The latest in the loony take control of women’s bodies agenda from US Republicans. About 70% of cases of cervical cancer - which as a lot of women know, has few symptoms to start off with, but is generally deadly if it’s not detected promptly - come from infection with the the human papilloma virus. Two American pharma companies have developed a vaccine which, if administered before girls become sexually active, would protect them against HPV and thus, when they are much older, against resultant cervical cancer. The response of the “culture of life” mob?
Wonderful, you are probably thinking, all we need to do is vaccinate girls (and boys too for good measure) before they become sexually active, around puberty, and HPV–and, in thirty or forty years, seven in ten cases of cervical cancer–goes poof. Not so fast: We’re living in God’s country now. The Christian right doesn’t like the sound of this vaccine at all. “Giving the HPV vaccine to young women could be potentially harmful,” Bridget Maher of the Family Research Council told the British magazine New Scientist, “because they may see it as a license to engage in premarital sex”.
Katha Pollitt, writing in the Nation, has them sussed. The pro-life choice for girls is virginity or death. There has to be an 80s t-shirt that would express this sentiment precisely.
What does this have to do with some imaginary “loony take control of women‚Äôs bodies agenda from US Republicans”?
It has to do with some “”loony take control of women‚Äôs bodies agenda from US Republicans”, EP, because nutzoid Christian groups in the US, aided and abetted no doubt by the Bushies’ “just choose virginity” replacement for sex ed, will prefer to see women die rather than be informed as young girls about this vaccine, because, GOD FORFEND, they might see it as a LICENCE TO HAVE SEX. Better these non-God fearing girls reap the wages of sin and die of cancer?
But where do the US Republicans come into this? The article nowhere mentions Republicans trying to legislate anything.
And how, exactly, is anyone intending to control women’s bodies? Some people express the opinion that a vaccine shouldn’t be used; where’s the “control” in that?
Now if US Republicans tried to pass legislation banning this vaccine, you might have a point. But I don’t see that here.
More on abstinence education as a replacement for sex education in the US, EP. I’d have thought the implications were very clear indeed.
EP, in answer to your question, the US Government could consider making the vaccine compulsory in schools as a public health measure, as a lot of vaccines are. Bet they don’t.
Now you’re telling me that educating people is controlling them?
So at last we agree that schools and universities are leftist indoctrination centres.
You’re right that they probably won’t make the vaccine compulsory. I think they should, but that’s just me.
However, not making the vaccine compulsory does not equate to “controlling” people.
In fact, forcing people to have a vaccine injected into their bodies is controlling them.
Um, EP, one of the ways that polio was eliminated from the West, as well as things like consumption, was giving kids vaccines in primary school. I can remember getting mine. I’d have thought it was about public health, not “indoctrination”. If schools are being used in the US to preach virginity and if the Bush government fails to give vaccines to kids which might stop them getting cancer later in life, one could only conclude that schools are loony rightist fundie indoctrination centres.
No, you’ve got it the wrong way around.
Forcing compulsory injections is controlling people’s bodies.
Education is not “controlling”, it’s indoctrination.
Frankly, I thought you were drawing a bit of a long bow there too, Mark. Pas d’offence.
Not my post, Rob. But I think that the point is there - given that Bush is considering regulating IVF so that you won’t be able to access it unless you have your “surplus” embryos, which are lives just like Jesus’ according to Tom Delay, adopted out, it’s a pretty fair bet Bush will ban this vaccine lest it “encourage sex”. I’d have actually thought you and EP as secular rightists would be concerned about this utter nonsense as well, but hey, if you prefer to tow a party line, so be it.
Sorry, Mark. Sorry, Kim. Force of habit.
If you’ll look up the page, you’ll see that I’ve already said I think the vaccine should be compulsory.
I’m just correcting the loose and sloppy thinking that’s going on here.
Refusing to make something compulsory is not “banning” it.
Refusing to make something compulsory is not “controlling” people.
Making an immunisation compulsory is controlling people’s bodies.
Words have meanings, you know.
You’re missing the real stoush of the evening, EP. It’s over at Catallaxy. In between its beginning and its continuation, I’ve been out to dinner, and to dessert and port, and to a bar for a few wines, though, so it’s eminently possible that I’m not holding up my end of the stoush competently, soberly and judiciously at the end of the thread.
…and anyway, I think this ‘outrage’ at the anti-sex tendencies of the US right - if such actually exist - is a bit misplaced, not to say confected. At least whatever legislation is or is not enacted goes through a democratic process accompanied by vigorous debate and if it’s dopey enough gets properly ignored anyway. I think stoning women to death for adultery in Iran and Nigeria and judicially raping them in Pakistan is a bit more obnoxious, me. I don’t know why people keep obsessing about the idiotic US right when they’re pussycats compared with Islamic fundamentalists.
Um, Rob, because people also die - but at a greater distance - from the US right’s anti-sex crap. Don’t fall into that nasty moral equivalence trap, my friend!
Damn, I always miss out on the good ones.
By the way, one of my comments is trapped in your spam filter again. Actually I cheated, it’s a post from my blog.
if such actually exist
In his first budget to Congress, Bush recommended that $126 million be allocated for abstinence education. At that stage, in the address he sent to Congress, he lauded Britney Spears as an exemplar of the virtues of virginity.
Heard of the promise-keepers, Rob? It’s easy to be cynical over here in Australia but the anti-sex, back in the coathanger 50s age thing in the US is massive, and real. I thought you commented recently you were a reader of blogs outside the Oz sphere. Almost all of it risks looking nuts here - like the bill in the Texas legislature to ban “lascivious” high school cheerleading - but all has real consequences over there. Under Clinton, there was a push to investigate the many internet incitements to kill doctors who terminate pregnancies. Some of whom have been killed by Catholic Priests and the leader of the Terri Schiavo movement, who spent some gaol time for conspiracy, but I bet the FBI aren’t prioritising this now.
It’s approved now, EP, but it’s probably better to link to your post next time rather than make a really long comment.
[Shrugs shoulders] It’s just part of the great democratic thang they’ve got going over there and I simply can’t see the point of bellyaching about it.
Thanks. It was a bit naughty and lazy, and I won’t do it again unless I’m really drunk.
Right, Rob, when Labor wins government here, I’ll remind you that it’s all part of the great democratic thang we’ve got going here and I can’t see the point of any criticism you might make about Beazley PM. Get real. If crud public policy affects peoples’ lives in the US, we should speak out. Particularly since we now appear to import most of our politics from there with only a light patina of Australianisation. Remind me next time you make a comment about Iraq that it’s all just part of the great American democracy thang and you shouldn’t bellyache about it.
EP, I’ve just had a look and it is a really long comment! It’s a reasonable thing to propose for discussion - but maybe you could just summarise your take next time and link to your post.
And people who murder others in the US are pursued with the full force of the law and pay the penalty if convicted. This perpetual anti-US phobia in the left-wing press and blogosphere makes me tired. There are a lot worse people out there.
Delete it if you like, Mark. I’ll post a summary and link.
For chrissakes, Rob. I’m a big fan of the US. I love Roosevelt. I’d like to go and live and work in the US. The US is a very complex, fascinating and varied country. I reserve my right however to be critical of lunatic Christian fundies who want to make decisions which lead to people dying. Alright? Get some new talking points. Your perpetual right wing lines in the blogosphere make me tired.
Ok, EP, that might be better. I do agree btw that it’s a topic well worth debating.
EP, post anew.
Lordy, 28 comments in an hour and a half after midnight and only from the three of us. That’s a very strong sign that it’s time to sleep!
Night Mark-Bob.
[Shrugs shoulders] Easy for you to be complacent about cervical cancer, Rob, since as a man it doesn’t affect you. Try imagining you had an 11 year old daughter in school in Maryland. Night, EP, Mark, and Bob (I like how you’ve renamed Rob, EP, to make him easily distinguishable from Robert Corr!).
Part of the ‘varied’ country thing you admire is the fact that lots of people in the US hold opinions in stark contrast to your own - as you’ll find if you ever do work there. It leads them down policy roads that look strange to us, but what of it? Who cares if Texas legislators ban sexy cheerleaders? I’d say Texas would be a sadder place for it but if Texans think not, that’s their choice. How does that lead to people being killed? Angry fans killing games officials, maybe.
Once upon a time, Rob, you posted a metacommentary about the drift of a thread. I admire you as a master of dark rhetorical arts. I must work on reducing to symbolic logic how you can make comments which appear so reasonable, and subtly shift the direction of a discussion, without actually being at all responsive to what others argue.
I imagine you learnt these tricks from your mentors Messieurs Foucault, Barthes and Baudrillard.
Tip of the mortarboard to you, and I’ll just say “bonne nuit”.
The poster-boy for anti-vaccination obscurantism in the United States is, of course, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Not a Republican, our Bob.
Hi, C.L. Liked your post on Oriana Fallaci.
Not OT given the title of this post.
C.L., Robert Kennedy had an appalling record on civil liberties. Is this some Rafean style inquisition where if Kim criticises present day Republican wilful obscurantism, I - as a fellow member of THE LEFT - am required to take full, immediate and personal responsibility for everything RFK ever did?
I do however take the opportunity, since it’s late at night, to apologise personally to Rob for all Stalin’s crimes. I have never been, and am not now…
But, C.L, you know both of us have to account to the ghost of Daniel Mannix. Just sayin…
I do however take the opportunity, since it’s late at night, to apologise personally to Rob for all Stalin’s crimes.
Now the healing can begin.
Not til Rob admits that Dr Daniel Mannix was a saint.
Get some freakin’ sleep!
I don’t know anything about Dr Mannix except he was a ritual hate figure of my (left-wing) youth. In other words, I don’t know anything about him. Ooops, same words.
Perfectly reasonable request from Mark!
8^)
(New face - learnt it today. Heh heh).
Rob, you must learn about Dr Mannix. Your salvation depends on it.
I used to have a picture of him on my bedroom wall when I was in High School. And this benighted generation of yoof think they can do odd!
C.L., I don’t think emoticons show up. I’m advised that there is an emoticon for “Like. Whatever.”. I think that’ll be most useful next time I have a stoush with Jason Soon.
Maynooth is only part of Ireland. Who saw the doco on sbs last night about Celtic sexuality? Maeve the Goddess! And Brigid the Abbess!
The Jason/Mark rubles have become blog standouts.
Kim: Am I dropped as your blog crush? Just wondering.
8^(
Got to use my eight face again. Heh heh.
I shouldn’t post when inebriated.
And with 2 am breached here in Alice, earnest commenters and bloggers sit poised over their keyboards while the mighty East Macdonnell mountain ranges dream on their deathless dreams in vast indifference.
Just sayin’…
I think “Die you sexy women!” would make a great battle-cry.
Rubles sometimes known as rumbles.
And thanks Rob.
C.L. you’re definitely my #1 blog crush. That reminds me of a 90s song - what was it? Jason is anti-emotion and pro-(voluntary) eugenics so he’s worth stoushing with.
Rob, are you channelling Patrick White?
Btw - why we should all be anti-statists when it comes to Australian literature.
I suck when it comes to the links.
Ps. Popper.
8^))
Good night Kim.
(And you other hooligans).
Night, C.L. But what does your emoticon mean?
Glad to have your online-heart still!
Kim, no, I never took much to Mr White. I just love this place. Australia’s red, pulsing heart. It’s winter here now, but you haven’t been to the red centre if you’ve not been there in summer. 50 degrees+, walking the old dry river beds among the lines of red river gums, with the odd ghost gum stepping up to blind you when you least expect it. Fabulous.
C.L. - I have a comment to post at your place on Fallaci.
So tired of playing with this bow and arrow,,, going to give it to the other girls to play…
My favourite 90s song is Portishead’s “Glory Box”.
“Give me a reason to love you…”
First heard it in Seattle, which somehow seems appropriate.
Rob, yr lyricism is why we love you, despite yr evil RWDB-ness.
Thank you, ma’am. You’re generous to a fault.
Well, yr either with me or against me, Rob
It’s a quarter to three, there’s no-one in the place except you and me…..
Good night, Kim.
Night, Rob!
I am wary of some of these debates for several reasons, not least because the U.S. media is notorious for not fairly representing Christian viewpoints. But also because I am wary of the track record of the pharmaceutical industry in its pursuit of the almighty dollar.
I think to cover this debate fairly one must point out a few facts about HPV. Briefly:
There are over 60 types that have been identified to date, but of concern here for women are those types that infect the female organs.
While little is known about how and when people are infected with HPV, what is known seems indicate transmission by sexual contact.
Those strains of HPV that infect the female organs may cause two types of tissue abnormalities:
condyloma (warts) and
dysplasia (pre-cancer).
As an aside, condyloma is thought to be the most common of sexually transmitted diseases in both men and women in the U.S. but does not lead to genital cancer.
Those strains causing dysplasia are of concern here. Even so, it takes years for dysplasia (pre-cancer) to develop into cancer, if it does at all.
Dysplasia (pre-cancer) can be detected by Pap smear and treated before it becomes cancerous. The majority of cases of cervical cancer are in women who have either never had a Pap smear, or have not had one in five years or more.
Three ways to decrease exposure to HPV are:
condoms
monogamy (of both partners)
abstinence.
Ways to decrease the risk of developing dysplasia after exposure to HPV or it’s reoccurrence after treatment: don’t smoke.
Ways to decrease the risk of dysplasia developing into cancer:
Get a regular pap smear and if dysplasia is found, get it treated.
This even if you get vaccinated. Because the vaccines do not immunise women against all strains of HPV associated with cancer.
In fact, it is screening that has led to the large drop in the incidence of cervical cancer in women, at least in western countries. The problem remains for women in third world countries where screening is not widely available. Even so vaccination there will present it’s own issues. Cultural mores make some women reluctant to be tested; vaccinating men would be a better way to go.
I’ve been reading about these vaccinations for a couple of years or so now. The so called religious group opposition since about April or earlier (relgious groups are ‘preparing to oppose’…). These religious groups are largely unnamed. Or else inferred from one or two quotes from articles like like this one which seems to have had bits quoted ad infinitum from a more controversial lobby group which has warned that condoms are ot as effective wagainst HPV as they are with HIV (true but does the article note whether the strains leading to cervical cancer are transmitted by skin contact? No.) In fact Katha Pollitt seems to have lifted her quote from the New Scientist article published six weeks earlier which in turn may have lifted it from somewhere else earlier still. So where are all these other relgious groups lining up to oppose vaccination?
In fact, Pollitts article is rather dismal, then going into an unrelated tirade against Hagel -also the subject of god blogs and religious press for some weeks now. If his wife’s allegations are true - and I haven’t yet read anything to suggest they aren’t - he needs to be condemned and removed from his position, but what he as to do with the question is unclear to me from Pollits’ article. Just a bit of handy Christian bashing.
I think that was obvious from the title: “virginity or death!” Does that mean Pollits doesn’t care about all the women who are not virgins getting the vaccination? Shouldn’t they be protected as well? Or is she arguing for promiscuity and death? Or fidelity or death?
Female here, never smoked ever, first sex at 19, positive pap for C1 dysplasia at 45. a sexually transmitted disease brought to the woman by the man, who has usually had multiple partners. bring on the male vaccine.
back on topic: CONTROL can easily be gained by DISinformation, misinformation, propaganda.
Saint beat me to it.
I am glad he did though.
His comment is ever so more eloquent and readable than mine.
homer. You disappoint me. I was sure you’d pick up on the “condyloma (warts)” seeing Condy Rice is flitting around the world at the moment.