My B.S. alarm is raging:
In Sacramento, skepticism about the bill emerged on several fronts at a hearing of the Assembly's Health Committee. Conservative groups argued that a vaccine to prevent HPV, which is sexually transmitted, would encourage promiscuity, while progressive Democratic lawmakers questioned the safety of the drug.Oh really, progressive Dems? THAT'S the reason you're giving? Are you sure it isn't residual fear that the Schwarzenegger ascension, despite later set-backs, really did indicate a right-trending state that doesn't want a required state injected whore serum?
It's a cancer vaccine! How is this hard to understand?
Remember, dearest State Legislature, whom I love very much and spend a great deal of time defending to those who would continue to limit your terms or make you part time, refusing to require this vaccine for girls sends an obvious, insidious message to women. If you have premarital sex at a young age, you deserve to get cancer. If you abstain from having sex until you meet your husband, marry him, and it turns out he carries HPV, your contracting cervical cancer is preferable to the risk run by you thinking you could engaged in sexual activities prior to marriage.
I am horrified that anyone would hesitate to administer a CANCER VACCINE to his or her daughter. And I am ashamed of the California State Legislature for postponing such an important law.
(And I'm not sorry I'm saying it. And I can't respect their decision for postponing consideration of the bill, nor the author for pulling it, nor either Caucus for allowing it to be pulled, and yes I believe deeply enough about this issue that is so much more moral a decision than the faux-moral objections to it I hardly know where to begin.)