Don't call them 'pro-life'
(From The New Yorker; article not available online)
Imagine if a drug were developed that prevents a type of cancer that kills 5,000 Americans every year, along with hundreds of thousands around the world. Not 'cures' – 'prevents'. The drug, in the form of a vaccine, protects individuals against a virus which infects more than half of all Americans in the course of their lives. The vaccine has been tested in 13 countries, including the United States, in a double-blind study involving more than 12,000 individual subjects. It is safe and it is effective.
You would think that this drug would be rushed on to the market, and in the normal course of affairs, it would be.
However, the virus that this drug protects against is HPV, which is sexually transmitted. To be effective as a vaccine, it would need to administered before an individual becomes sexually active. And since the cancer that would be prevented is cervical, that is, affects only women, the vaccine would need to be administered to young girls, who on average get sexually active around 17 years of age.
Since the official policy of the Bush administration and the hard right on teenage sex is to run screaming from the room and cower in a corner mumbling about abstinence, the FDA is holding up approval of the vaccine.
Leslee Unruh, of an organization called 'Abstinence Clearinghouse', explains the rationale: "I personally object to vaccinating children when they don't need vaccinations, particularly against a disease that is 100 percent preventable with proper sexual behavior".
Analyze that statement for a moment. What is 'proper sexual behavior'? Isn't the obvious conclusion that this person does not mind if cancer strikes those who do not engage in it?
In short, the reactionary agenda shouldn't be described as 'pro-life' by any stretch of the imagination; if you don't live according to their rule book, they don't mind if you die, in this case, of cancer.
Imagine if a drug were developed that prevents a type of cancer that kills 5,000 Americans every year, along with hundreds of thousands around the world. Not 'cures' – 'prevents'. The drug, in the form of a vaccine, protects individuals against a virus which infects more than half of all Americans in the course of their lives. The vaccine has been tested in 13 countries, including the United States, in a double-blind study involving more than 12,000 individual subjects. It is safe and it is effective.
You would think that this drug would be rushed on to the market, and in the normal course of affairs, it would be.
However, the virus that this drug protects against is HPV, which is sexually transmitted. To be effective as a vaccine, it would need to administered before an individual becomes sexually active. And since the cancer that would be prevented is cervical, that is, affects only women, the vaccine would need to be administered to young girls, who on average get sexually active around 17 years of age.
Since the official policy of the Bush administration and the hard right on teenage sex is to run screaming from the room and cower in a corner mumbling about abstinence, the FDA is holding up approval of the vaccine.
Leslee Unruh, of an organization called 'Abstinence Clearinghouse', explains the rationale: "I personally object to vaccinating children when they don't need vaccinations, particularly against a disease that is 100 percent preventable with proper sexual behavior".
Analyze that statement for a moment. What is 'proper sexual behavior'? Isn't the obvious conclusion that this person does not mind if cancer strikes those who do not engage in it?
In short, the reactionary agenda shouldn't be described as 'pro-life' by any stretch of the imagination; if you don't live according to their rule book, they don't mind if you die, in this case, of cancer.
posted by Michael at 6:42 PM
<< Home