Obsession with virginity is deadly public policy

It is true, as social conservatives say, that sexually active people risk contracting various diseases, some fatal. And that abstaining from sex offers the best protection against sexually transmitted ailments. And that high-school kids, especially, would be a lot better off if they put off having sex until later. No argument here. Abstinence does play an important role in health education.

But it can't be the only message. Unfortunately, some social conservatives have turned an obsession with virginity into deadly public policy. The controversy over the new cervical-cancer vaccine is a twisted example.

This vaccine can stop a cancer that kills about 4,000 American women a year. The Centers for Disease Control advisory committee recently recommended that the vaccine be given to all girls by age 13. Several states are considering proposals to make the vaccine mandatory, like the shots for polio and measles. Some social conservatives, however, are fighting these efforts.

Their rationale is as follows: Cervical cancer is caused by the human papilloma virus, which is sexually transmitted. By doing away with the fear of most cervical cancers, this vaccine may give adolescent girls a green light to have sex.

Let's dispose of the green light. Vaccine or no, the teens would remain vulnerable to a variety of other diseases, including AIDS. There remains plenty to warn them against. Then there's reality. Even before the vaccine was available, 70 percent of American girls were having sex before they reached 18. So much for the deterrent value of cervical cancer.

You have to wonder about a policy that would throw American girls to the wolves because they had lost their virginity. And if you think this characterization is unduly harsh, consider a recent discussion on National Public Radio.

A young mother had called in to speak of her struggle with an aggressive cervical cancer. She noted that her sexual partners had been few and that her very religious parents would not have voluntarily vaccinated her against cervical cancer.

"Unfortunately, she did make choices," commented Linda Klepacki, sexual health analyst for the conservative group Focus on the Family. "She said she had a handful of sexual partners." Yes, she did, as have the vast majority of American brides. Klepacki also did not consider the very real possibility that the source of the dangerous virus was the woman's husband.

A willingness to expose girls to an easily preventable cancer is so off-base that Focus on the Family does pretzel bends to make its stance sound respectable. Its Web site (www.family.org) hails the vaccine as a scientific breakthrough, and offers very good reasons why parents might want their daughters to receive it. But then the group argues against mandatory vaccinations, on the questionable grounds of defending "parental rights."

Well, parents make bad choices, too. And this one isn't about deciding which movie their daughter may see. It's about safeguarding her life.

What about the chaste girl who gets raped? Or the girl who defies her parents' abstinence rule and has sex? Or the girl whose parents are too lazy to take their daughter in for a shot? How about parents who are so repelled at the idea of their 11-year-old ever engaging in sex that they avoid getting her vaccinated?

When a vaccine enters the arsenal of routine childhood shots, it becomes a simple matter: a quick jab in the arm that everyone forgets about five minutes later. And parents totally opposed to the idea can still opt out. Every state allows that, even for "mandatory" vaccines. But leaving the matter entirely to the discretion of parents means many girls will not be protected.

"We support abstinence until marriage and fidelity in marriage," Klepacki said. That's fine, but not a good enough reason to condemn many of America's daughters to preventable deaths. Whether from the standpoint of public health or of morality, mandatory vaccination against cervical cancer should be a no-brainer.

Providence Journal columnist Froma Harrop's column appears regularly on editorial pages of The Times. Her e-mail address is fharrop@projo.com