The Washington Post has today's outrage of the day, which illustrates just how twisted the wingnut social right can get.
How twisted would that be? How about working to minimize the distribution of a vaccine for a disease that kills thousands of women annually.
As the Post's Rob Stein reports:
A new vaccine that protects against cervical cancer has set up a clash between health advocates who want to use the shots aggressively to prevent thousands of malignancies and social conservatives who say immunizing teenagers could encourage sexual activity.
Although the vaccine will not become available until next year at the earliest, activists on both sides have begun maneuvering to influence how widely the immunizations will be employed. ... The vaccine protects women against strains of a ubiquitous germ called the human papilloma virus. Although many strains of the virus are innocuous, some can cause cancerous lesions on the cervix (the outer end of the uterus), making them the primary cause of this cancer in the United States.
On the one side are advocacy groups working to reduce instances of cervical cancer, which strikes 10,000 women each year, killing more than 3,700, according to the article.
Makes sense, right? Not to everyone:
Because the vaccine protects against a sexually transmitted virus, many conservatives oppose making it mandatory, citing fears that it could send a subtle message condoning sexual activity before marriage.
Cuz, you know, teen girls are going to say: Hey, I've got my cervical cancer immunization, I think I'll go celebrate with a night of pre-marital sex! Why is it that in the minds of certain people everyone behaves as if they were in a porn movie, where anything sexually related will eventually lead to a wild romp?
"Some people have raised the issue of whether this vaccine may be sending an overall message to teenagers that, 'We expect you to be sexually active,'" said Reginald Finger, a doctor trained in public health who served as a medical analyst for Focus on the Family before being appointed to the [Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, a Centers for Disease Control body that will have a huge say in how the vaccine is administered] in 2003, in a telephone interview.
"There are people who sense that it could cause people to feel like sexual behaviors are safer if they are vaccinated and may lead to more sexual behavior because they feel safe," said Finger, emphasizing that he does not endorse that position and is withholding judgment until the issue comes before the vaccine policy panel for a formal recommendation.
But why stop with this business of the "overall" subtle message preventing this disease sends. Let's flip the logic around, shall we? Shouldn't the virus in question -- all sexually transmitted diseases, really -- be protected as a kind of natural shield against unprotected sex? According to the logic of the folks on the wacko fringe, shouldn't research into preventing HPV, HIV, whatever, be discouraged because "it could cause people to feel like sexual behaviors are safer"?