Have sex, earn cancer

Who cares if we can prevent cervical cancer when G-d so clearly intended it to punish girls who don't know it's best to keep their legs closed.

Because the vaccine protects against a sexually transmitted virus, many conservatives oppose making it mandatory, citing fears that it could send a subtle message condoning sexual activity before marriage.

Or maybe it would send a not so subtle message that we as society don't condone women needlessly getting cancer. But that's not a message that conservatives mentioned here, including James Dobson's Focus on the Family, seem willing to send.

"Parents should have the choice. There are those who would say, 'We can provide a better, healthier alternative than the vaccine, and that is to teach abstinence,' " [Gene Rudd, associate executive director of the Christian Medical and Dental Associations] said.

Teaching abstinence is not a better, healthier alternative than the vaccine; practicing abstinence is. But conservatives overlook the big difference between the two.

We'd like to think our children do what we teach them. But I can attest from my time as a teenager that isn't a fair assumption. In fact, I think we all can recall certain instances where we choose in a way differently then our parents wanted us to. Conservatives in this case seem to think that cancer is a reasonable punishment for it, as well as the physical suffering, mental anguish, and needless medical bills that go with it.

Welcome to George Bush's America.