Last year I wrote about how Gardasil, the relatively new HPV vaccine, had been added to the list of required vaccines for people seeking to adjust their immigration statuses.
Numerous immigration groups came out in opposition to this requirement, stating that it posed a unfair financial barrier to immigrant women, who already take on a lengthy and costly process to become citizens.
Well now one of the first reported cases of a young woman losing her path to citizenship because of Gardasil, via ABC.
For the last near decade, Davis has embarked on a quest to get Simone U.S. citizenship.Now 17 and an aspiring elementary school teacher and devout Christian, Simone has only one thing standing in the way of her goal -- the controversial vaccine Gardasil.
Immigration law mandates that Simone get the vaccine to protect against the sexually transmitted human papillomavirus, which has been linked to cervical cancer.
But Simone, who has taken a virginity pledge and is not sexually active, doesn't see why she should have to take the vaccine, especially since it's been under fire recently regarding its safety. And none of her American classmates is mandated by law to be vaccinated.
"I am only 17 years old and planning to go to college and not have sex anytime soon," said Simone. "There is no chance of getting cervical cancer, so there's no point in getting the shot."
I think a vaccine that helps prevent the transmission of HPV, one of the most common sexually transmitted infections which is linked to cervical cancer, is a good thing. While the Gardasil campaign had some shady elements because of the role of Merck, the pharmaceutical company behind Gardasil, and it's advocacy on behalf of mandates nationwide, it seems they haven't had a role in this.
Merck & Co., which makes Gardasil, said it had no involvement in the enactment of the mandate."Merck recognizes that many individuals and groups are concerned over this requirement and emphasizes that, while we encourage all women to be educated about HPV-related diseases, the company does not support mandatory vaccination of new female immigrants," said Merck spokeswoman Pam Eisele.
It seems that Gardasil appeared on the list of required vaccines for immigrant women more by default than by anyone's deliberate efforts. From the National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health:
The CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) in 2007 recommended that Gardasil, the only FDA approved HPV vaccine, be administered to females ages 11 to 26 in the U.S. This recommendation became an automatic requirement for those applying for immigrant visas or adjustment to permanent residency status when the government updated its vaccination list in July 2008. U.S. citizens are currently not required to receive the vaccination, and yet it is mandatory for prospective immigrants.
While I don't necessarily agree with this young woman's reasons for not being vaccinated, it's obvious that this vaccine mandate adds a huge financial barrier for immigrant women trying to adjust their status.
The vaccine is prohibitively expensive-costing a minimum of $360 to receive the three-dose vaccination in addition to over $1,000 in filing fees-making the mandate an undue financial burden for prospective immigrant women and their families.
The other part of this that doesn't make sense is that HPV is not a infectious disease like the others on the list of mandated vaccines. It's a sexually transmitted infection, which, while serious, is not a public health emergency, causing the question of why it needs to be mandated for immigrant women.
Some health care policy experts suggested the requirement was excessive and unnecessary. Of the 14 required vaccines, 13 are designed to combat infectious diseases that are considered highly contagious. But Gardasil targets a virus spread through sexual contact.
According to ABC, the CDC will be publishing new requirements next month, so they have an opportunity to reconsider this requirement. Advocates have been working hard to get it reversed, so we'll see what happens.
Related: Quick Hit: The HPV vaccine for boys?
Good news on HPV vaccine?
How safe is the HPV vaccine?
Hit me with your best (HPV) shot
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Young woman rejects HPV vaccine and loses path to citizenship.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/16148
A vaccine to prevent cervical cancer is a great idea... but the financial burden IN ADDITION TO the medical risks is too much, immigrant or not.
Been there, done that, and apparently got in before the deadline. In 2007 the fees just for applying for these visas jumped dramatically--I think the difference for me would have been a $400 to $1400 jump. That's just fees--not talking about the medical exam (which was at least $80, and required two trips), my husband taking time off work to go to Omaha (twice!), and hiring a lawyer to help us navigate the system ($500+, and we'll be hearing from him again later this year). And this was for a relatively uncomplicated case.
Sometimes I think the US wants to make it as hard as possible to get in.
Exactly. I work in an immigration law office and based on some of the checks I've seen while logging the mail (to law firm, Homeland Security, translation services, etc) immigration is *really* expensive.
While I'm at it, I should also mention that the medical exam required two trips two days apart (TB skin test) and can only be performed by certain doctors. So it's a pain in the butt process on top of the cost.
I highly dislike the mandate for immigrant women when it's not a requirement in general.
Moreover, Gardasil does not protect against genetic cervical cancer--and you can get it regardless whether or not you are sexually active. The young woman should go to the gyno for a pap smear.
They say you don't need to go to the gyno unless you are sexually active, but going once you turn 18 or so, isn't a bad idea, I feel.
Which reminds me, I need to schedule a gyno appt. *tears*
How invasive for a young woman to be subjected to medical scrutiny via pap smears when she's already stated that she's not interested in the vaccination!
Her body is already highly contested in the U.S., particularly because she is a young immigrant woman.
Stating that she should go have a pap smear because there's some genetic potential that she might have cervical cancer denies her agency in deciding what may or may not be right for her.
Her autonomy and ability to decide whether or not she wants the vaccination and/or a pap smear should be acknowledged and respected.
Sorry, I didn't mean that a gyno visit should be a requirement to citizenship; I just wanted to highlight that going to the gyno whether or not you are sexually active is a good health decision.
Thanks for clarifying!
I showed up to the doctor at age 19 or 20 saying that I wasn't sexually active but was due for a pap smear, and my doctor talked me out of it. She said she'd do it if I wanted but it was totally pointless if I'd never had sex, since all it checks for HPV (the "pap" stands for human papaloma virus or however you spell it). Now maybe its worth having a doctor look at you down there ayway to see if there's anything else obviously wrong, but I don't know if a pap smear DOES test for genetic cervical cancer rather than just that virus? A test for a genetic issue and a virus seem like they'd be totally different tests on a cellular level, so unless you had a giant obvious tumor I'm not sure a pap smear would catch cancer from a different cause.
Actually, the "Pap" stands for Georgios Papanikolaou, inventor of the test. Cells are gathered from the cervix and looked at under a microscope to check for abnormal, pre-cancerous, or cancerous cells.
Hmm, well, I said I didn't know. I'm pretty sure I was told pap stood for papiloma, but now I can't remember who told me that.
Testing for HPV after an abnormal result is a relatively new development. When I had my first abnormal pap smear, they didn't do that, and while I know now that I have HPV, the doctors can't tell me if I did all the way back during the first abnormal result or not. All I know is that I had normal results for years in between, and who knows what that first abnormal result was all about (a 6-month follow-up came back normal, so we didn't proceed to a colposcopy).
I really hate to say this, because it's, well, terrible, but I think it's nonetheless something to keep in mind when considering the various reasons someone should get Gardasil:
I think it's a little naive to think that one is not at risk for STDs because one is unwilling to have sex. It's horrible, but we do still live in a society where a woman's willingness to have sex is not always the final word as to whether or not she will be put at risk.
That said, I think the financial burden is completely ridiculous, and there absolutely should not be be de facto financial requirements for citizenship in the U.S.
If the immigrant doesn't bear the administrative costs of immigrating, who do you propose pay? Taxpayers? Deficit spending?
I don't make light of the cost. I have several close friends taking on the burden, but I don't know who else should bear it
First you should probably ask what the cost actually is. A large chunk of it is whatever the government decides it is. How much of that is actually cover costs and how much is just to generate income?
What you said. I hate to say it, but I hope this girl doesn't get the rude awakening so many girls have suffered: that what she wants to do with her body sexually has little bearing on what gets done to it.
Unfortunately, it's not always the woman's, or girl's choice whether she is exposed to HPV or not, so it's still a good idea to have the vaccine even if a girl has taken a virginity pledge.
That said, requiring the vaccine for immigration is a financial burden on people who often are already overwhelmed with financial burdens. I'm a big believer in vaccines, and I support the use of this one, but if it's not required for her classmates in high school, then she shouldn't be forced to have the vaccine just because she's an immigrant. It smacks of the "dirty, unhealthy" immigrant myth of the late 19th and early 20th century.
I can't see getting a vaccine, about which we know little to nothing regarding long-term effects (out past the 5-10 year mark), which only provides protection against some types of HPV which cause some types of cervical cancer.... because some man might rape me.
There are lots of things I'm told to do to prevent being raped... don't wear "sexy" clothes, don't tell people I live alone, don't go out by myself at night, don't create a schedule that makes it easy to be followed, etc etc. Getting vaccines because despite all the precautions I'm supposed to take, someone might STILL rape me....
I can't live like that. I won't live like that. And this girl shouldn't have to either.
(i won't get started on all the other reasons i chose not to get the vaccine)
I wasn't only talking about rape, although that was part of it. Most women and girls have no idea if their partner, whether he is a casual boyfriend or a husband, has been exposed. The idea that being a virgin and marrying a virgin means you'll never have to worry about STDs is a remarkably short-sighted one. People get divorced. People cheat. People aren't always completely honest about their sexual pasts--and even when they are, very few men know if they have been exposed to HPV. Considering how serious cervical cancer is, doing everything you can to prevent it seems to be a good idea to me. The unfortunate thing is that conservative opposition to the vaccine have painted it as an insult to girls' reputations, that it's only something for sluts, not for nice girls with abstinence pledges. But those "nice girls" grow up, and being an adult is a lot more complicated than they think. Especially when it includes the possibility of dying from a preventable disease. If you don't want to get the vaccine because you're worried about its safety, that's a completely different subject.
And, I forgot to mention, that even when you're actively trying to prevent exposure using prophylactics, things go wrong. Condoms break, or fall off. I once had a boyfriend with a small penis, and at first I couldn't figure out why the condoms came off on a regular basis. Was he putting them on wrong? Was it the brand? Then I had a thought and checked the box: I was right, he was buying the wrong size. He was too embarrassed to buy "small" condoms when faced with a shelf full of Magnum XL++. I tried to get him to buy the big box of the small size, thinking that while his penis may not be so big, he's having so much sex he needs the BIG box, but eventually I ended up buying the condoms myself. Funny story, but still, I was exposed several times while I was actively trying to prevent STD exposure. ( I hope this ends up in the right place, it's supposed to be a reply to morninglory)
FYI a lot of people don't know this, but its very important. HPV is a epidermal virus meaning it gets transferred through the skin, condoms do NOT protect against the transmission of HPV. It can transfer through the skin of the genitalia which is not covered by the condom. Something that should be considered when getting the vaccine
Getting the HPV vaccine isn't something you do to prevent yourself from being raped. It's something can you do to protect yourself from one particular STD (and cancer) in case you are raped. I think that's a really important difference.
While I don't agree with requiring this vaccine for citizenship when it's not required for other American women and is very expensive...I think it should be noted that this young lady's reasons for refusing the vaccine aren't solid ones. I agree with other comments about this: it's not always a matter of having decided to wait.
This is, I think, the biggest fallacy of virginity pledges. It's going to be hard for her to find a man who made the same pledge for her. Just because she waited doesn't mean the person she marries won't expose her to HPV within the bounds of marriage. HPV is so pervasive and it's so hard for men to know they have it....waiting for marriage doesn't necessarily protect you from STDs.
The other part of this that doesn't make sense is that HPV is not a infectious disease like the others on the list of mandated vaccines. It's a sexually transmitted infection, which, while serious, is not a public health emergency, causing the question of why it needs to be mandated for immigrant women.
Good point. In light of how common infection with HPV's various strains (don't half of all American women over 50 have it?), and in light of the fact that Gardasil targets only a few strains linked to cancer, the immigration requirement seems intended more for the health of the single applicant than for that of the American populace.
My big question, though, is: Now that the FDA has approved Gardasil for boys, will ALL immigrants, regardless of gender, be required to get the vaccine? As it currently stands, the requirement seems to keep the burden of sexual responsibility and gate-keeping firmly on the shoulders of women.
I was under the impression that Gardasil also targets strains that cause warts, because my doctor said that already having one type of HPV shouldn't deter you from getting the vaccine because you can still protect yourself from the other kind (ie - if you have the cancer-causing strain, you can still protect yourself from the warts-causing strain).
I'd say that I certainly hope they extend the requirement to boys too, except for the fact that it seems stupid to require it of anyone coming into the country when people who were born here aren't mandated to have it.
From wikipedia (I know.. a great place to get reliable information..):
[The two available vaccines] protect against initial infection with HPV types 16 and 18, which cause most of the HPV associated cancer cases. Gardasil also protects against HPV types 6 and 11, which cause 90 percent of genital warts.
In March 2003, the US FDA approved the Digene HPV HC2 DNA Test, a "hybrid-capture" test manufactured by Qiagen as the primary screening tool for detecting HPV cervical infection as an adjunct to Pap testing, and may be performed during a routine Pap smear. It can detect the DNA of the 18 HPV types that most commonly affect the cervix and distinguish between "low" and "high-risk" HPV types, but it cannot determine the specific HPV types.
Is it so hard for them to understand that it's the girl's "choice" and her cervix?
This slightly reminds me of the time when my doctor refused to give me a prescription because it can cause birth defects and I wasn't on birth control. I wasn't planning on having sex or having a baby.
Sometimes doctors are required to do things like this to avoid liability. For instance, Accutane(isotretinoin)is a potent prescription to fight acne that causes very serious birth defects.
From Wikipedia:
"In the U.S. more than 2,000 women have become pregnant while taking the drug between 1982 and 2003, with most pregnancies ending in abortion or miscarriage. About 160 babies with birth defects were born. Consequently, the iPLEDGE program was introduced by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration on 12 August 2005 in an attempt to ensure that female patients receiving isotretinoin do not become pregnant."
There's a difference between doctors who don't trust women to make their own choices and doctors who don't want to put their patients through a painful pregnancy likely to end in miscarriage.
I understand your point of view. Although I'm not against birth control (not at all!), I will not subject my body to unnecessary hormones if I don't need to. I've been celibate by choice all my life so far. However, I do understand that in this society, my Word and convictions are not enough and I have to live with it.
You could also say that a person shouldn't have to get the MMR vaccine because it's his/her lungs/body and they have the choice on whether or not they want to be at risk of getting measles, mumps, or rubella.
The reason this is required is to prevent the spread of the MMR (or whatever disease) throughout the general population. You may think your individual risk of getting it is low, but that still doesn't mean you can't be a vessel for transmitting it to other people.
I don't know about the safety of Gardasil, but if it can reduce the number of people who can be potential carriers of the strain of HPV that can cause cervical cancer (and other cancers in men) then shouldn't that be taken as a serious responsibility?
So yes, it's expensive, and something should be done about that. But we have the technology to make our world healthier. Shouldn't we try using it?
One note, of course. If the vaccine is required of women immigrating into the US, it should be a required part of adult/childhood vaccines for everyone. Assuming its safe, everyone who can possibly get it should!
This. is. a. red. herring. A myth. Its not just women who have to get vaccines to immigrate, its that women are the only one's having to get Gardasil. If men could get cervical cancer from HPV I'm sure they'd have to get it too. They get the other vaccines same as the women.
"If men could get cervical cancer from HPV I'm sure they'd have to get it too."
But as others have pointed out, there is a vaccine for men for HPV that is not required for immigration. That is not fair. Men can pass HPV along to women so if they are going to make it a requirement (which I don't think they should because of reasons pointed out in the OP) it should be for both sexes.
Didn't it just come out tho? Is there any reason to think they won't? I mean there's no, zero, zilch, nada evidence that this is being applied in a sexist way.
"I am only 17 years old and planning to go to college and not have sex anytime soon," said Simone. "There is no chance of getting cervical cancer, so there's no point in getting the shot."
Fail for the day! I agree that it's a bad idea to make immigration even more expensive by requiring even more vaccinations - but come on, "I don't plan on having sex" is not exactly a solid reason. We've all seen the research on the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of virginity pledges.
I have a friend who did remain abstinent until her wedding night. Shortly after getting married, she ended up having to go to the doctor. I only recently learned that she had to go for HPV. Although her husband had abstained with her during their relationship, he hadn't so much prior to meeting her.
So, yes, it is ridiculous to require a not-yet-time-tested vaccine for women (immigrants or students or whatever). And yes, it is naive to assume that even if you will keep your pledge of abstinence until you're married, that you will not be at risk for HPV, or any other STI.
Studies have shown that women with only one lifetime sexual partner still have a 20% chance of acquiring HPV. Abstinence until marriage will not protect you.
I appreciate your opinion on this and I totally agree. For example, I plan on getting this vaccine just before I get married/have sex. I just don't believe it should be a required when I am celibate and completely sexually inactive. It slightly angers me when people say I may change my mind and have sex. First of all, if it so happens that change my mind and decide to have sex, I will most definitely get the shot. Right now, I shouldn't have to (and this girl shouldn't have to either).
Fail? Why are you questioning this young woman's ability to remain celibate?
That thinking is probably WHY they are mandating it for ALL young women regardless of what they say because -you know- she just CANT decide NOT to sex, thats absurd! ZMOG!!!!!!
Get over it, its HER CHOICE. She chooses to say no, respect that and stop second guessing her as if you know her and her body better than she does.
I don't think Alexa is questioning this girl's integrity. The whole point of how ineffective virginity pledges are is that people change their minds. It's not a matter of whether or not someone is "capable" of keeping their legs shut. She may decide 2 years down the road that she feels differently. Plus, it's not just intercourse that can pass HPV, we just had a thread yesterday where some people cleared up the misconception surrounding mutual masturbation and HPV - namely, that HPV CAN be passed that way.
Which, again, isn't to say that she should/must/be required to have this vaccine. There are lots of other reasons why this immigration mandate is bad, and there are lots of reasons why US citizens are choosing not to get it. But misinformation about STDs and the effectiveness of abstinence pledges should still be knocked down.
Plus, even if she totally keeps her pledge, she could still get HPV from her future spouse (or, unfortunately, from rape).
I don't think its fair to mandate it to some people and not others, but her reasons for not getting it are far from solid. Its not that big a deal to get the shot, its far safer than not getting it, and she does have a risk of getting the disease whether she likes it or not. So the only real issues I see here is treating people equally under the law, and the financial burden. From a point of view of what's medically best for her, she should get the vaccine.
"And none of her American classmates is mandated by law to be vaccinated."
She has a good point. If American women aren't required to get the vaccine, why should she?
I know she has taken that pledge and all but some people are really anti-vaccine. Why should new citizens be forced to get it?
i really don't think this should be a requirement for immigrant women--the cost issue being the most concerning. the cost is why i have not gotten it, as i'm currently uninsured and have a low-paying job. but no woman should be forced to get any vaccine...
This reminds me of the kind of "logic" pharmaceutical companies use when it comes time to set prices. Other countries besides the US have set price controls on how much certain drugs will cost, but quite notably, we have not. This is why a thirty day supply of a medication will cost $20 in Canada and $700 in this country---we pay for almost all of the the research and development cost.
And in this circumstance, the cost of the vaccination is set arbitrarily high. This post contains a lot of interesting issues that are food for thought, namely that we seem to think that a person can become a legal citizen only if they have enough money, jump through enough hoops, and go through an extensive process to prove it to us. No wonder so many people enter this country illegally.
Who cares if her reasons aren't "solid"? (Are some of you seriously saying her reasons for not wanting the vaccine are invalid? Really???)It's still her body and it should still be her choice. She shouldn't have to justify her reasons to anyone.
I think it's at least worth pointing out to people who are listening to her that her reason isn't exactly airtight. There are lots of reasons for her to not want the vaccine, including the hypocrisy involved in not mandating it for people who were born here and the financial burden, but people should be fully informed about their chances of getting an STD, and that even abstinent-until-marriage people are still at risk post-marriage. No one's suggesting that since her primary reason is shakey that she should be forced to have it.
But this isn't true of vaccines generally. They are required in many cases for public welfare. Why should this one be different?
Because plain and simple it's not required FOR EVERYONE. If you want to make it a national mandate, for men and women, then it would be a different story. But they are disproportionately affecting ONE group only.
Hepatitis B is a viral infection spread through contact with bodily fluids (sexual contact, needle sticks, maternal-fetal transmission), and yet I didn't hear about this young lady refusing the Hepatitis B vaccine. I'm sure she doesn't plan on using IV drugs or having sexual contact with a HepB+ individual.
As a pediatrician, it is hard for me to refrain from getting up on my soapbox about vaccines.
Of note, there is a new study out disproving any link between autism and the MMR vaccine. Check out the most recent edition of Archives of Disease in Childhood for further information.
Yes! I'm so sick of everyone freaking out about this vaccine because it targets cancer in a women's private parts. I think it's important that we remember that WARTS CAN HAPPEN TO BOYS TOO and stop pretending this vaccine is only of benefit to women.
The Hep B vaccine is spread sexually as well and you don't see people freaking out about it - because the liver is an equal opportunity organ. In the US, Hep B is the second most potent carcinogen - after nicotine.
Cervical cancer is the fourth most common cancer in this country and internationally is one of the ones most likely to kill women. In this country, we lose about 4,000 women a year to this disease - and the vast majority of cases are caused by HPV.
Bottomline - if this woman doesn't want to come here she doesn't have to. No one is forcing her to get the vaccine or immigrate. But if she's chosen to come, she needs to follow the rules other current immigrants have to follow. If this was about the liver rather than the cervix, we would not be having this conversation (presumably she already got the Hep B vaccine).
Sorry to nitpick, but I don't think the Gardasil vaccine protects against HPV strains that cause warts. Only the 4 strains that cause the bulk of cervical cancer. The wart strains and cancer strains are different.
I am pro-vaccine; I understand the need for herd immunity. Still, should Gardasil be required for all citizens and immigrants, in order to reduce the number of cervical cancer cases? That's a more complicated question than I can answer, but I do know two things:
1. It's f-ed up to require it of women and not men.
2. It's f-ed up to require it of immigrants and not all citizens.
Femgineer quoted up above information about which strains it protects against, which includes 2 wart-causing ones.
I think when she decides to marry- IF she decides to marry- she intends to have sex and before her wedding night would have gotten vaccinations against STDs if not have them both tested (which I think some states still require.
Either way I am appalled at anyone balking at this young woman's insistance that she is NOT at risk for STDs/STIs because she is NOT sexually active and does NOT have na interest in being sexually active. It's ok, there are actually living breathing teenagers who don't have an interest in having sex anytime soon. They have bodily autonomy too and that includes the right to say no to sex and to expensive, questionable vaccinations against STDs/STIs.
Agreed! Back in HS and college, I did not plan on having sex until marriage... and then when I was in a serious relationship at the age of 26, with marriage nowhere in the near future, I changed my mind. So then I went to the gyno to discuss contraception, got an exam, got tested (for good measure, and because I insisted my SO get tested as well).
It is her reason for not wanting the vaccine. That makes it a good enough reason, no matter what others might think.
while i have no problem with her saying she will not have sex she can still get STIs through other means. my SO never had sex until me and when we got tested before doing anything HE was the one with the STD, not me. you are not invincible. I'm not saying the vaccine should be required but as others have said above, part of the problem is those who take pledges think they are risk free when they really arent.
I think it's important to note that there is no test for HPV in men, unless they are displaying warts. Most men who are HPV carriers are asymptomatic. So it's not as simple as showing up to a clinic and saying, "Hi, my partner and I want to be tested for all STI's." Just thought I should throw that out there, because a lot of people think they are STI-free when really all they've been tested for is chlamydia and gonorrhea.
This is such an interesting thread for me, for several reasons, and mainly because as a UK citizen, our health care is all free. I find it incredibly interesting that the vaccine is known as the brand name in the States. In the UK we are simply asked whether we would like "the HPV vaccine" and then we get it, for free. The idea of having to pay for this is really strange to me; especially if I were a non-UK citizen, and my being allowed to stay in the UK depended on my having to PAY for this treatment.
Additionally, what is this "virginity pledge" that is being discussed? Is this for real? In the UK, as far as I know, nothing of this sort exists - and in my opinion, thank goodness. I thought we were progressing beyond this kind of sexual repression and glorification of "women's purity" - please!
Virginity pledges are part of the abstinence-only sex education promoted in public schools in the US. They are sometime accompanied by a "purity ring" which is a ring that that the person taking the virginity pledge wears until they replace it with a wedding band (because when you take a virginity pledge you're pledging to remain chaste until your wedding night). Many of these programs receive federal funding.
Also, the HPV vaccine has faced some controversy here. For instance, when Texas passed legislation requiring 11 and 12 year old girls to get the vaccine before entering the sixth grade, there was an outcry because some people believed that it would "make them promiscuous".
there was also valid cries that dick perry had several long and deep ties to merck which is why the requirement was nudged along.
http://www.kbtx.com/home/headlines/5546651.html
True. Thanks for the link.
"Additionally, what is this "virginity pledge" that is being discussed? Is this for real? In the UK, as far as I know, nothing of this sort exists - and in my opinion, thank goodness. I thought we were progressing beyond this kind of sexual repression and glorification of "women's purity" - please!"
Why is it so difficult for some people to understand that for some women abstaining from sex is a choice that they have made for themselves that has nothing to do with being repressed or opressed or anything. While it may not be for everyone, it IS a valid and healthy choice, but it seems to be poo-pooed and dismissed a lot around here as an invalid or unrealistic.
As for Gardisil (sp?), I am really mistrustful of pharmaceutical companies and their testing procedures. I'm really torn about getting it for my daughter. I'm amazed by the hard sell I get about it from her pediatrician. He's been trying to give it to her since she was eleven.
Sorry but virginity pledges and purity rings have everything to do with repressing and shaming women's sexuality and sexual choices, whatever those may be.
These pledges strike me as a built trip more than anything else. "Only bad people have sex outside of marriage, and I know you're all good girls so you won't. And to make sure you won't I want you all to sign these papers. Have you signed? Good girls. Now here's your secret decoder ring."
It's perfectly possible to promote abstinence without making sex out to be a bad thing. Pledges are a way of making choices for kids, rather than giving them the ability to make their own.
Wait - there's a DECODER ring!? DUDE! I want one!
hee hee
"Be... sure.. to... drink... your...O..valtine."
...
Ovaltine? A crummy commercial?!
"Son of a !"
I think that you're shaming them. It's like the reverse of slut shaming or something. You assume a woman cannot make this very valid choice on her own without pressure from the patriarchy or the whatever. Are the rings and the pledges maybe a little silly? Perhaps. But the choice itself is real and valid and it's not to be poo-pooed. For heaven's sake. Celibacy is the ONE way a woman can pretty much be assured she won't end up with some disease or with an unwanted pregnancy. It is, aside from the possibility of being raped, the one way a woman is in full control of her sexual and reproductive health. I'd say that's pretty empowering.
My best friend was a virgin until she was twenty five. She worked her way through nursing school and just didn't want any hassles or distractions. It wasn't from religious pressure or any other sort of pressure, just a reasoned, rational decision she made for herself. And now she has a great job, and a good, healthy relationship within which she is free to explore and express her sexuality without it having nearly as much potential to fuck up her life or divert her plans.
Abstinence is a perfectly valid choice. I'm not shaming that choice at all which is why I said "sexual choices, whatever those may be." That includes abstinence.
However, virginity pledges and purity rings are from the purity pushers and are only a means to repress and shame women. I stand by what I said.
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that no matter how many times you clarify your perfectly valid point, sushi will continue to twist what's been said. There seems to be a pattern (here and in other posts).
Anyway, I think this is officially a derail. Abstinence is most definitely a "perfectly valid choice". But the rhetoric that abstinence groups use to talk about girls' sexuality is damaging. Let's move on now.
That was completely uncalled for, and a personal attack. sushi was making a valid point, that a virginity pledge does not have to involve shame and guilt and abstinence-only education. The article does not say what type of pledge she has made, and doesn't mention a purity ring at all. Is it so hard to believe that she made this decision of her own free will?
Where did I say that she didn't make this decision on her own free will?
sushi has, on a number of occassions, continually derailed threads. I believe the moderators even stepped in once. This isn't a personal attack, it's a reminder that this particular commenter has a history of willfully ignoring others' points.
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that no matter how many times you clarify your perfectly valid point, sushi will continue to twist what's been said.
That strikes me as a personal attack. Also, your comment about the rhetoric of abstinence-only crowd, which it is not clear whether or not she is a part of, implies that she *is* part of this crowd. It was this that I was objecting to, as well as the general tone of comments here that her pledge was something silly.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
Virginty pledges and purity pledges are not decisions young people come to themselves but something they are shamed into. They are made publically and if someone chooses not to engage in one it is very public. No one is saying there is a problem with teens vowing to be abstinent, but there is a problem with them being publically shamed into making such a vow.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
Virginty pledges and purity pledges are not decisions young people come to themselves but something they are shamed into. They are made publically and if someone chooses not to engage in one it is very public. No one is saying there is a problem with teens vowing to be abstinent, but there is a problem with them being publically shamed into making such a vow.
The article doesn't really say what *kind* (sorry, i don't know how to format) of virginity pledge she took. It might simply be a pledge to herself. I know a lot of people who pledged to themselves to not have sex before marriage (most of my college friends). They did not judge those who did not make this same decision. They did not think sex was a bad thing. It was usually related to religious beliefs, but that doesn't make it bad if it's something that they've thought about and come to decide upon as free-thinking adults.
People who pledge, after thought and consideration, to remain abstinent until marriage aren't necessarily tricked/guilted/shamed into it.
The young woman in this article and her grandmother/guardian seem to have put a lot of thought and considerable research into this decision, and the "virginity pledge" only appears to be a small part of it.
I just read the entire article - Simone's reasons appear to be more than just the virginity pledge. She and her grandmother do call attention to the fact that the vaccine is not required by people who are already citizens.
If natives are not required to, she should not.
And wayyyy more important, if males are not required, she should not be required.
I agree that its not fair to force her to get it if american children don't have to, and that its not fair to force her to pay for it. HOWEVER, the medical "risks" have been blown way out of proportion. And even if someone honestly is going to keep their virginity pledge (we know how well that usually goes), they could still be raped, or contract the virus from their future spouse. So I think refusing to get the vaccine for those reasons is a stupid decision, even though I generally support her right to make that decision.
I should add-- her being 17 and having no interest in sex is irrelevant. The whole point is to get vaccinated BEFORE you need the vaccine. Its not effective if you wait until you're sexually active. What is relevant is the cost and the fairness of requiring some people and not others, but medically, I think everyone should get this vaccine before they're interested in being sexually active.
I think most people here are addressing the right issues-- fairness of the law and financial burdens. However, just in case there's anyone here who thinks vaccines are bad for you or cause autism or any of that stuff, you should start reading this blog: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/
He has a lot of info and links about scientifically debunking those claims, and also about the damage that the antivax movement is doing, mostly to children.
Forcing her to have the vaccination when natives don't is wrong. But even if native-born citizens were forced to get it, that's still, at this point, only the females.
It boggles my mind that we're bickering over whether she'll ever be raped, whether she can keep her virginity pledge, and what the health risks are and not focusing on the fact that MALE autonomy is not being threatened here.
That's a function of the way the clinical trial system works. They've only done a large scale trial in females first because they're the ones most at risk. They are currently starting a trial for males, and in a few years it will probably be required for males too. I think it should be required now.
Are you sure that it will be required for males in a few years? I'm not so sure. I think the onus will still remain on the women there and for the men it will always be voluntary. But maybe I'm just being pessimistic.
There's not really any way to know that for sure right now. But they're going through the exact same process with males as they did with females, so there's no reason to think it won't end up in the same place, assuming the vaccine turns out to be safe for males, which it most likely will be. Its good for men to get this vaccine because it contributes to herd immunity (if everyone gets it, we can eradicate the strains it protects against, or at least greatly reduce the number of people who catch them) and also because HPV does cause certain cancers in men, like anal or oral or throat cancer. The rates aren't nearly as high which is why they tested it on women first, but it is still worth men getting the vaccine-- they just have to prove its safe for men first. Just like they still have to prove its safe for women over 26.
I agree.
I think the onus will be on women, as it is now.
Saying that some day males will have to get it, too, as an excuse for forcing it on females, is like saying we're making progress in the equal pay war. Yeah, at the rate we're going we'll be equal in about 400 years. If one year from now, or 5, or ten, males are finally required to get the shot women already had to, it won't equalize what happened before: women being held fully responsible for het sex. Again.
The day males are required to get this vaccination is the day females should be required, and not one day sooner.
I think it would be horribly intrusive for the government to actually mandate vaccinations for diseases which are not highly communicable or infectious. It would make no sense at all for that gardasil to be a requirement of girls or boys entering middle school.
If you're going to get it, it makes the most sense to do it well before you're sexually active. So if they're going to push it at any group, trying to get kids vaccinated before middle school makes perfect sense.
I agree that this vaccine isn't as critical as something really easily contagious like Polio, so I guess I don't think the government should really really force it, but I think its a good idea for everyone to get the HPV vaccine and I think its ok for the government to pressure people to get their kids vaccinated, since that's the best time to do it. Its kind of hard to decide where to draw the line. Should you let a very religious parent refuse to vaccinate their child for something like polio or meningitis that is easily contagious and can kill them and can kill other children they come in contact with? How different is it to let them refuse to vaccinate their child for something that's a little less contagious, a little less deadly, but can still be passed on to other people and potentially kill them? What if you think the parent is wrong and the child would probably decide the other way when they're old enough to do so but by then it might be too late?
I think I come down on the side of pressuring people to get the HPV vaccine early, and giving them all the relevant information to convince them to do so, but not actually forcing them.
I want to add to your comment that I think the statistic of 86% of women having HPV suggests that this is a widespread problem that a vaccine is appropriate for.
Except that HPV is highly communicable. That's the whole point...
The point is though, if the government can mandate that she pay an up front cost now so she has a greatly reduced chance of getting cervical cancer later in life, they are saving her, themselves and the taxpayers thousands of dollars. The fact is that ability to pay isn't considered, regardless of whether or not it should be. Since this isn't a country that lets everyone who wants to become a citizen, I think it's in keeping with government policy to choose someone who is willing/able to take preventative measures over someone who is not.
Some of the comments in this thread are shocking! Are you seriously mocking this girls desire to wait for marriage to have sex? (Alexa, I'm looking at you).
Firstly, "I don't plan on having sex" is not her only reason for rejecting the vaccine. She is rejecting the significant financial burden that getting this vaccine will pose, as well as the lack of a mandate for other US citizens.
Secondly, why do people feel the need to mock her virginity pledge? As far as I can tell from the article, she hasn't made a "virginity pledge", just chosen for herself not to have sex until she marries for religious reasons. This is a completely valid choice, and has nothing to do with shaming people who do choose to have sex.
Don't forget that she is from the UK originally, not from the US. Believe it or not, the rest of the world is not inundated with abstinence-only education.
I have a few thoughts about this.
1) She's not being forced to go through with this; she's the one applying to immigrate to the United States, and it seems a bit odd to refuse to accept the requirements given to her. Why apply, if you're not going to go through with it?
2) Second, the vaccination has nothing to do with her 'cervix', it's a stick in the arm. If she said she didn't want the U.S. government messing around with her lungs and throat (diptheria shot), we'd think she was nuts.
3) Third, she's not an immigrant woman, she's a potentially immigrant woman, and the U.S. doesn't care what financial burdens it puts on them -- they aren't citizens, yet. The time to stick up for your rights is not 'before' you become a citizen, because you aren't recognized as having rights, yet.
4) The fact that HPV vaccination isn't required for citizens is irrelevant. Lung X-rays aren't required for citizens either, they are required for green card applicants. Every country in the world is like this, harder to join by application than by birth. She's not being forced, she's the one who filed her application, she can withdraw it if she wishes.
5) They should require HPV shots for men as well.
6) It is really expensive, and that is the worst thing about it -- these applications can be a real financial burden.
7) What would people think if she announced that, because she was going to become a celibate Christian Scientist nun who would never have an injection, there was no need for her to get the Hepatitis B vaccination? Should the Immigration Officer have to evaluate each individual claim to unique invulnerability to disease? Suppose every woman applicant claimed to have taken a virginity pledge (to save the cost of the vaccination)? Would evaluating the truth of these be less invasive than the vaccination itself?
Imagine trying to prove that you would never have sex, and had never had sex.
8) And yes, it's bullshit. It's the kind of bullshit you have to go through to change your national 'family.' I'm doing it myself right now, I hate it, it's expensive and invasive, and I'm accepting it all without bitching. Does that make me a great person? I don't think so, but it's what I've got to do to get another passport. (And no, the country I'm applying to doesn't require the HPV vaccine.)
On the cost-- its a couple hundred dollars, right? I know that is really a lot for some people, and that sucks. But paying to treat cervical cancer, or even just recurring genital warts, has got to be way more expensive. And you're right, the government isn't asking a doctor to examine her cervix-- its a standard shot in the arm just like any other vaccine. I got it, its no big deal. The miniscule risk of any sort of complications is just as vanishingly small as it is for our other standard vaccines, and its far smaller than the risk of getting HPV, even for people who are abstinent until marriage.
I had go through all sorts of hassle and expense to get a student visa to go to the UK. If I had refused to do some part of it, I just wouldn't have been able to go. One thing I had to do was file a form showing all my vaccines were up to date. I don't think they specifically required the HPV vaccine, but if they did, it wouldn't have been any worse than all the other stupid fees I had to pay-- I had to pay to get fingerprinted and photographed, for example, and the centers were you can do it are only in specific cities, and there's no aid given to you in figuring that out or getting there. Just to call and ask a person questions on the phone costs $9 a minute, literally. You just have to figure out the forms online and deal with it yourself.
I wasn't only talking about rape, although that was part of it. Most women and girls have no idea if their partner, whether he is a casual boyfriend or a husband, has been exposed. The idea that being a virgin and marrying a virgin means you'll never have to worry about STDs is a remarkably short-sighted one. People get divorced. People cheat. People aren't always completely honest about their sexual pasts--and even when they are, very few men know if they have been exposed to HPV. Considering how serious cervical cancer is, doing everything you can to prevent it seems to be a good idea to me. The unfortunate thing is that conservative opposition to the vaccine have painted it as an insult to girls' reputations, that it's only something for sluts, not for nice girls with abstinence pledges. But those "nice girls" grow up, and being an adult is a lot more complicated than they think. Especially when it includes the possibility of dying from a preventable disease. If you don't want to get the vaccine because you're worried about its safety, that's a completely different subject.
And if you're worried about safety, you should do your research-- its safer than not getting it. I wish it were free, but I researched it and decided to pay out of pocket for it even though I wasn't intending to have sex with more than one person. A lot of the antivax stuff is unscientific hysteria, so before you believe any of that, really read up on the real science behind it. As I understand it, something like 30 people have had complications after getting this shot, which is incredibly low considering how many people have gotten it, and those complications haven't even been directly connected to the vaccine-- they just happened within a certain amount of time of getting it. Vaccines in general carry a small risk of setting off autoimmune diseases in people who are already prone to such diseases, but that risk is very small, smaller than the risk of getting the disease you're protecting against, and there's also a strong possibility that if a vaccine would have set off an autoimmune problem, you'll get that autoimmune problem at some point anyway. So yes, vaccines carry a risk of complications, but the risk is extremely small, the complications are usually mild, and its riskier to NOT get the vaccine.
When its no longer riskier to not get the vaccine, they stop pushing it at people. For instance, we don't get vaccinated against smallpox anymore because there's no longer any risk of being exposed to it (unless someone purposely releases it from one of the few labs that still study it), and there IS a risk of complications due to the vaccine. Its a small risk, but they decided that the risk of actually getting smallpox was even smaller nowadays, so they stopped giving everyone the vaccine. If it comes back, it will then make sense to risk the vaccine to protect against the higher risk of dying of smallpox.
I'm not sure where you got that number, but here is a link covering all things hpv
http://www.cdc.gov/STD/HPV/STDFact-HPV.htm
It states that in an overwhelming 90 percent of cases, the body gets rid of hpv on its own. Cervical cancer can also be prevented with regular pap tests and is highly treatable.
Another amazing statistic is that cervical cancer deaths have gone down by 74 percent between the years 1955 and 1992 and have continued to go down every year since, all without this vaccine.
http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/content/CRI_2_4_1X_What_are_the_key_statistics_for_cervical_cancer_8.asp
The preventibility and treatability just with routine testing makes mandatory vaccinations highly unnecessary
And to whomever said that there have been only thirty incidents of complications, can you cite your source? Because it is my understanding that there have been over a thousand actual deaths-
http://ohmygov.com/blogs/general_news/archive/2009/09/22/is-mandating-the-gardasil-vaccine-ethical-and-wise.aspx
But what about the many women who can't afford annual exams and Pap smears? Should they be thrown under the bus because they're poor?
Yes, it is a wonderful thing that the incidence of cervical cancer death has dropped so precipitously, but I can't accurately evaluate those numbers without seeing the death rates for other kinds of cancer in the same period. Besides, what about the women who still get cervical cancer, because they missed a bunch of Pap smears when they didn't have health insurance for a few years? Wouldn't it be nice if they had a vaccine that prevented them from getting cancer in the first place?
And I find it very hard to believe there have been a thousand young girls dying due to the vaccine, if there were, it would have been pulled from the market instantly.
"I am only 17 years old and planning to go to college and not have sex anytime soon," said Simone. "There is no chance of getting cervical cancer, so there's no point in getting the shot."
Ugh. Cervical cancer is not only caused by HPV, and just because you are a virgin doesn't mean you are exempt, unfortunately. I hate that this vaccine is being marketed in many ways as a vaccine for cervical cancer, because it is defintely not.