Evil Conservatives Opposing Effective Cervical Cancer Vaccine
Hmm...
Read the whole thing.
Now the premise of the article is that right-wing, socially conservative groups are opposing this vaccine over the absurd reason that it might cause people to be more promiscuous. There's only one problem: Not one single member from a right-wing activist group is quoted in reference to this issue. There's only one such group even mentioned (Focus on the Family) yet there is no quote from anybody currently associated with the group.
There is a quote from a former member who has some opinions about how the group might react to the vaccine, but there is no evidence what-so-ever to show that any socially conservative groups, Focus on the Family or otherwise, are going to oppose this vaccine.
Maybe Focus on the Family is planning on opposing this vaccine, but there sure is evidence for that in the article. Near as I can tell, the author, Rob Stein of the Washington Post, just set up a straw-man argument here and attacked if furiously as a way to show how backward some of these groups are.
Which is something I might agree with, if presented with evidence. Sadly, Stein does no such thing.
Washington -- A new vaccine that protects against cervical cancer has set up a clash between health advocates who want to use the shots aggressively to prevent thousands of malignancies and social conservatives who say immunizing teen-agers could encourage sexual activity.
Although the vaccine will not become available until next year at the earliest, activists on both sides have begun maneuvering to influence how widely the immunizations will be employed.
Groups working to reduce the toll of the cancer are eagerly awaiting the vaccine and want it to become part of the standard roster of shots that children, especially girls, receive just before puberty.
Because the vaccine protects against a sexually transmitted virus, many conservatives oppose making it mandatory, citing fears that it could send a subtle message condoning sexual activity before marriage. Several leading groups that promote abstinence are meeting this week to formulate official policies on the vaccine.
Read the whole thing.
Now the premise of the article is that right-wing, socially conservative groups are opposing this vaccine over the absurd reason that it might cause people to be more promiscuous. There's only one problem: Not one single member from a right-wing activist group is quoted in reference to this issue. There's only one such group even mentioned (Focus on the Family) yet there is no quote from anybody currently associated with the group.
There is a quote from a former member who has some opinions about how the group might react to the vaccine, but there is no evidence what-so-ever to show that any socially conservative groups, Focus on the Family or otherwise, are going to oppose this vaccine.
Maybe Focus on the Family is planning on opposing this vaccine, but there sure is evidence for that in the article. Near as I can tell, the author, Rob Stein of the Washington Post, just set up a straw-man argument here and attacked if furiously as a way to show how backward some of these groups are.
Which is something I might agree with, if presented with evidence. Sadly, Stein does no such thing.
goon
individual family
pparets
laydownSally
Puzzlefeet
The Whistler
