1

Nice toned down article but if I'm reading the FRC position correctly they don't believe the vaccine should be mandated or parents coerced into authorizing it (whatever that last part means)

I don't see why they make this distinction from other vaccines... as longs as they do Maher has a point, however inflammatory he wishes to make it.

2

I have yet to meet or talk to anybody that is against the fact that the vaccine exists. They (including I) are against it's mandation.

It's not like it will actually save many lives. Any life saved is worth it of course, but this vaccine is for HPV that causes cervical cancer. Not all strains of HPV are covered, so how many of the 4000 lives a year would be prevented are unknown! At what age does the person die from cervical cancer? Is the reason, because of other health issues which makes surviving the treatment regimen more difficult? Add the fact that the bigger, better life saver are yearly pap smears and what you have is what should be a political, social non-issue in which the left is making a huge issue.

Also add to this the ignorance that many doctors have about our current vaccines and that some children react negatively to them, I am against the mandation of almost all of them.

But is this just a big issue because it is about sex? What if there was a strain of lung cancer that was prevented by a new vaccine? We don't know how many lives would be saved! We do know that most lung cancer is associated with smoking, but not all is to be blamed by smoking! Would there be people speaking against it because it promotes smoking behavior? What it encourage people to say, hey lets smoke now?

Regardless, I doubt that too many people will feel free to have "free sex" because of this vaccine. There is still HIV and Herpes among many other STD's.

Bill Maher does not make a good point at all. He doesn't know what he is even talking about with this issue! (again)

3

...if I'm reading the FRC position correctly they don't believe the vaccine should be mandated or parents coerced into authorizing it (whatever that last part means)

I don't know their position on other vaccines, but a lot of people are concerned about the vaccine for non-religious reasons. First, no one really knows what the long term consequences of the vaccine might be. And since the chances of catching the virus can be significantly reduced by behavior, reasonable people can believe that the state shouldn't be forcing the vaccine on people. Second, kids are already given a significant number of vaccinations. People are rightly concerned that it is getting excessive.

4

"quick post" (if that is your real name),
Not every vaccine is mandatory, nor should it be. There's a big jump from "we think this drug is helpful" to "this drug should be mandatory for everyone." Unlike, say, measles or chicken pox, HPV can't be passed on through ordinary social contact, so there's no reason to mandate it for school enrollment (the driving force behind most vaccinations). There are costs and potential side effects for every drug - the states that are leaping to the conclusion that the HPV vaccine should be mandated for all young women are jumping the gun considerably, even if the vaccine is as effective as Merck claims. (And, let's not forget of course, that Merck stands to make a lot of money if this drug is made mandatory - $120 per dose, with 3 doses required - so their claims need to be taken with a grain of salt.)

5

I also have not ever found Maher to be funny and it is very very weird to me that the Left would uphold "comedians" as the great thinkers of their ideology.

I mean even our own Ann Coulter is a lawyer.

6

Initially I thought this sounded like a great idea. I am a conservative Christian woman with a 14 year old daughter,and though I hope she waits and presently she values purity a great deal, I am also aware that things can change when you go off to college. One sexual experience could land you with genital warts, herpes or even something worse. Ask any number of high school students today how effective they think condoms are and you may be surprised to find that they are under the impression after many years of indoctrination in the public schools that condoms are 100% fool proof! Of course if they are being recommended to protect you from the deadly HIV they must be, right?
Now as more information is being distributed about this vaccine I have read that it has only been tested for 9 years.In a scenario where this was tested on an 11 year old who is now 20 years old what are the long term effects going to be?
There was some concern that it raises the levels of aluminum in the body as well. Isn't that connected with increased risks of Alzheimer"s down the road? All I'm saying is let's see the long term effects of this drug before we start requiring it for every pre-teen girl in the nation.

7

[spoof on]
1. We can't legislate morality.
2. We believe in freedom of choice.
3. These young women should have control of their own bodies.
4. We can't let the "christofascist" cabal coltrol how this country runs.
[spoof off]

8

Ummm... that's not what sexual disinhibition means, clinically or scientifically. Perhaps the Family Research Council would be able to make its point better if it didn't lie.

9

By the way, let me just point out that the FRC wouldn't have to lie if the facts weren't against them. That is, if there were evidence that reducing the risk of sexual behavior (e.g., through making contraceptives or birth control available) in adolescents caused more sexual behavior, the FRC wouldn't have to lie. But since studies have consistently shown that making contraceptives and birth control available do not increase sexual behavior, the FRC has to make up a definition for a word, claim that it's the same definition scientists use, and with their argument from (faux) authority in hand, tell us all that a vaccine will make 12 year old girls have more sex. Hooray for the lyin' Christians.

10

It's true that Maher is either intellectually dishonest or negligent in his misrepresentation of the FRC. But at the same time I keep seeing people talking about the HPV policy in Texas as if it's mandatory, and I see some commenters here doing that. Since it is not mandatory but just makes the vaccine the default case unless parents object, it is as reprehensible and misrepresentative of the Texas policy to keep calling it mandatory.

11

Not too long ago, however, I recall a few Christianist types trying to make a big deal about condoms and their lack of protection from HPV. In fact, Joe was hyperventillating about the lack of evidence that condoms prevent HPV back in http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/archives/001420.html and demanding that they be labeled as such.

Anyway economists (and the insurance industry) also has a name for what Joe is talking about. It is called 'moral hazzard'. The idea is that if you reduce risk you may end up with more of the risky behavior thereby eliminating the benefit...maybe even making it worse. For example, if you have full coverage on your car you may be a bit more careless driving it. In the 80's the S&L scandal was caused by the fact that the government guaranteed the loans S&L's made. S&L's therefore made risky loans at high rates because they felt they couldn't loose. If the customers paid they would make lots of money, if the customers defaulted the Feds would pick up the tab.

I could see how this may be a problem with some STD's. For example, imagine someone came up with a vaccine that provided 10% protection against HIV. If behavior remained perfectly constant that would be a great benefit. Reducing HIV infections by 10% would mean saving thousands of lives and saving millions of dollars. But if people started to feel like "we got AIDS licked, no need to worry about it anymore" they might increase the amount of unsafe sex they are having by...say...15% thereby eliminating the benefit of the vaccine.

Of course, if a vaccine provided 60%, 70% or more protection it would 'sexual disinhibition' or moral hazzard would be less likely to be an issue. Most of us could probably increase our unsafe sex habits by 10% quite easily if we wanted too...doing 60% or 70% would probably be more difficult and quite exhausting.

With HPV I see several reasons to support mandating early vaccinations:

1. A huge number of people will get HPV. I've read something like 25% of all women will have it by the time they get deep into adulthood. Maybe even 50%. At those rates it becomes pretty hard to avoid HPV by abstaining. If you have just one partner whose had a single othe rpartner in their lifetime you are starting with a 25% risk rate.

With HIV you can reduce your risk greatly by just making a relatively slight effort to be a bit more safer. With HPV it would take a huge effort to make any sigificant dent in your risk.

2. By vaccinating very young I think you eliminate much of the small danger of moral hazzard. At 11 years old it is just another vaccine. I can see at 16 or 17 years old kids jokingly calling it the "Ok to screw" shot.

3. Because HPV infection is lifelong vaccinating very young makes the most of the vaccine as it is useless if given after infection.

4. This is an area where we can achieve something like herd immunity and potentially eliminate 70% of cervical cancers. No doubt refined vaccines will be developed increasing that 70% but that is still a great achievement. It's not as big as making smallpox extinct or polio a thing of the past in developed countries but it is still something we should aim for.

5. Of course, fewer genital warts is always a good thing too.

12

Chill out, Joe. Maher is a comedian. He's the left-wing equivalent of somebody like Dennis Miller or Rush Limbaugh. Surely you don't expect comedians to do research on the latest pronouncement from the FRC?

His point is that some conservative Christians are opposed to the vaccine because they fear it will encourage promiscuity. Is there any truth to this charge? Well, many sources have reported that a Dr. Hal Wallace of Focus on the Family's Physicians Consortium has said, "We're going to be sending a message to a lot of kids, I think, that you just take this shot and you can be as sexually promiscuous as you want and it's not going to be a problem, and that's just not true."

I have not been able to confirm this. One of the sources gave a link to the news release from FotF, but the link didn't work. Can anyone out there confirm or refute whether this statement was ever made?

13

Chris,

Really?
http://www.bendigohealth.com.au/Regional-Dementia-Management/Scenario5.html
Looks pretty consistent from this vantage point. Perhaps you could explain your accusation further?

14

Joe:
Even third-rate bloggers wouldn’t dredge up a quote from two years ago without seeing if its still relevant.

What does that make you? You have, in the past, dug up 1998 statements on what the Democrats said about Iraq and WMDs, dredged up John Kerry's statements from thirty years earlier, neither time with much concern for contemporary relevance...

15

I don't think Bill Maher is that great of a comedian, but he does make some good points at times. For instance, his comments about the "War On Christians Conference" last spring were pretty good:

"The Christian right are now officially the party of paranoia. Secularists are attacking Christmas! Gays are attacking marriage! Liberals are attacking values! White girls are being abducted at an alarming rate! You know, if you're going to be that paranoid all the time, just get high.
And the worst part is, the people [complaining] loudest about being persecuted for their Christianity aren't Christians at all. They're demagogues and conmen and scolds. And the only thing they worship is power. If you believe Jesus ever had a good word for war or torture or tax cuts for the rich, or raping the earth, or refusing water to dying migrants, then you might as well believe bunnies lay painted eggs".

16

Collin, perhaps you should go back and read both the link you sent me and the FRC statement. The FRC states, pretty clearly, that "sexual disinhibition" is a scientific term for people feeling like they can have more sex when the risk of sex is reduced. As your website makes clear, however, "reduced risk" (e.g., in the form of the availability of contraceptives) is not, in fact, a cause of sexual disinhibition.

Sexual inhibition, instead, is a disorder similar to other impulsivity disorders. It occurs a great deal in geriatric patients, interestingly enough, because one symptom of dimentia is impulsivity. It doesn't occur in children when a condom machine is put in their bathroom, or they get a vaccine. As I said, the FRC lies, because it has no facts to back it up.

17

So when your daughter gets raped, how much do you think changing her behavior is going to protect her from HPV and later, Cancer?

How much is it going to protect her husband from becoming infected?

And what about your civil obligation to the rest of society? While according to your manifesto, its not as important as a family, it is still very important. Don't you think you owe it to the rest of us to do what you can to prevent the spread of disease?

I'm a 43-year old gay man. I have never had an STD of any kind in my life. Not even the common mouth herpes that most people get. Or even ordinary warts.

The reason I am disease free is probably primarily due to my behavior Should I still get vaccinated against HIV if/when one is available? Even if I will not be changing my behavior in any way? Don't I have an obligation to get vaccinated? If only to do my best to remove a possible vector of infection to the rest of society? And if I married your kid, wouldn't you prefer that I had been vaccinated?

Getting your children vaccinated doesn't just protect them alone. It also protects others. Don't you have an obligation to protect those others too? If not, why not? Are they not Holy enough to past muster and so therefore deserve to get infected?

And that argument about getting "too many" vaccinations is silly. In comparison to what? The number of diseases out there? It like arguing that a car has too many seat belts so take the ones in the driver's seat out.

You do realize don't you that every time you have ever gotten sick, you have never had exactly the same thing twice? All microbial agents mutate regularly, some more often than others. Hence a different set of flu shots every year.

The proportion of vaccinations against the sheer numbers of critters out there that want to make you lunch is infinitesimal.

But go ahead parents and make your choice not to get the kids vaccinated. The problem is that your not the ones who are going to suffer from your bad judgement in the future.

18

Chris As I said, the FRC lies, because it has no facts to back it up.

You really have no clue about what you're talking about, do you?

Let me refer you to this CDC briefing given on HPV Vaccines. Look on page 24 and you'll find under the section "Unanswered Questions",

Will there be sexual disinhibition, or changes in Pap testing behavior?

Why would that be a concern of the CDC since FRC is just making it up?

19

You're confusing me, Joe. Are you saying that sexual disinhibition is a concern of the FRC or is not a concern?

The very fact that the FRC had to issue a clarification does validate that they were sending, at best, an unclear message. Is it Maher's responsibility to check your website periodically to see if your position has changed? The fact remains that an employee of the FRC made a statement in April 2005. As much as you might like to disassociate yourselves from her comments, there they are. And did it take from April to October for the FRC to disavow her comments? Why?

Again, Bill Maher is reacting to the fact that some conservative Christians oppose the widespread use of the vaccine for fear it might encourage promiscuity. This really is nothing new as this is also the reason that Christian conservatives have opposed the mailing of birth control information (the Comstock laws), birth control clinics, condom distribution during World Wars I and II, the pill, and sex education (beyond abstinence only).

Incidentally, it's "Dr. Hal Wallis," not Hal Wallace. It looks as though the "organization" he once headed has vanished and all mention of him and it have been purged from FotF's website (a bit Orwellian).

20

You're confusing me, Joe. Are you saying that sexual disinhibition is a
concern of the FRC or is not a concern?

I thought the statement was rather clear, but I’ll restate it once again. Initially, FRC—like Merck and the CDC—had questions about sexual disinhibition. Merck’s studies showed it wasn’t a concern and so we don’t consider it a concern either.

The very fact that the FRC had to issue a clarification does validate that they were sending, at best, an unclear message.

Actually, what it says is that the New Scientist wanted to paint us as “anti-sex” and used a legitimate question about sexual disinhibition to make that case.

Is it Maher's responsibility to check your website periodically to see if your position
has changed?

Yes, actually, it is. Would you write an article for a national online magazine and cite references without so much as checking Wikipedia? Coburn’s people also caught him lying about the Senator’s position so Maher is 0 for 2.

And did it take from April to October for the FRC to disavow her comments? Why?

Actually, that was my doing. I had seen that quote floating around on lefty blogs and websites for awhile and pointed out that we needed to issue a clarification.

Again, Bill Maher is reacting to the fact that some conservative Christians oppose the widespread use of the vaccine for fear it might encourage promiscuity. This really is nothing new as this is also the reason that Christian conservatives have opposed the mailing of birth control information (the Comstock laws), birth control clinics, condom distribution during World Wars I and II, the pill, and sex education (beyond abstinence
only).

Well, you’ve got me there. Christians were rather foolish to think that promiscuity would increase. I mean, look at the rates of STDS, abortion, out-of-wedlock births, etc. they have all fallen since WWI, haven’t they?

Incidentally, it's "Dr. Hal Wallis," not Hal Wallace. It looks as though the "organization" he once headed has vanished and all mention of him and it have been purged from FotF's website (a bit Orwellian).

From what I could find, Focus quoted Wallis in a press release about HPV. That is not exactly make the guy a spokesman for the organization.

21

Joe wrote: "Well, you’ve got me there. Christians were rather foolish to think that promiscuity would increase. I mean, look at the rates of STDS, abortion, out-of-wedlock births, etc. they have all fallen since WWI, haven’t they?"

You seem to be playing both sides of this, Joe. On the one hand you say that the HPV vaccine will not increase sexual promiscuity, but now you imply that Christian conservatives were right to oppose birth control information, condom distribution,the pill, etc. since out of wedlock sex has increased.

Pick a story and stick with it, Joe. Do efforts to prevent sexually transmitted diseases and/or pregnancy increase promiscuity or not?

You are also guilty of one of the logical fallacies you have warned against. Correlation does not prove causation. In particular, I'm not sure what the increase in abortion has to do with the widespread availability of the pill and condoms.

Incidentally, I think I could mount a pretty effective case that the use of prostitutes has declined dramatically since 1900. I think I could also make a decent case that unwanted pregnancies have decreased markedly in the last 100 years. This is almost self-evident as the number of pregnancies per woman has declined sharply over the last few generations.

Re: Hal Wallis and the Physicians Consortium. I might be mistaken, but I believe that his organization was under the umbrella of Focus on the Family at one time.

22

You seem to be playing both sides of this, Joe. On the one hand you say that the HPV vaccine will not increase sexual promiscuity, but now you imply that Christian conservatives were right to oppose birth control information, condom distribution,the pill, etc. since out of wedlock sex has increased.

How is that playing both sides? There is no evidence that HPV will lead to promiscuity. There is, however, abundant evidence that the availability of contraceptives leading to promiscuity and out-of-wedlock births (my birth being one example).

Do efforts to prevent sexually transmitted diseases and/or pregnancy increase promiscuity or not?

Depends on what those efforts are. HPV vaccinations? No. Condom distribution? Probably.

You are also guilty of one of the logical fallacies you have warned against. Correlation does not prove causation.

Outside of the natural sciences, causation is almost impossible to prove. Sociologically speaking we may have to say that it is merely correlation. But it’s quite obvious that everytime we look we find more “correlation” on these issues.

Incidentally, I think I could mount a pretty effective case that the use of prostitutes has declined dramatically since 1900.

True. But that is because of tighter laws on prostitution.

This is almost self-evident as the number of pregnancies per woman has declined sharply over the last few generations.

Correlation doesn’t imply causation. ; )

I think that stat simply reflects our anti-child culture.

23

Hey everybody, This is a repost as Joe let me "slip through the cracks" this morning.

I have yet to meet or talk to anybody that is against the fact that the vaccine exists. They (including I) are against it's mandation.

It's not like it will actually save many lives. Any life saved is worth it of course, but this vaccine is for HPV that causes cervical cancer. Not all strains of HPV are covered, so how many of the 4000 lives a year would be prevented are unknown! At what age does the person die from cervical cancer? Is the reason, because of other health issues which makes surviving the treatment regimen more difficult? Add the fact that the bigger, better life saver are yearly pap smears and what you have is what should be a political, social non-issue in which the left is making a huge issue.

Also add to this the ignorance that many doctors have about our current vaccines and that some children react negatively to them, I am against the mandation of almost all of them.

But is this just a big issue because it is about sex? What if there was a strain of lung cancer that was prevented by a new vaccine? We don't know how many lives would be saved! We do know that most lung cancer is associated with smoking, but not all lung cancer is to be blamed by smoking! So would there be people speaking against it because it promotes smoking behavior? Would it encourage people to say, hey lets smoke now?

Regardless, I doubt that too many people will feel free to have "free sex" because of this vaccine. There is still HIV and Herpes among many other STD's.

Bill Maher does not make a good point at all. He doesn't know what he is even talking about with this issue! (again)

24

Joe wrote: “How is that playing both sides? There is no evidence that HPV will lead to promiscuity. There is, however, abundant evidence that the availability of contraceptives leading to promiscuity and out-of-wedlock births (my birth being one example).”

Sorry, Joe, anecdotal evidence won’t work here. Unless you want to include my testimony that the reason my wife and I have 3 kids instead of 13 is the pill.

Joe wrote: “Depends on what those efforts are. HPV vaccinations? No. Condom distribution? Probably. “

How do you and the FRC know that HPV vaccinations won’t increase promiscuity? Please be specific. How do you know that condom distribution “probably” increases promiscuity? Again, please be specific. You are trying to have it both ways. Please tell me how you determine which disease/pregnancy prevention methods cause promiscuity and which ones don’t.

Joe wrote: “Outside of the natural sciences, causation is almost impossible to prove. Sociologically speaking we may have to say that it is merely correlation.”

That’s baloney. What you’re saying is that causality exists when you want it to and doesn’t when you don’t want it to. Of course, we can’t 100% prove causality, even in the natural sciences. But there are plenty of ways to establish causality beyond reasonable doubt. One way in this case would be to compare the various birth control availability and pregnancy statistics in states or countries with otherwise similar conditions.

Joe wrote: “True. But that is because of tighter laws on prostitution.”

Wrong. It’s because “good girls” didn’t have premarital sex in 1890. Also it’s because many married women practiced abstinence as a birth control method but their husbands didn’t.

Joe wrote: “I think that stat simply reflects our anti-child culture.”

Total hogwash. We have the most child-obsessed culture in all of recorded human history. The lower birth rate is not primarily due to childlessness, but to couples having one, two or three children instead of the four, eight, or twelve that were once common. Every statistic shows that parents spend more time with their children now than their parents spent with them.

25

All good points about mandating vaccines.

I think it's more reasonable to mandate vaccines
than to mandate seat belt use because I'm not
going to kill anyone by not wearing a seatbelt.
However, since the efficacy of vaccines is not
a 100% I certainly don't want my children around
kids who are 10,000+ times more likely to be carriers
of a potentially life threatening infectious disease
... just in case... we did our part in the name of
public health, shouldn't they?

But that wasn't my point...

My point is why should the HPV vaccine be different
from other vaccines. There certainly are a lot more
women getting cervical cancer from HPV than
are dying from polio but most schools make it very
difficult or impossible to attend unless you have
a full round of vaccines including polio... and
HepB.

It will be a sad day indeed when the rates of
HPV infections are down except for children of
parents who decided their religion sect somehow
dictated it was wrong or immoral to do so.

-qp

ps. I wear my seatbelt.

26

Mike Hickerson... very good points about whether a vaccine should be included or not. I agree that most should
be a factor in deciding for a vaccines use.

I guess even costs comes in there. Maybe we should stop
the polio shots because they cost a lot of money
(twice the number of kids have to get them) ?

There are many deciding factors but I don't think
the type of contact should be a variable however.
I'm more concerned with rates of infection.
Then maybe risk, efficacy and finally costs.
(including the costs not to do it)

btw: If you think parents can control the type of contact
their children have you might be correct.. but only in
a very small percentage of children... and we're dealing
with the public health here so decisions need to be
made accordingly.

27

Joe, two things:

1.) Sexual disinhibition is, in fact, a clinical term, but not in the way the CDC uses it. Anyone who claims it's "scientific" in the CDC's sense either doesn't know its clinical use, or is lying. I'll let you decide which the FRC is doing.

2.) I challenge you to find a single study in the peer reviewed literature showing that exposure to contraceptives, birth control, etc., produces an increase in teen sexual behavior. If you don't, then the FRC is either lying or, again, ignorant.

28

For the record, I think Bill can be funny. I used to enjoy his Politically Incorrect. I'll never forget when token-blond-conservative was arguing for rodeos: "If you want a good rodeo, you buckin', snortin', fartin'.."

John Goodman interrupts: "Sounds like my first marriage."

jd

29

Chris 2.) I challenge you to find a single study in the peer reviewed literature showing that exposure to contraceptives, birth control, etc., produces an increase in teen sexual behavior. If you don't, then the FRC is either lying or, again, ignorant.

Let me be clear: this is what I’m saying, not FRC. I don’t know what my organization thinks, but I think to claim otherwise would be ignorant (regardless of what can be found in the “peer reviewed literature”).

Here’s my reasoning:

1. Sex can have negative externalities (unwanted pregnancy, STDs, etc.).
2. Teens are aware of these negative externalities.
3. Teen’s who may want to engage in sexual behavior may limit such activity because of the “price” of the negative consequence. (For example, Cindy wants to sleep with her boyfriend but refrains or limits her sexual activity because she fears getting pregnant.)
4. Reducing the “cost” of the externalities leads to an increase in the demand for the good (in this case, sexual activity).
5. Contraceptives can reduce the cost of negative externalities.
6. Ergo, contraceptives can lead to an increase in teen sexual behavior.

Now to me this seems obvious. In fact, I have experienced just this sort of thing in my own sinful past. There was...let's just say more than one...time where lack of access to contraception kept me from engaging in certain activities. If I would have had such access, there would have been an increase in my sexual activity.

But you are saying this isn't the case, right? You are saying that whether someone has access to a condom or the Pill never affects whether they engage in sex? I find that to be absurd. Still, I have not doubt that you'll claim we should reject common sense and experience in favor of another explanation. So let's hear it.

30

Now, Joe, please explain why you don't accept the following:

4. Reducing the “cost” of the externalities leads to an increase in the demand for the good (in this case, sexual activity).
5. The HPV vaccine can reduce the cost of negative externalities.
6. Ergo, the HPV vaccine can lead to an increase in teen sexual behavior.

31

Joe,

And let me be clear. I don't think you are lying or ignorant, 'cause your point was that Maher misrepresented the FRC, not that the FRC was making a factual claim. While I don't always agree with you (hell, I rarely do), I've never suspected you of being dishonest.

However, while your argument may be valid, it's not sound. That is, several studies have examined the effect of reducing some of the risks of sexual behavior for teens on sexual behavior in teens, and I've yet to see one that found data to indicate that sexual behavior increased as a result of the reduction of risk. That is, while intuitively it seems possible that risk reduction may lead to an increase in sexual behavior, empirically, that's not the case. You may know of a person or two for whom that was the case (yourself, for example), but as the saying goes, the plural of anecdote is not data.

The problem with the FRC's statement, given above, is that it a.) creates confusion between the casual and scientific meanings of the term "sexual disinhibition," and b.) in doing so, it implies that there's a scientific basis for its argument that giving teens or pre-teens the vaccine will increase sexual behavior in those teens/pre-teens. Those are both false, and that leaves two possibilities: ignorance or lying.

32

Chris However, while your argument may be valid, it's not sound.

I think the soundness of the argument is easily verifiable. Take a poll of everyone you know and ask them if their sexual activity has ever been affected by access to contraception. If anyone tells you that it has not been then they are either (a) a virgin or (b) very reckless. ; )

That is, several studies have examined the effect of reducing some of the risks of sexual behavior for teens on sexual behavior in teens, and I've yet to see one that found data to indicate that sexual behavior increased as a result of the reduction of risk.

I don’t doubt that is the case which is why I have deep suspicions about such studies. Any time a study makes such a counter-intuitive claim that goes against the experience of everyone you know, then there is reason to question the methodology.

The problem with the FRC's statement, given above, is that it a.) creates confusion between the casual and scientific meanings of the term "sexual disinhibition," and b.) in doing so, it implies that there's a scientific basis for its argument that giving teens or pre-teens the vaccine will increase sexual behavior in those teens/pre-teens. Those are both false, and that leaves two possibilities: ignorance or lying.

There are numerous factors that could come into play in determining the causes of sexual disinhibition. The vaccine, for example, may cause hormonal changes that lower a person’s inhibitions. Or it could be the case that providing the vaccine may give women a false sense of security. You point out that there are no empirical studies that connect disinhibition with access to contraceptives. How do they know this? Because they purportedly asked the question, examined the data, and made an empirical analysis of the results.

Now unless the data is so overwhelmingly conclusive that we never have to ask the question again, I don’t see anything wrong with examining the data for new inputs (i.e., the vaccine). That is all FRC did: asked the question. Merck had apparently done the studies and came to the the conclusion that it had no effect on disinhibition.

The reason all of this became an issue is that during a lenghty interview with New Scientist magazine. An FRC spokesman mentioned that the question was worth examining. Because it fit into the "Christians hate sex" stereotype, they paraphrased her response and used it as a quote.

FRC never considered the sexual disinhibition angle to be that big a deal. It was merely one issue in a long series of questions we had about the vaccine. The fact that Bridget Maher's quote is so widely used shows that they couldn't find anything else that FRC had said about it that was inflammatory.

33

Joe:

*************
Here’s my reasoning:

1. Sex can have negative externalities (unwanted pregnancy, STDs, etc.).
2. Teens are aware of these negative externalities.
3. Teen’s who may want to engage in sexual behavior may limit such activity because of the “price” of the negative consequence. (For example, Cindy wants to sleep with her boyfriend but refrains or limits her sexual activity because she fears getting pregnant.)
4. Reducing the “cost” of the externalities leads to an increase in the demand for the good (in this case, sexual activity).
5. Contraceptives can reduce the cost of negative externalities.
6. Ergo, contraceptives can lead to an increase in teen sexual behavior.
*****************

An excellent economic analysis. This also reveals why the HPV vaccine is unlikely to have any impact on sexual behavior. The only lesson you need here is marginal analysis. In order to examine why someone would decide to have one more sexual encounter we need to compare the marginal benefit (pleasure) with the marginal cost (the incremental risk of getting an STD, unwanted pregnancy, or even just getting tired or missing your favorite tv show (married people here might understand how one could get to such a point)).

HIV/AIDS did have a significant impact on sexual behavior because very small changes could yield great benefits in reduced costs. You could cut your risk of HIV dramatically simply by using condoms and edging off extremely risky sex with people you don't really know well. With HPV you have the opposite situation. I've heard figures as high as 50% cited of the # of women infected by the time they reach late adulthood. Presumably males have a similar or higher rate. In that case to yield a benefit you would have to dramatically alter your behavior and even then the benefit would be slight as far as HPV goes. At rates of 25-50% chances are you're going to have HPV even if you live a very conservative sex life (in other words something slightly less than becoming a nun or priest). Add into the equation that the 'cost' of getting an HPV is rather slight. For the super-majority of people it will cause them no problems at all and they won't even notice they have it. So HPV is not much of a deterrent to sex therefore something that eliminates HPV wouldn't be much of an inducement to sex.

Now to me this seems obvious. In fact, I have experienced just this sort of thing in my own sinful past. There was...let's just say more than one...time where lack of access to contraception kept me from engaging in certain activities. If I would have had such access, there would have been an increase in my sexual activity.

I don't doubt you but let's note there is a difference between existence and easy access. I do think that the fact the pill or condoms exist influence 'Cindy's' decision to have sex with her boyfriend. I don't think the fact that the bathroom has a condom machine does. I think the condom machine has much more influence over whether a sexual encounter that is going to happen is going to be one with some protection or without. Since such unprotected encounters are more likely to lead to things you would consider greater evils (abortion unwanted children, neglect of unaborted unwanted children, STD's, children born to parents not yet equipped to give them 100% and so on) it is probably more than acceptable to accept as a small cost a few sexual encounters that are undeterred in exchange for many unsafe encounters using some protection.

Look at it this way, when you and your fellow service members were roaming Amsterdam's Red Light District or some other infamous port of call totally drunk maybe the fact that you didn't have a condom in your pocket did deter you from doing something bad. It probably didn't deter many of your other friends so its probably a net plus they were given some rubbers by their commanding officer before leaving.

34

1. Sex can have negative externalities (unwanted pregnancy, STDs, etc.). 2. Teens are aware of these negative externalities. 3. Teen’s who may want to engage in sexual behavior may limit such activity because of the “price” of the negative consequence. (For example, Cindy wants to sleep with her boyfriend but refrains or limits her sexual activity because she fears getting pregnant.) 4. Reducing the “cost” of the externalities leads to an increase in the demand for the good (in this case, sexual activity). 5. Contraceptives can reduce the cost of negative externalities. 6. Ergo, contraceptives can lead to an increase in teen sexual behavior.

So Joe, using your moral reasoning as a guide, as a father it then follows that you think your daughter should die of cervical cancer if she makes a bad decision when she is a teenager.

Ain't that a kick in the old Family Values.

35

Joe, as someone who's at least marginally familiar with the way science works, you must know that a counterintuitive finding is not enough, or even a ground, for rejecting a finding. The reason for doing science is that the facts are often counterintuitive. If they weren't, we wouldn't need science. But biases, anecdotal evidence, and mistaken premises make everyday reasoning suspect. So systematic, controlled studies are necessary to tease out perception from fact. If you're going to criticize studies, you need more than "the results were scientific." If you're not familiar with particular studies, I can provide you with a list of citations. Just email me at the email I've provided.