"Irresponsible and dangerous"

Planned Parenthood has launched a new tactic against abstinence education advocates. We are now "irresponsible and dangerous". Guess the false accusations that our programs are not science- or evidence-based didn't work. That's what happens when a bad argument is pinned to a biased, unscientific study--the Waxman Report.

There is absolutely nothing dangerous or irresponsible about encouraging adolescents to remain sexually abstinent with every medical, social science, economical, legal, cultural and historical fact at our disposal. To add, in the correct setting, moral and relgious values only bolsters the other arguments.

Unmarried sex is dangerous and irresponsible. To say that the right to partake in it trumps responsibility for the health dangers to self, partner and all the subsequent partners of each is ridiculous.

Responsibility cannot be tied to condom use because that is only a theoretical solution. That's what "consistent and correct usage" infers. There is no actual proof that condoms work because "correct" use has never been scientifically studied through observation and use of test/control groups. The science of "consistent" use is an answer to a "Yes or No" question. There are direct linkage studies/surveys that prove people lie when asked that question. In other words, during the study time frame, a person claims consistent condom use but deveolps a new STD acquired through intercourse.

There are several problems with promoting condoms for protection or risk reduction.
1. Correct usage is a developing concept. The videos and curriculums used in schools often teach 6-8 steps in correct condom use. However, at the last Wisconsin Sexual Risk Prevention Institute held in August at Alverno College, 17 steps were now involved.
2. "Correct" condom use is last "taught" in ninth grade before the vast majority of students are sexually active. Will memory serve them? Is it respopnsible to rely on that?
3. Studies are showing consistent condom use decreases with length of time with one partner and when one has multiple partners, either in close sequence or as a serial monogomist. Reality is disproving the condom theory.
4. Existing STIs and HIV generally don't go away without treatment (there are a few exceptions). If you have them, you will give them. Even if after you tire of messing around and find someone you love and adore. Even if you want to have a baby, making condoms moot.
5. Condom ad campaigns can't convey correct usage so it is inferred that consistent use is sufficient. That is not true; using a condom is not always better than not using one.
6. Whenever one method is promoted, there is a tendency to not sabotage that message with "the whole picture". Truth should always precede and support message. If abstinence education does not use the whole truth to support its message, it is as quilty as comprehensive sex education would be. However, to criticize abstinence education for teaching that condoms are risky at least and dangerous at worst when truth backs that up is wrong.

Teachers, parents, mentors and medical personnel have to ask themselves whether the children in their care will be completely safe, healthy and happy if they follow their advice and if they have given them enough information to make that choice.

HPV Vaccine

Today, Merck announced successful 2 year trials of its HPV vaccine. Yes, I know they call it "cervical cancer vaccine" in the headline but it does correct that and admit to being an HPV vaccine in the text.

I'm going way out on a limb here but I don't understand why anyone, "conservatives or religious groups", would oppose the FDA approval on ideological grounds. Cervical cancer is a disease once almost wiped out but now the precancerous lesions are reappearing with a vengence among sexually active young women. Only regular PAP tests are saving more from the cancer itself. So if medicine can save people from this scourge, let it be.

However, this is a vaccine that school age children receive, not babies. So like the Hepatitis B vaccine, they will know they endure these shots just in case they become sexually active before marriage. I can see why it could be construed that kids would assume this means they are expected to have sex. I wonder how many kids will say to their Moms and Dads "Don't you trust me" on this issue.

The shots only protect against two strains of cancer-causing HPV, 16 and 18. Those are the two most prevalent strains NOW. But there is little reason to expect that any of the other 16 oncogenic types might not become dominant. Can we imagine giving kids maybe 8-10 different series of shots to wipe out all HPV?

Also is a 2 year trial good enough? The immediate results are great but there are no clues to the effect on the kids bodies or on their potential offspring.

My major concern is that this is another step in the Big Brother will fix it so anybody can do whatever they want and not worry about the consequences parade. HPV is a terrible price to pay for teen and young adult sexual romps. It was confirmed by the Centers for Disease Control several years ago that condoms are almost worthless as a prevention. After the initial AIDS panic and the development of the HIV "cocktails", caution was thrown to the wind and the risky behavior resumed. This could be the real result of these vaccines. But there always seems to be another disease waiting in the wings.

We need to teach kids that these terrible consequences wreak lives and this country needs them to concentrate on becoming great, responsible adults while young. Sex can wait. It will be better later and so will the kids because of the self-control they showed.

State Senate passes Abstinence Bill: SB 286

Its hard to believe that the Senate has to pass a bill that sexual abstinence is the "preferred choice" for behavior of unmarried pupils; one would think that is a given. Its harder to believe that three Planned Parenthood representatives spoke against the bill at the public hearing and that nine Senators voted against it. The young women from Planned Parenthood looked upon this bill as an infringement on the rights of Americans--this bill's language was so benign it could infringe on nothing and nobody. But it seems that any standards of behavior are unacceptable when it comes to sex according to Planned Parenthood. Imagine what type of behavior could walk through that wide open door as our cultural sensitivities are further blunted. One representative went so far as to say that the government is obligated to pay for the consequences of a citizen's exercise of the right to sex because of its duty to protect that right. So I guess it would follow that our "private" behavior when it has "public outcomes" like STDs, unwed pregnancy, HIV and all the resultant fallout is just not the individual"s problem. The government to the rescue! Wonder if they know yet that the government is you and me! Maybe we should tell them!