Playing Politics With Little Girls’ Lives

Candidates who bring the HPV vaccine into the political arena are playing with fire.

You and I are just getting to know one another. While I’ve been writing a for Wilton Patch for the last year, and readers there are more familiar with where I stand on many things, this “Patch In” column is only in its third week. I thought we’d take it slow.

Earlier this week someone sent me the link to an editorial in the Wall Street Journal. It was about GOP presidential candidate Michelle Bachmann’s recent comments about the human papillomavirus (or HPV) vaccine that she made during the recent campaign debates. My friend thought it would make good fodder for a column, and knew I’d be interested in the subject.

I was a little hesitant to write about it in this forum. Heck, it’s still early in our relationship and you’re just getting to know bits and pieces about where I stand on certain issues and what my life philosophies are. And isn’t this issue really more of a national one, since it’s taking place on the presidential campaign stages rather than right here in Fairfield County?

But then I remembered: We have children here in Fairfield County too.

Because, truly, what’s at the heart of the brouhaha, and what’s getting forgotten in favor of presidential politics and soundbites, are children.

Backtracking a little to explain, Rep. Bachmann has gone on the attack against Texas Gov. Rick Perry for the 2007 move he made in his state issuing an executive order mandating sixth-grade girls receive a vaccine against HPV. Assuming her intent was to characterize Perry’s action as creating legislation without approval from the state’s legislative body, Bachmann fired off this soundbite during the debate:

“To have innocent little 12-year-old girls be forced to have a government injection through an executive order is just flat-out wrong.”

After the debate was concluded, she also asserted that HPV vaccines cause “mental retardation.”

I think you and I are going to get to know one another much faster than I first thought.

Political affiliations aside, what’s most concerning to me is how science and health—specifically the health of female children—is now so politicized. Someone has taken a medical issue that’s backed by scientific research and fact, and hijacked it for the purpose of political attack, spin and polling points.

What are the medical facts? According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), HPV causes virtually all cases of cervical cancer and genital warts, in addition to being linked to other kinds of cancers and diseases. While there are multiple strains of HPV, and not all of them directly cause cancer, cervical cancer is still the second leading cancer-killer of women worldwide.

HPV is also the most common sexually transmitted disease today.

A-ha! Is that what makes this issue hot and—pardon the media parlance pun—sexy? Because somehow when the topic of “innocent little 12-year-old girls” gets mixed up with protecting them from a virus that gets transmitted through sexual contact, it suddenly gets to be co-opted by politicians on the basis of protecting moral values—and it gets them airtime.

In full disclosure, I grew up in a household that was comfortable talking about science, medicine and fact. My dad is an OBGYN, so we weren’t afraid of using correct anatomical terminology or talking about human sexuality. It’s formed the basis for the way I approach issues like this one.

The science shows that in order for this vaccine to work it needs to be administered before a person becomes sexually active. According to a statement released by the American Academy of Pediatrics following the media uproar after Bachmann’s comments, they “recommend that girls receive [the] HPV vaccine around age 11 or 12. That’s because this is the age at which the vaccine produces the best immune response in the body, and because it’s important to protect girls well before the onset of sexual activity.”

That recommendation was echoed by the CDC and American Academy of Family Physicians.

Please note, it was me who italicized the statement’s words “well before” to emphasize that science isn’t encouraging little girls to start being sexually active earlier. Knowing that’s been the objection for some opposed to this vaccine, I wanted to make the demarcation between science and morality even clearer.

Let's continue with the facts, especially with regard to Bachmann's baseless assertion about the effects of giving the vaccine, and add what the AAP had to say:

"The American Academy of Pediatrics would like to correct false statements made in the Republican presidential campaign that HPV vaccine is dangerous and can cause mental retardation. There is absolutely no scientific validity to this statement. Since the vaccine has been introduced, more than 35 million doses have been administered, and it has an excellent safety record."

Legislation concerning vaccines and immunizations is written at the state level. Currently there are no laws on Connecticut books about anything having to do with HPV—at all. Shortly after it was recommended at the federal level in 2006 that girls aged 11 and 12 receive routine vaccinations, several states—including Connecticut—began debate on it. Nothing has passed our legislatures, however, as of 2007, the last year anything on HPV was brought up for discussion. (The CT Department of Health does have a fact sheet on HPV.)

Health and vaccine policy does get set by government, especially when it protects the lives of the public against epidemics—think chicken pox, measles, and many others. There’s usually nothing compulsory and parents have the right to make an ultimate choice to opt out, as was the case in Texas (although Gov. Perry’s executive order was ultimately overturned by his legislature).

It doesn’t need to be an issue that gets divvied up based on political party. Just look at Virginia, where a state mandate for the HPV vaccine was passed with the support of politicians in both parties. Chris Stolle, a Republican state delegate there told the Huffington Post, "I'm a conservative Republican and I certainly do believe in limited government and limited interference of government into our lives. As we look at the function of government, I would put number one as being to protect its citizens. I think that a vaccination program for a disease that's epidemic falls very clearly within the realms of a small limited government."

What is unfortunately lost in this debate is the opportunity for the politicians to use science to enlighten and protect. The resulting costs from such a fatal disease—impacting families, hospitals, insurers, and society—is a potentially too high a price to pay.

Instead, code words and push-button fear messages get bandied about, furthering the campaign at the expense of some of our youngest citizens, playing political roulette with our daughters’ lives.

CTPati September 20, 2011 at 06:05 PM
Parents may want to check some FACTS before blasting Bachmann: 1) "Studies so far show the vaccines protect for four or five years"...so "vaccinating an 11-year-old girl might not protect her when she needs it most — in her most sexually active years." 2) "Most cervix cancer can be prevented. Finding abnormal cell changes early with a Pap test can save your life. Today, cervix cancer is rare in women who get their Pap tests." "• HPV is a virus that can lead to cervix cancer. • Almost all women who have had sex will have HPV at some time, but very few women will get cervix cancer. • Most HPV infections go away without causing cervix changes. HPV does not have any symptoms and cannot be treated. But the cell changes that HPV can cause in the cervix can be treated. • HPV that does not go away over many years can lead to cervix cancer." http://www.npr.org/2011/09/19/140543977/hpv-vaccine-the-science-behind-the-controversy http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/CancerCauses/OtherCarcinogens/InfectiousAgents/HPV/what-women-should-know-about-cervix-cancer-and-hpv
Afreedman2011 September 20, 2011 at 07:08 PM
Only you would support the ridiculous ravings of Michelle Bachmann. Keep on posting however. We all get to see for ourselves what the real agenda of the Tea Party is. It is nothing more than the far right wing of the Republican party
CTPati September 20, 2011 at 09:28 PM
Only Serfman (aka BIG Gov't. guy) would continually blast anyone who wants smaller, *constitutional* government and more LIBERTY for the people, so that they can make their own choices for themselves and their families. It's very strange that Afman seems to love higher taxes and more intrusive government, that tells us (or wants to) what kind of toilets, light bulbs, cars, restaurant meals and so much else we must/or are allowed to buy. I wonder why. What's in it for him?
Afreedman2011 September 20, 2011 at 10:09 PM
It's very strange to me that while you claim to support freedom and liberty, you have absolutely no issue imposing government on the on women to limit their constitutional right to have an abortion or the rights of loving gay couples to marry or adopt children. Its hypocritical that you think you are entitled to your freedom and liberty but you can limit theirs.
CTPati September 21, 2011 at 02:04 AM
Non-responsive balderdash, Serfman. Your posts reek of hypocrisy, because you defend government intruding on just about everything else in our lives (except your 2 pet issues) and confiscating as much of our earnings as it wants!


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »