Coming out in favor of mandatory HPV vaccines for little girls without their consent or that of their parents, it strikes me that the New York Times has breached a serious feminist line. After all, don't we always hear "our bodies, our choice" and "keep your rosaries off of my ovaries" from the pro-abort activists and their supporters in the media? Why the sudden turn to government intervention in the cervical health?

Debate over a new vaccine to prevent cervical cancer and genital warts has reached a high pitch. State legislatures are debating whether to mandate the vaccine or insist that its use be kept voluntary. The manufacturer stopped a vigorous lobbying campaign lest it provoke more opposition than support. And some health professionals who had been championing the vaccine flinched at making it mandatory, at least for now.

Even so, state legislatures should require that all young girls be given this vaccine, which protects against a virus that causes some 10,000 new cases of cervical cancer in the United States each year — and 3,700 cancer deaths.

The NY Times then goes on to dismiss every single argument against he vaccine in the most condescending of terms -- typical of the paper's editorial board, which believes it knows better than the commoners on every subject -- and urges a full-steam-ahead approach to mandatory vaccination with Gardasil, despite teh questions that remain about the drug and the financial pressure it will put on the states that mandate it.

But then again, since when has the New York Times ever cared about the implications of the policies it supports? And since it will save the lives of over 1,000,000 children annually, will the paper come out in favor of a ban on abortion?

Posted by: Greg at 12:56 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 310 words, total size 2 kb.