Some Groups Oppose Vaccine Which Immunizes Against Cervical Cancer With 100% Efficacy

What?

A vaccine immunizes perfectly against cervical cancer, and some don't want the shot given routinely to just-pubescent girls because it sends the wrong signal about having sex?

I'd say that's sending the wrong signal about cancer, myself.

Conservative groups say they welcome the vaccine as an important public health tool but oppose making it mandatory.

Well, I guess, sure, if you want to expose your daughter to cervical cancer, I guess I can see why you wouldn't want it to be mandatory...

Well, actually, I can't. This vaccine protects against one cancer, caused usually by the human papilloma virus, an STD. It doesn't protect against pregnancy or AIDS or herpes.

Mandatory? Why shouldn't it be mandatory (or "mandatory" in the sense that it's difficult to get out of it, requiring paperwork and such)? All women are going to have sex at some point, even if it's on their wedding night. We're not going to virtually eliminate a form of cancer just because it sends some "signals"?

Sending signals that we "expect" teenaged girls to have sex is bad. You know what else is kinda bad? Cervical cancer.

From Fark.

posted by Ace at 11:49 AM

| Access Comments