Because they’re really causing a lot of public health problems. See: Abstinence-only education, emergency contraception, reproductive health, HIV/AIDS, and the HPV vaccine.
The latest news is on EC and HPV. Disappointingly, my home state of Washington is considering allowing pharmacists to opt out of doing their jobs via a “conscious clause” which would enable them to refuse to fill prescriptions as they see fit. This proposal would require pharmacists to offer their customers some alternative if they refused to refill their prescriptions — like, say, referring them to another pharmacy.
But that’s not as easy as it sounds. I grew up in Seattle, where there are plenty of pharmacies. I also have a car, and so going elsewhere probably wouldn’t be too much of an issue for me. But outside of the greater Seattle area, and particularly east of the mountains, Washington state is a fairly rural place. There are lots of small towns, and lots of people who drive for miles to the nearest pharmacy. Referring them elsewhere will often place a substantial burden on their ability to get the medical care they need.
And let’s be clear here: This proposal isn’t just limited to emergency contraception, or even birth control. As reader Katie, who sent me this article, pointed out, this gives pharmacists the ability to refuse to fill any prescription for any reason. Think kids are over-medicated? Refuse to fill their Ritalin prescription. Think depression is a farce? Refuse to fill prescriptions for anti-depressants. Think alcoholism is a sin? Refuse to fill prescriptions for its medical treatments. Hate trans people? Refuse to fill prescriptions for hormone therapy. Believe in scientology? Refuse to fill prescriptions for just about anything.
Is this a road we want to go down?
Then there’s the HPV vaccine, which could save the lives of thousands of women ever year. Clearly this is a good thing. Should be a no-brainer, right?
Well, there are those who don’t appear to be using their brains for much of anything, and who naturally oppose this vaccine because it’ll allow more women to have sex without paying for it with their lives. Is there any evidence that women will have sex more often, with more partners, or earlier because of this vaccine? No. Does anecdotal evidence and personal experience make me think that the vast majority of women aren’t postponing or refuing sex solely out of a fear of death from cervical cancer? Yeah.
The political morass surrounding Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) is another example. On Thursday, the Food and Drug Administration is expected to approve a vaccine for the two strains of HPV which cause 70 percent of all cervical cancers. The American Cancer Society estimates that this year, over 9,700 women will be diagnosed with cervical cancer and some 3,700 will die from it. So this vaccine could save thousands of lives.
What’s been holding this bold new innovation back? Moral panic. The religious right initially opposed it on the grounds that protecting people from an STD would undermine the no-sex-before-marriage message. After all, what could reinforce that message better than the threat of death? Even groups like Focus on the Family have dropped their opposition to the vaccine itself — probably realizing their position would seem indefensible to most thinking people, and that this was a battle they were going to lose — but they’re still fighting a proposal to make it mandatory for public junior high school students. This is also an appallingly irresponsible position, but one much easier to sell to the public, as it exploits deep anxieties about children and sex. According to the Centers for Disease Control, and most scientists who study HPV, the vaccine is most effective if given before kids become sexually active, so let’s hope the cooler heads prevail.
These are people who are perfectly willing to let others die so that their already-failed ideology can prevail. Some “culture of life” we’ve got going here. It’s shameful.