And as the article points out at the end, all these guys are supposed to be 'pro-life'!

<link>

konark_girl:

And as the article points out at the end, all these guys are supposed to be 'pro-life'!

"Pro-life" expires at birth, remember!

Really, the problem is the statement that they want to stop "feckless or morally dubious" prevention programs.

As if there's a "morally dubious" (are you fucking kidding me?!) way to save someone from AIDS!

Just like there's a "morally dubious" way to prevent cervical cancer.

Boggles the mind.

bugger:

As if there's a "morally dubious" (are you fucking kidding me?!) way to save someone from AIDS!

Just like there's a "morally dubious" way to prevent cervical cancer.

Boggles the mind.

Not really, anyone with even a smidgen of imagination can come up with methods that qualify.

I can guarantee you will NEVER catch AIDS if I simply lock you in solitary confinement for your entire life, but I'm pretty sure that would qualify as 'morally dubious' (at best).

Other hypotheticals are left as an exercise.

Yes, and I suppose we could exterminate all girls at birth... that would quickly get rid of the cervical cancer! Good point!

Amazing how completly corupt the" your Morality is our business" scum are . or how totally immoral these people actually are.And they have no shame in all this.How absoulutly amazing!!

Beneath contempt!

Lower than whale shit!

...I see what you mean.

Yes, these people are slugs. But they're conservatives, and can't help themselves. I'd add one to the list- Harry Reid, D-Nevada. His weakness, timorousness, and feeble leadership have put the Democrats in the Senate at a disadvantage since Dems (more or less) took charge in 2007.

I say it's time to can him, too. He's not doing his job.

The thing I find most annoying about the cervical cancer "debate" is that the same virus that causes cervical cancer (HPV) is also responsible for penile and anal cancers in men (although men are somewhat less susceptible) as well as, apparently, some throat cancers.

So it shouldn't even really be a debate over preventing just cervical cancer by innoculating girls. I'm not sure why they don't, but it would seem to me that innoculating boys at the same time as girls would really cut down on a lot more disease than just innoculating girls.

And just as a public service - just because your kid gets the vaccination doesn't mean that she is completely protected from HPV and cervical cancer. As of right now, the vaccine only protects against 5-8 of the strains of HPV that cause cervical cancer or about 70%. So even if vaccinated, girls/women will still have to have routine pap smears to check for cervical cancer as there are other strains of HPV than cannot currently be innoculated against. (And, while HPV is the major cause of cervical cancer (like 99%) there are a few other anomolous things that can cause cervical cancer, so regular pap smears for women currently over age 20 (or younger if sexually active), will still have to be part of overall lifetime health care. The vaccine doesn't work retroactively, from what I understand, and since the majority of the sexually active population has already been exposed to the virus, they are and will remain at risk for the rest of their lives.)

Apparently the vaccine is not (or was not until recently) approved for use on males in the US -- although it is, and is so used, in Europe and Australia. I am not quite sure why that is.

Horus:

...I see what you mean.

Yes, these people are slugs. But they're conservatives, and can't help themselves. I'd add one to the list- Harry Reid, D-Nevada. His weakness, timorousness, and feeble leadership have put the Democrats in the Senate at a disadvantage since Dems (more or less) took charge in 2007.

I say it's time to can him, too. He's not doing his job.

I was wondering when someone would open fire on Harry Reid for this one, and I agree; he deserves it. Does he really need pushed into dealing with this by the likes of Bush? Like he takes orders from the president? Feh.

When it comes to the Bush regime, what's a few 'political points' over this worth? Who cares if Bush is industriously legacy-building? On balance his presidency will go down in history as one of the worst ever. This will not save it. But they can save lives at the cost of a few 'points.'

They're a bitch to get stuff through. (Although you'd be hard pressed to figure that with the likes of Celebrex and Accutane!)

But I wouldn't be surprised if it's also partly political - if it can be kept as a women's issue and the debate revolve around sexual morality, then it will be easier to keep it away from those corrupt sex-crazed liberals who want to keep their promiscuous daughters from paying for their sexual transgressions and further lessening the need for god in the public forum.

keeping and holding power, it is unlikely that these Republicans could get elected without being pro-life. Ron Paul is running a for President as a Republican but most of his positions are libertarian with its slant towards less government power. However even he is pro-life, most likely because he would lose his Congressional seat if he was pro-abortion.

The article said:

>>>"President Bush has yet to push for PEPFAR's reauthorization as his top legislative priority, so Majority Leader Harry Reid and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell feel little pressure to roll over Coburn's objections -- which they could do, since there are more than 60 "yes" votes.

Reid supports the legislation but seems uninterested in scheduling floor time without assurances from Republicans that the debate will be short and the number of amendments limited." <<<

Looks to me that, if there are indeed over 60 votes for the bill, the only obstacle holding the bill back from being sent to the President's desk is the politics which Reid is playing.

But I wouldn't be surprised if it's also partly political - if it can be kept as a women's issue and the debate revolve around sexual morality, then it will be easier to keep it away from those corrupt sex-crazed liberals who want to keep their promiscuous daughters from paying for their sexual transgressions and further lessening the need for god in the public forum.

This is exactly what I've thought about this topic since the beginning and why I cringe every time i hear that "I wanna be one less" idiotic HPV drug commercial. Remember when they came out with that stat about 20 or 25 percent of teen girls having been exposed to an STD or some such nonsense? All I could think is who do these people think that girls are having sex WITH? You don't masturbate and get STDs... It's not a male/female kind of an issue. But we still live in a male dominated (mentality wise) society where women are either virgins or whores and men are encouraged, or at least excused in their sexuality/promiscuity.

Have you been watching that documentary on VH1 about sex through the decades? Not bad for a VH1 doc...

And I keep telling people that if the screening for testicular or prostrate cancer required having you balls squished down to 1/3 their normal size in a cold plastic vice and held there indefinitely while the technician runs out of the room (has a sip of coffee, chats with the attractive male radiologist for a bit...) clicks the x-ray button, then wanders slowly back in to unclamp the vice, then there would be a better mammogram test...men don't really care about too much as long as it's not their balls in the vice. And most of them seem to think that HPV is a girl thing. (I like the "I wanna be one less" commercial. It's very cute and girlie, got a nice catchy tune and is informative. Girls can handle that. Now if they just put it at the checkout counter, parents will get it for their girls just to shut them the hell up...please, mom, Stacy got hers, I wanna be cool like her, I wanne be ONE LESS!!!!!!)

I don't need to watch that documentary. I'm old enough to have been having sex for quite a few decades, but not too old to have forgotten any of it! ;)

I like the "I wanna be one less" commercial. It's very cute and girlie, got a nice catchy tune and is informative. Girls can handle that. Now if they just put it at the checkout counter, parents will get it for their girls just to shut them the hell up...please, mom, Stacy got hers, I wanna be cool like her, I wanne be ONE LESS!!!!!!)

I'm just going to have to get past the fact that you are a girly-girl, happyatheist, and try to like you despite it. ;)

I personally don't like any of the medical commercials. I think people shouldn't be getting their medical info from tv. They should be having that discussion with their doctors and their doctors should be the one recommending medications to them. Not the marketing sales team who buys time from Young and the Restless!