It’s so impressive – not in the least surprising, but so impressive – when candidates for elected office cheerfully put other people’s lives at risk in the hope of gaining an advantage over a rival.
Like Michele Bachmann.
Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) is continuing to attack the 2012 frontrunner for mandating that young girls get the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine…
Social conservatives argue that the vaccine, which protects against a sexually-transmitted disease that can lead to cervical cancer, encourages promiscuity. Perry’s decision has already riled up conservative activists; it might be Bachmann’s best hope to win back those voters.
And that’s reason enough to make irresponsible attacks on a public health measure.
If it were true that the vaccine turned my daughter (should I ever have one) into a diagnosed nymphomaniac, I would consider that to be better than her dying from cancer.
Does Bachmann not think that women could get raped, and contract HPV from that? I would consider protecting those women to be well worth any potential increase in promiscuity (temporarily ignoring that I don’t find promiscuity objectionable).
Oh, man, vaccine crazy can be difficult territory to navigate. Opposing compulsory vaccination is a classic right libertarian position, but it is a bit archaic, so younger wingers might not identify. In some ways, the HPV conflict brings this up to date; we’re not against vaccination, just sexual realism. (The public health rationale for universal vaccination against hepatitis B involves the assumption that we’re interrupting a sexually transmitted agent. Shh, don’t tell them.)
Ah, but when you get into side effects, you’re turning left. This is the realm of evil big pharma and authority to be questioned. This gives Republicans wanting to get Bachman off the stage free rein to attack, and it looks like that’s what’s happening.
Excuse me I don’t understand this. Why exactly is a vaccine against papilloma anti-conservative?
@jose:
Well, as Bachmann said, it encourages promiscuity. We can’t have that now, can we?
Which is it? Metally retarded, or a slut*? Pick a side, Bachmann, we’re at war!
*I realize that the two are not mutually exclusive, but false dichotomy humor doesn’t work otherwise. Of course, it could be neither…
Everyone knows that the only reason teenage girls aren’t having non-stop sex is because of the cancer risk. Right?
Has anyone ever argued that mandatory car insurance leads to reckless driving?
What I still don’t get is – this vaccine isn’t approved for age ranges above fairly young (early 20’s for women last I heard, though I may be out of date). In other words, often before married young. So.. either you get the vaccine before you get married (Oh, Noes, maybe be promiscuous! Not that young people think they can get cancer anyway…), or don’t get it, and likely can’t get it after you’re married, and then get maybe get cancer. Even though you maybe weren’t promiscuous, but.. what, it’s your fault for marrying the wrong person, who happens to be a carrier, even if they’re also a virgin?
This is where the so-called “logic” breaks down for me. You do everything “right”, but still have fairly good odds of getting cancer out of the deal. Yay, for being “good” and not getting the vaccine that could help you later in life. Right? Right??
Sorry, I don’t see a connection between a vaccine against papilloma and promiscuity. Are married women unable to catch that from their husbands?
So if safer sex leads to promiscuity and she’s opposed to that, will she as president be ordering the development of sex-detecting killbots to make sure noone ever has sex again on risk of being brutally murdered? Will the killbot targetting parameters prioritise people of the same gender having sex first or would bachmann more of an equal opprtunity evil tyrant?
I don’t know where I read the comparison (apologies to whomever it was who came up with it), but someone should ask Bachmann whether she thinks children who have tetanus shots are more likely to stick rusty nails in their feet.
Effectively what Bachman is saying is that she worries that this is how SHE would have behaved in this situation. She is projecting, as politicians usually do, her own prejudices and fears onto the rest of us.