It has't seemed fair that liberal legislators are focusing solely on young girls in their attempts to mandate 3 vaccinations (well, maybe 6 or more, since they've only been proven to last 4 years) to stop 4 strains (of over 100) of one sexually transmitted disease, HPV.
So when The New York Post reported Feb. 16 that the City of New York launched a campaign last week to distribute 26 million condoms during rush hour in subway stations, I had an idea.
Why not mandate that every 11-year-old boy carry a condom in his pocket?
I got this brainstorm because New York City officials offered the very same reasons for widespread condom distribution as liberals for mandated HPV vaccinations, as the article states....
[Mayor Michael] Bloomberg defended the $1.5 million condom program spearheaded by city Health Commissioner Dr. Thomas Frieden.... "We believe we're saving lives, and it's important to do that"....
The Health Department had instructed the employees not to offer free condoms to minors [JS: why not?], but The Post on Wednesday observed what appeared to be young teenagers taking handfuls of condoms [JS: whew!].
Frieden said ramped-up condom distribution will boost safe sex, reducing HIV infection and unwanted pregnancies.
New York City leads the nation in HIV cases. In 2005, 1,400 city inhabitants died of AIDS, the third-leading killer for residents under 65, behind only cancer and heart disease.
"It will save lives and actually save money," Frieden said. He added that he believes young people should abstain from sex, but if they don't, they should use condoms.
"Not enough condoms are being used," he said....
The Health Department distributed 18 million free condoms last year through its health clinics and community groups.
It seems to me that mandating condoms in every adolescent boys' pocket would theoretically stop the spread of many more sexually transmited diseases than an HPV vaccine.
Although I must admit I'm at a loss to explain why the number of AIDS cases in New York continues to rise despite the fact liberals have for years focused on widespread condom teaching and now free(!) distribution. But let not the facts of history dissuade us!
[Hat tip: Dr. Frank]
Comments:
Condoms? Condoms protect from STDs? Well gosh, why don't they start teaching that in the schools? As soon as they do I'm sure STD rates will plummet (and certainly not go up or anything)!
Posted by: Michelle Potter at February 18, 2007 10:36 AMThe Post on Wednesday observed what appeared to be young teenagers taking handfuls of condoms...
Here's my question:
How young were these teenagers?
I'm not a lawyer, and offhand, I don't know what the age of consent is in New York, but assuming that underage kids did acquire some of these "handfuls of condoms"...is that legal?
I'll say this much: If anybody ever approached one of my daughters in public and tried to give her condoms, I'd sue him for sexual harassment.
Posted by: John Jansen at February 19, 2007 1:42 PMThat is just the point, condoms do not protect against even the minority of STDs, and neither do the vaccines. It is being taught in schools to use condoms as safe sex, but as New York City statistics have shown, "safe sex" is not 100% safe. When condoms and vaccines are given to youth who are told that they can have sex safely, no wonder they have sex. Guess what happens to the percentage of boys or girls who have sex with someone who has a STD that condoms do not protect against.
Posted by: Tiffany at February 20, 2007 10:32 AMTo reiterate my comment on Jill's previous column (which I'm sure didn't influence today's column): why not mandate HPV vaccine for boys? They give HPV to girls, after all.
Posted by: Jake at February 21, 2007 6:32 AM
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.