March 11, 2006
Far-right activists pick their favorite fatal — but preventable — disease
Posted 9:57 am
I've done a few posts on conservative Republican activists' efforts to block a vaccine against human papillomavirus (HPV), but there's just something about their crusade that never ceases to amaze me. Andrew Sullivan noted Michael Specter's new article that explains why the right is willing — indeed, is anxious — to stand in the way of a safe, effective vaccine.
Religious conservatives are unapologetic; not only do they believe that mass use of an HPV vaccine or the availability of emergency contraception will encourage adolescents to engage in unacceptable sexual behavior; some have even stated that they would feel similarly about an H.I.V. vaccine, if one became available.
"We would have to look at that closely," Reginald Finger, an evangelical Christian and a former medical adviser to the conservative political organization Focus on the Family, said. "With any vaccine for H.I.V., disinhibition" - a medical term for the absence of fear - "would certainly be a factor, and it is something we will have to pay attention to with a great deal of care." Finger sits on the Centers for Disease Control's Immunization Committee, which makes those recommendations."
Let's be clear here. There is a vaccine that is literally 100% effective in preventing cervical cancer and precancerous changes tied to two types of a common sexually transmitted virus. But for the right, the vaccine may let young people believe they can have sex without getting cervical cancer, so, naturally, as far as they're concerned, the vaccine must not be available.
A vaccine could prevent more than 200,000 women from dying of cervical cancer each year (including 5,000 women in the United States). As New Scientist recently reported, deaths from cervical cancer could jump fourfold to a million a year by 2050, mainly in developing countries, all of which are preventable with this vaccine.
The far-right GOP base doesn't seem to care. It comes down to a fairly straightforward position: The vaccine may lead to more pre-marital sex, so let those hundreds of thousands of women die a painful death.
One should be cautious about throwing around phrases such as "pro-cancer," but given the circumstances, doesn't the label fit?
--
Colin Brace
Amsterdam