it protects against a current health issue and against a future fatal one) doesn't cover anything important enough that it should be made one of the mandatory vaccines required for public school attendance. (Why this is a particular battleground for the same contingent that is also currently arguing that their children should be homeschooled is bending my brain a bit.)
Unfortunately for Mr. Sprigg, the real agenda comes out quickly enough. Pro-family groups are united in believing that parents should decide what is best for their children. And if those parents decide that it's best that 70% of their daughters should be at risk for dying, well then, that's more important than the lives of the little whores anyway.
And they would be little whores by definition if they catch cooter cancer, despite Mr. Sprigg's nth-hour, last paragraph, next-to-last sentence quiet admission that even someone who practices abstinence and fidelity could be exposed to HPV through sexual assault or marriage to an infected partner. Mr. Sprigg wants us to think that we're discussing health issues, school issues, even civil rights (although never from the perspective of minor females who, one is left to assume, don't actually have civil rights), but what we're REALLY discussing is sex. Evil, evil sex.
But in this case the strains of HPV that cause cervical cancer are transmitted only through sexual contact. ... The scientific advance that the HPV vaccine represents should not distract us from the primary truth that abstinence until marriage and fidelity within marriage constitute the single best formula for sexual health. Mr. Sprigg, you're so good at complaining about the statistics regarding Gardasil coverage, would you like to cite the statistics regarding the abstinence pledges in delaying, much less denying, premarital sex? No? I suppose that after having bitched that 70% protective coverage isn't good enough that it might be a tad embarrassing to have to admit that independent studies show that abstinence courses not only fail over 90% of the time, but there are also corresponding statistics for the rise of STDs and teen pregnancies.
The paternalistic view that just because something is good for you the government should force you to do it is not one that most American families would welcome, Mr. Sprigg grandly proclaims. So I must ask you, Mr. Sprigg - what is the opinion of 70% of the daughters of those families? What do they welcome? Because nobody is asking you, the adult male. You're not at risk of death. Unlike you, we are actually thinking about saving your daughter's lives. Unlike you, we are not willing to silently risk them rather than allow you to gamble with them.
If you're willing to publicly admit that "even someone who practices abstinence and fidelity could be exposed to HPV" then you have already admitted that your program CANNOT save girls' lives. Game over. You've just undermined your own argument.
There is only one pro-life decision that can be made by American families, Mr. Sprigg, and that is to save 2555 lives in America every year and not to cross your fingers that your daughters will cross their legs and not become one of the 10-a-day statistic.
It starts off so promisingly. Honestly, the article says all the things that you'd expect it to say if it really was pro-science and pro-health: Various strains of HPV are sexually transmitted and produce infections that are responsible for virtually all cases of cervical cancer. Cervical cancer kills 10 American women a day. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has already found the vaccine to be both safe and effective. Development of a vaccine for HPV is a tremendous medical achievement and a boon to public health. It holds the potential to protect the health of millions and preserve the lives of thousands of American women each year.
Having established that a proper pro-life position is to be against something that kills women (although his numbers are a bit low; the previous statistic I saw was 4,000 American women a year, which is closer to 11 women a day), he goes on to admit that yes, not supporting the vaccine would be political suicide. After extensive study, we and other pro-family groups have concluded that the clear benefits of developing an HPV vaccine outweigh any potential costs. The groups welcoming it include leading conservative pro-family organizations such as the Family Research Council, Focus on the Family, Concerned Women for America and the Medical Institute for Sexual Health.
The rot starts in at the very next paragraph. With tortured politeness and an air of clearing the public record of liberal lies, Mr. Sprigg then announces There are, however, two important concerns that must be emphasized. The first is the accurate communication to the public of what the vaccine does, and does not, prevent. Gardasil is being touted by its manufacturer, Merck, as the world's first vaccine to prevent cancer. And, Mr. Sprigg hastens to inform us, it doesn't. It merely targets four strains of HPV, and those four strains account for merely 70% of the cases of cervical cancer, so you see, Gardasil doesn't REALLY cure cancer.
Or, as he puts it, But 70 percent is not the same as eradication.
Which, no it isn't. They never said it eradicated all cancers, but Mr. Sprigg makes it sound like he's airing some deep dark lie when he says The public must understand the undisputed scientific facts regarding the HPV vaccine. Most important, it is only "100 percent effective" against the strains of HPV it targets, leaving 30 percent of cervical cancer cases untouched. This means that even if every person in the country were vaccinated, women would still need to get yearly Pap tests. And, tragically, some women will still die even when all precautionary measures are taken against cervical cancer. Claims that "the new vaccine, when used appropriately, will virtually eliminate cervical cancer" are simply false.
They never said "virtually eliminate." They did say that they would save many lives. You know, like 70% of them. Close to three-quarters of the women now afflicted. It is simply true that Gardasil is enough to save the lives of 7 of those 10(.958) women who die every day without the vaccine. Seven lives a day; 2555 lives a year in America alone. I'm sorry that's not good enough for you Mr. Sprigg. It beats the hell out of the status quo, though, especially for those two-and-a-half-thousand women.
The second "concern" is, of course, exactly what I've been sounding the clarion call to expect -that
Because there's a problem here.
The real battle ground is the schoolyard, and just as cancer prevention is being reframed as being "about" promiscuity, death prevention is being reframed as a schooling issue. Namely, that Gardasil (although it protects against a current health issue and against a future fatal one) doesn't cover anything important enough that it should be made one of the mandatory vaccines required for public school attendance. (Why this is a particular battleground for the same contingent that is also currently arguing that their children should be homeschooled is bending my brain a bit.)
Unfortunately for Mr. Sprigg, the real agenda comes out quickly enough. Pro-family groups are united in believing that parents should decide what is best for their children. And if those parents decide that it's best that 70% of their daughters should be at risk for dying, well then, that's more important than the lives of the little whores anyway.
And they would be little whores by definition if they catch cooter cancer, despite Mr. Sprigg's nth-hour, last paragraph, next-to-last sentence quiet admission that even someone who practices abstinence and fidelity could be exposed to HPV through sexual assault or marriage to an infected partner. Mr. Sprigg wants us to think that we're discussing health issues, school issues, even civil rights (although never from the perspective of minor females who, one is left to assume, don't actually have civil rights), but what we're REALLY discussing is sex. Evil, evil sex.
But in this case the strains of HPV that cause cervical cancer are transmitted only through sexual contact. ... The scientific advance that the HPV vaccine represents should not distract us from the primary truth that abstinence until marriage and fidelity within marriage constitute the single best formula for sexual health. Mr. Sprigg, you're so good at complaining about the statistics regarding Gardasil coverage, would you like to cite the statistics regarding the abstinence pledges in delaying, much less denying, premarital sex? No? I suppose that after having bitched that 70% protective coverage isn't good enough that it might be a tad embarrassing to have to admit that independent studies show that abstinence courses not only fail over 90% of the time, but there are also corresponding statistics for the rise of STDs and teen pregnancies.
The paternalistic view that just because something is good for you the government should force you to do it is not one that most American families would welcome, Mr. Sprigg grandly proclaims. So I must ask you, Mr. Sprigg - what is the opinion of 70% of the daughters of those families? What do they welcome? Because nobody is asking you, the adult male. You're not at risk of death. Unlike you, we are actually thinking about saving your daughter's lives. Unlike you, we are not willing to silently risk them rather than allow you to gamble with them.
If you're willing to publicly admit that "even someone who practices abstinence and fidelity could be exposed to HPV" then you have already admitted that your program CANNOT save girls' lives. Game over. You've just undermined your own argument.
There is only one pro-life decision that can be made by American families, Mr. Sprigg, and that is to save 2555 lives in America every year and not to cross your fingers that your daughters will cross their legs and not become one of the 10-a-day statistic.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-07-15 05:43 pm (UTC)This includes parents refusing care for their children, as long as their children are not in immediate danger. (I don't hold with Christian Scientists who pray over a kid in insulin shock, for instance, instead of taking her to the ER.)
If every child or a large number of children went unvaccinated against polio, measles, mumps, whooping cough and diphtheria, you would see a lot more lives ruined and/or ended as a result of these diseases than you would adults killed by HPV. These diseases are also much more contagious, passing through the air or by casual fluid or skin contact. Yet we already allow parents to opt out of such vaccines for their children for religious or philosophical reasons.
We're not cattle. We do have a right to decide our own destinies. Children can't do that yet, so parents have to do it for them. But children don't stay children forever, and these girls would have to be severely geographically isolated to never hear about the HPV vaccine. And the stricter their parents are, the more likely they are to rebel. I just don't want to see the rest of us punished by being made to accept medical treatment we have the right to refuse, just because of a few misogynistic scumbags who had no business having children, much less daughters.
no subject
Date: 2006-07-15 05:53 pm (UTC)Which I also happen to consider criminal neglect, personally. Fortunately for the children, there's herd immunity against those crippling and fatal diseases here. This is not yet the case for HPV, though.
I honestly cannot see how it is a punishment to protect lives with a treatment that is so far considered safe, effective, and side-effect-free. If there were concerns over it for those reasons I wouldn't be so loud about it. What we've got instead are people who are clinging to an unproven social experiment in lieu of a proven medical treatment, and leaving their daughters unprotected in the middle for up to 7 years.
no subject
Date: 2006-07-15 06:38 pm (UTC)My understanding is that these have to be for fairly broad reasons though -- a belief that all medicine is immoral, or all injections are wrong.
But to allow a parent to say they want their child immunized against this disease and not that one? That they less opposed to their daughters dying of cervical cancer than TB? No. There's protecting civil liberties, and then there's protecting children from their parents' dumbfuckery.
no subject
Date: 2006-07-15 05:57 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-07-15 06:20 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-07-15 06:23 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-07-15 05:58 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-07-15 07:40 pm (UTC)Exactly, and I think that's what's really at the heart of the Social Conservatives' views. It's not "Family Values" or "Pro-Life". It's "Anti-Sex", plain and simple.
They're against abortion. Many of them are against birth control (or would be, if they thought they could get away with it politically). They're against sex education (except, of course, "abstinence-only education", which basically amounts to telling kids nothing about sex except that they shouldn't do it). They're even against masturbation (which, if they seriously want [unmarried] people to abstain from sex, would seem to be a pretty logical alternative).
They want us all to live in this 50's-sitcom fantasy world that can't possibly exist, where there's no such thing as sex until you get married (and even then you certainly don't talk about it). Of course, when they can't live up to the impossible standards they set for everyone else, it's suddenly a whole different story (http://www.womensservices.com/Information/tabid/61/Default.aspx).
Frankly, if they want to stick their fingers in their ears and go "Lalala" to keep from hearing anything they don't like, that's their business, but they seem insistent on wanting to force the rest of us to do the same thing.
no subject
Date: 2006-07-15 11:25 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-07-16 01:02 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-07-16 09:08 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-07-16 10:50 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-07-17 06:16 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-07-15 10:46 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-07-16 01:00 pm (UTC)Exactly! And when these girls don't have accurate information to protect their own health, and nowhere to turn if they do catch an STD or get pregnant, it only victimizes them further because now what options do they have?
One of America's great tragedies is our insular view that we are the Bestest and Brightest and therefore we don't have to look to any other nation because they are defacto less good than us. While I love my country, the Netherlands have far, far lower rates of teen pregnancies and STDs, and it's certainly not because they wave a Bible at the kids and lie to them.
no subject
Date: 2006-07-16 10:15 pm (UTC)When I was about 10, my mother (who is Dutch) and my father had a very lengthy conversation. You see, my mother is certified asa teacher in the Netherlands. The stuff myself and my sister came home with every day from school, the teachers' attitudes on the bruises I was coming home with, all of that upset her on both a maternal and a professional level. And then they found out what kind of education (including sex-ed) we could expect in middle and high school.
3 months after that conversation, my mother, my sister, and I were living in the Netherlands. I got the bulk of my education in regards to sex in a Dutch school. Not just about the basic physical aspects of it, either. No, the teachers discussed everything with us. They talked about the emotional stuff then came with sex, the safetey issues, homosexuality . . .
At the end of the class (which was spread out over a week) they had a very serious talk with us about sexual abuse.
That week, along with the 2 1/2 years I spent in the Netherlands, is very likely the reason I have virtually no hang-ups about sex, or my sexuality. -shrug- The Dutch are pretty practical about the whole thing, and believe me, it shows.
no subject
Date: 2006-07-17 04:29 pm (UTC)Funny, though, that the ONLY people I see making that "blanket immunity" claim are the anti-vaccine people using it as a strawman. This is, pure and simple, another incidence of the Big Lie tactic. If they keep saying that the pro-vaccine people claim that "it will virtually eradicate cervical cancer" and then point to the openly acknowledged real numbers, people won't realize that the claim isn't really coming from the pro-vaccine side. And look, it's already working.
no subject
Date: 2006-07-15 11:35 pm (UTC)You could give this shot with all the other ones and never even tell the child she had it or what it was. Tell her its a vaccine for a virus going around.
no subject
Date: 2006-07-16 04:36 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-07-16 01:01 pm (UTC)