It doesn't seem fair that legislators are focusing solely on adolescent girls to try to slow the spread the sexually transmitted disease human papillomavirus....
Lawmakers around the country are introducing legislation faster than sperm swims mandating that 11- and 12-year-old girls be injected with the three-dose HPV vaccination regimen (well, maybe six, or more, since the vaccine has only been proven to last four years)....
But the feminist in me says this mandated vaccine is patriarchal. After all, women already bear almost all the responsibility for sex-without-consequences.
We're the ones who have to ingest birth control pills packed with female steroids, or transport that copper IUD with the weird vibes it sends throughout our uteruses and who knows where else, or insert that clumsy diaphragm, or wear those birth control patches that cause heart attacks. And then we end up pregnant anyway and have to get the abortions or raise the products of conception as single moms.
And now we're being asked to assume accountability for STDs, too? No.
So when the New York Post reported Feb. 16 that the city of New York has launched a campaign to distribute 26 million condoms during rush hour in subway stations, I had an idea....
Continue reading my WorldNetDaily.com column today, "Why not mandate condoms for boys?"
I was thinking somewhat the same thing: Why not mandate AIDS testing and public knowledge of results? I think HIV is of greater concern.Posted by: Faye at February 21, 2007 10:12 AM
Get 'em, Girl. LOL.Posted by: John at February 21, 2007 10:17 AM
You're right in that we might as well address the insanity now in public schools with humor. It's probably a better idea than the others about eleven-year-old boys being given condoms, and it couldn't do any worse than those other ideas have.
I remember hearing about someone dressed in a big condom who would give speeches in public schools to students. He called himself Condom Man.
None of the many problems now in public schools would have happened if God and school prayer had not been taken out.
As William Bennett said, bad kids in school once threw spitballs, and it usually didn't go any further than that.Posted by: Clay B. at February 21, 2007 11:30 AM
What about requiring the HPV vaccine for boys diagnosed with STDs, or seen by their parents as likely to be sexually active?
Let's face facts; if the boy can't harbor it, he can't transmit it. All those women with cervical cancer didn't get HPV from other women or a toilet seat.Posted by: Robert P. at February 21, 2007 11:42 AM
Robert, news reports stated Merck is studying an HPV vaccine for boys, so there is none yet as far as I know.
But somehow I think mandating the shot for boys would be greeted with even more disdain the mandating for girls. Girls have been conditioned to accept the chemicals/steroids/responsibility for birth control and now STDs. Boys, no.Posted by: Jill Stanek at February 21, 2007 11:46 AM
You are a good writer but not a physician/researcher. Let me help you.
Condoms are useful as filters to limit the access of sperm cells to fertilize eggs. But condoms, like any substance, have pores or holes in them. Even steel has holes in it if you look on a small enough scale or measure. 99% of even solid matter is empty space since there is space between the nuclei and the electrons surrounding the nuclei. If somehow such matter could be arranged optimally, a manís hand could enter a personís body to do surgery or remove foreign objects but there is no way to make such arrangements.
The pores are small enough to limit sperm from penetrating condoms, when the condoms donít tear or have defects, which happen one time in six. The failure rate of condoms is 16% overall. The pores however are so large, relative to viruses, that viruses can easily penetrate the pores and as such condoms are no protection against HPV or AIDS or any other virus. Sperm cells are much larger than viruses.
Homosexual activists want to promote homosexual activity and as such will encourage it with any ideas at their disposal, even ideas that make no scientific sense like using condoms to avoid AIDS transmission. I have known homosexual activists who will tell any lie, even a temporarily useful one to license exercising their desired behavior. They remind me of abortionists who made up all kinds of lies to legalize abortions, from fabricating statistics re how many women died from illegal abortions annually to how many pregnancies resulted from rape or incest to a host of other imaginations.
You canít be an expert on everything and neither can I. It is up to those on the right side to help each other.Posted by: MD/PhD at February 21, 2007 11:51 AM
Do you NOT know that condoms are not effective in preventing hpv? This has been the trap that was concealed from the general public by the CDC.
MD, Shirley - my column was written tongue-in-cheek, as the last few lines confirm if people not used to my writing were previously unaware. But thanks to MD in particular for great information.Posted by: Jill Stanek at February 21, 2007 11:56 AM
The answer to all your questions is really quite simple. For as long as I can remember there has been a quote that has always filled the bill: "Them as can, do, those who can't, teach."
Ultimately, the whole responsibility rests on the heads of the parents. It is only because parents have been taught to send their children elsewhere to get an education, and the constant reduction of what society tells prospective parents is their responsibility, has moved all nonreligious and all "need to know" education onto the schools.
Since a substantial percentage of the population won't teach their children the single most important issue for their children, the socialists who have assumed overt command of the "education system" get to decide what to teach.
It's easy to blame the system, but the real cause lies in what parents are willing to assume as their own responsibility. In this manner, it is easier to send your kid to school like your neighbor, than to set up your life to teach your children yourself, so that is what the vast majority do.
I spent my whole childhood wondering why all my friends' parents were so nice, and my friends were so mean spirited towards them. While my parents were "nice," they put that second and put authoritative first. My parents told us they were not in the business of raising children, they were busy raising adults, and the starting form is children.
Socialism has never succeeded in any society it has been tried. However it has a unique draw that sucks uneducated people into its trap every time. While it isn't necessary to be well educated to understand that everything that comes from the government was taken out of someone else's pocket, it is very easy to ignore that and simply accept it knowing that it is coming from someone better off than one's self.
No one of that mindset ever notices that while the big piece never comes from their own class of people, the majority of what the government spends is made up of little pieces, each of which is more important to those in the lower earning brackets than the big piece is to the upper earning bracket.
The reality of this is what allows something that has always been an abject failure can be revitalized again and again with each new generation.Posted by: John M. at February 21, 2007 12:03 PM
About two weeks ago Merck began backing off from their aggressive campaign to "legislate" Gardasil for girls as young as ten. Their new tactic is an advertisment that "warns women to ask their doctors about HPV". The add makes no mention of GARDASIL.
Silly me, the cynic in me suggests Merck realizes they overreached in their effort to "legislate" the vaccine. Instead, they pretend to "sell the virus" instead of "sell the vaccine."
In any event, it is encouraging to see Merck and their political lackies be exposed for all to see.
Absolutely amazing the political power and influence a pharmaceutical company has when all it takes is a sizeable contribution to a national women's organization, such as Women in Government, and the political "bang for your buck" is almost immediately realized in every state legislature in the country. It ought to scare the bejesus out of parents nationwide to see the health of their children sold so callously for a political contribution.
Hope all is well and don't let ANYONE get you down! Stay strong and be the voice my autistic grandson no longer has.Posted by: Bob M. at February 21, 2007 12:19 PM
Good article. I hope the real MOMs merge on this and make the politicians lives a living hell.
I pictured a class being given that teaches citizens how to prevent unwanted legislation whereby:
~ the instructor takes a huge condom and shows the class how to place it over the dummy politico/judge starting at the head and working down to the ankles, then
~ in this condition the customized politico/judge carries on its function and since no sound or motion can be effected to vote, the USA is safe as a democratic Republic.Posted by: Henry B. at February 21, 2007 12:22 PM
Good article, Jill.
And the bad news is condoms don't even work in preventing HPV transmission, since it's spread by skin to skin contct. And women seem to reap most of the consequences from other STDs as well.Posted by: Mary Lou, RN at February 21, 2007 12:25 PM
Since, on the average, 10 percent of Peoples Commissar Mike's latex wonders are defective, why is he asking the boys to use them instead of promoting the moral choice, abstinence?
This tripe he is peddling, disguised as reasonable precautions, has never led to reduced pregnancies with the girls conned into the beds, back seats, et al, of randy boys.
It is one more time he can strike noble poses and pretend he is doing everything for the benefit of society.
He is as full of bovine feces this time as he is when he pretends gun control is not really self defense control. This RINO is a fraud on stilts.
I enjoyed reading your commentary. I agree that this vaccine should not be mandated by states.
However, I donít think such state legislation is targeting women as the means to stop the spread of HPV. Rather, I think the thrust of such legislation is to PROTECT women from cervical cancer, since it is women who will suffer from the disease, not guys (at least directly). But since Iím not big into paternalism, I donít support mandating an HPV vaccination for personal protection.
In any event, thanks for a great commentary piece!Posted by: Dr. John, OB/GYN at February 21, 2007 12:32 PM
Well said, gracious hostess, about people being reluctant to mandate drugs for boys. That said, I still think it's an important point to make.
Specifically, the "herd" that needs immunity from HPV is not all girls, but rather all sexually active girls and boys (and young ladies & men not yet married). The selection of the wrong herd reflects either a lack of confidence among doctors to isolate the proper recipients, or "rent-seeking" from Merck, or most likely a touch of both.Posted by: Robert Perry at February 21, 2007 2:18 PM
Great job, Jill! Your column really makes sense. I have feeling that Ms. Halvorson has received funding from pharmaceutical companies.
Unfortunately money cuts across party lines so all who are pushing this vaccine are at fault.
A DemocratPosted by: Chris at February 21, 2007 3:49 PM
It did raise one significant question, however. I enjoy the shooting sports (using metal guns, of course), but I know that most ammunition has a specific shelf-life, particularly self-defense loads.
Rather than just throw it out (using approved procedures), I prefer to go to the range and shoot it all up.
So, does this same policy apply to all those expiring condoms in our jacket pockets?
Keep up your fine work, it entertains and enlightens me.Posted by: Charlie at February 21, 2007 3:52 PM
I was moved to congratulate you on your "advocacy" of condoms for adolescent boys in lieu of mandatory HPV vaccinations. I believe the advertising for these vaccinations are misleading, because they are touted as a "uterine cancer vaccine" which, of course, isn't the case, at least not directly.
You were dead on with your analysis that women bear the brunt of the sexual revolution's many requirements. It boggles my mind that the feminist movement has been, at least on some level, successful in selling the painful, dangerous invasive medical procedure of abortion as a fundamental "right" of women. Never mind the ethical and moral considerations, even if those are set aside the procedure doesn't sound to me as though it's something I'd want to go through.Posted by: Stewart at February 21, 2007 6:47 PM
I like the idea of "Mr. Condom". Maybe we could dress someone up in a foam rubber HPV virus.
We could then demonstrate how to prevent the spread of HPV.
By zipping up a zipper.Posted by: Tony at February 21, 2007 8:55 PM
Good article, Jill. On a very serious note, we, as parents need to look at the massive scale that our government is attempting (and often succeeding) in terminating our rights as parents. Our constitution and the US Supreme Court has upheld those rights, but they are regularily being trampled upon. This is the core of the issue - not if girls or boys are getting government policies forced upon them; it is the government testing how far it can go to undermine parents and our God-given authority over our own children. Since when has the government done anything better than the private sector? This is actually very sinister policy cloaked in "best interest of the child" propaganda that is always used when the government wants to overtake our rights and hope we won't notice.Posted by: Carri at February 23, 2007 1:52 PM
The only way to beat STD's is to teach our kids Chastity Education. This is the only way it will get done.
You can listen to Jason Evert and Chris Stefanick teach High School students Chastity Education at the link below.
These are the best talks I have heard. Also, if you listen to Jason Evert speak to the Catholic High School on the link, fast forward up to 1 minute into the speech. Jason brings up many stats on STD's in his talk which are interesting...Posted by: Mike at February 25, 2007 5:44 AM
I'm sorry I meant to say fast forward to the one hour mark in Jason's talk.
MikePosted by: Mike at February 25, 2007 5:46 AM
survivors cancer tongue http://tonguecancer.iphorum.com >from cancer tonguePosted by: cancer images tongue at April 14, 2007 9:24 AM
survivors cancer tongue http://tonguecancer.iphorum.com >from cancer tonguePosted by: cancer images tongue at April 14, 2007 9:24 AM