Recently the governor of Texas, himself an avowed conservative, made the unusual move of requiring that all girls be vaccinated against human papillomavirus (HPV) before they enter the 6th grade. The move is expected to greatly reduce the potential risk for women developing cervical cancer down the road. Unfortunately, many of his conservative legislators are fighting the order under the guise that the vaccine would encourage promiscuity.
Conservatives have once again framed a health debate in such a way that a double standard is created. Young women who choose to have sex are faced with a much greater potential "punishment" than young men, since HPV has limited health consequences for men. Even those women who choose not to have sex until marriage remain at risk should their husband have contracted this disease before marriage.
To put it more simply, they are saying that women who have sex should die.
Is having sex a high-risk behavior? More and more it seems to be as abstinence-only sex education curriculum makes young men and women less likely to use protection and thus encourages the spread of STDs and increases the risks of unplanned pregnancies. In the case of HPV, much like HIV, the risk can be deadly. However, unlike HIV, health risks from HPV exist more so for females than males.
If a vaccine for HIV was available, would conservatives put up a wall? Would they still say that it should be held off on because people would feel safer having sex? Or would there be less resistance because in that instance it would save the lives of both men and women?
The HPV vaccine is still being studied, challenged and championed while legalities are being hashed out, but one thing is for certain: There would not be the discussion or the coverage that there is currently if one brave governor hadn't turned away from his base to make a sweeping gesture to protect the lives of women.
If only we had a brave governor, too.
Conservatives have once again framed a health debate in such a way that a double standard is created. Young women who choose to have sex are faced with a much greater potential "punishment" than young men, since HPV has limited health consequences for men. Even those women who choose not to have sex until marriage remain at risk should their husband have contracted this disease before marriage.
To put it more simply, they are saying that women who have sex should die.
Is having sex a high-risk behavior? More and more it seems to be as abstinence-only sex education curriculum makes young men and women less likely to use protection and thus encourages the spread of STDs and increases the risks of unplanned pregnancies. In the case of HPV, much like HIV, the risk can be deadly. However, unlike HIV, health risks from HPV exist more so for females than males.
If a vaccine for HIV was available, would conservatives put up a wall? Would they still say that it should be held off on because people would feel safer having sex? Or would there be less resistance because in that instance it would save the lives of both men and women?
The HPV vaccine is still being studied, challenged and championed while legalities are being hashed out, but one thing is for certain: There would not be the discussion or the coverage that there is currently if one brave governor hadn't turned away from his base to make a sweeping gesture to protect the lives of women.
If only we had a brave governor, too.