The conclusions of the study found that men with old-fashion attitudes about gender roles (traditional view) earn about $11,930 more per year than men who view women in the workplace as equals (egalitarian views).

The Washington Post reports that this study shows men are also “victims of gender-related income disparities.”

Women are usually the ones called victims of wage differences, traditionally the ones that make less money then men in comparable jobs. [The Washington Post: “Study Ties Wage Disparities To Outlook on Gender Roles ”]

The Post article adds, “The study raises the provocative possibility that a substantial part of the widely discussed gap in income between men and women who do the same work is really a gap between men with a traditional outlook and everyone else.”

Specifically, in an equalitarian (equal for men and women) workplace men earned on average $22,795, while in a traditional (not equal) workplace men earned on average $34,725—a difference of $11,930.

In an egalitarian workplace, women earned an average of $21,373, however, in a traditional workplace, women earned an average of $20,321—a difference of $1,052.

Thus, men in a traditional setting, earn $14,404 more than women earn. In addition, men in an egalitarian setting, earn $1,422 more than women do. The difference is almost ten times as great between the traditional and equalitarian settings.

Women, on the other hand, still make less money than men do in either situation.

The authors state in the abstract to their paper, “This implies that traditional men are rewarded in the workplace for seeking to preserve the social order, whereas traditional women seeking to do the same are not necessarily penalized. Indeed, women in general tend to make less than men, regardless of their gender role orientations.”

Beth A. Livingston, one of the two authors for the study, stated, “When we think of the gender wage gap, most of our focus goes to the women side of things. This article says a lot of the difference may be in men’s salaries.” [The Washington Post]

Livingston added, “We actually thought maybe men with traditional attitudes work in more complex jobs that pay more or select higher-paying occupations. Regardless of the jobs people chose, or how long they worked at them, there was still a significant effect of gender role attitudes on income.” [The Washington Post]

Dr. Timothy A. Judge, the other author of the study, stated, “Some would say, ‘Of course traditional men earn more than traditional women — they are both fulfilling their desires to play different roles in the home and workplace.’ Our results do not support that view. If you were a traditional-minded woman, would you say, ‘I am fine working the same hours as a traditional-minded man in the same industry with the same education but earning substantially less’? I don’t think traditional-minded women would say that.” [The Washington Post]

The study was published in the Journal of Applied Psychology under the title “Is the Gap More Than Gender? A Longitudinal Analysis of Gender, Gender Role Orientation, and Earnings.” [A pdf file, the entire article is available for reading.]

Its authors are American organizational psychologists Timothy A. Judge (a professor from the Warrington College of Business Administration, Department of Management) and Beth A. Livingston (a doctorial student in Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management), both from the University of Florida, Gainesville.

The authors used data collected by the U.S. government between 1979 and 2004 using the U.S. Labor Department’s National Longitudinal Survey of Youth.

The survey began collecting data on 12,000 people in the United States between the ages of 14 and 22 years, and continued to collect information over the next 25 years.

The abstract to their paper states, “This study investigated the relationships among gender, gender role orientation (i.e., attitudes toward the gendered separation of roles at work and at home), and earnings. A multilevel model was conceptualized in which gender role orientation and earnings were within-individual variables that fluctuate over time (although predictors of between-individual differences in gender role orientation were also considered).”

Specifically, the researchers classified men and women as traditionalists when they believed men and women had distinct (traditional) roles in society, both at home and in the workplace, such as men should work outside of the home and women stay home.

People were classified as egalitarianists if they believed men and women should have equal roles at home and in the workplace, such as both women and men should be able to work outside the home.

They concluded about the data they analyzed, “Results indicated that whereas traditional gender role orientation was positively related to earnings, gender significantly predicted the slope of this relationship: Traditional gender role orientation was strongly positively associated with earnings for men; it was slightly negatively associated with earnings for women. Occupational segregation partly explained these gender differences.”

And, “Overall, the results suggest that although gender role attitudes are becoming less traditional for men and for women, traditional gender role orientation continues to exacerbate the gender wage gap.”

The study does not try to explain the reasons why these wage disparities (gaps) occur, only that they still do occur in American society.

However, both authors do offer two possible possibilities for the wage disparities. They state that traditional men may negotiate their salaries better with their bosses than the other three groups of people (egalitarian men, egalitarian women, and traditional women).

They also state that U.S. employers may still discriminate against men and women with egalitarian viewpoints.

This article was originally posted by William Atkins in ITWIRE on Tuesday, 23 September 2008

©2012 An Inconvenient Woman. All Rights Reserved.

In June of 2006, my writing partner, Leslie Botha, and I, started writing articles cautioning women against the use of Gardasil® for girls and young women. We cited the limited nature of the clinical trials (the number, and ages of women tested) and the length of time from the clinical trials and the FDA approval; which in our opinion precluded a reasonable amount of time to follow-up for adverse reaction to the injection.

The RUSH-TO-APPROVAL, combined with MERCK’s, MEGA-Money State and Federal legislative-lobbying efforts, made us very nervous. Anytime a State or Federal agency mandates the use of a vaccine, the manufacturer is essentially, held harmless. That means adverse reaction victims cannot sue them directly. MERCK gets hide behind the shield of the very government agencies WE pay to protect us.

In our articles, Leslie and I cited European researchers who questioned not only the efficacy of the HPV vaccination plan, but the cost effectiveness of what could be one of the largest transfers of public money to private industry in history. With early detection, cervical cancer can be successfully treated; and the best early detection tool is the inexpensive, easily attainable PAP test.

“In developed countries, Pap smear screening and treatment have effectively reduced cervical cancer death rates to very low levels already. There are 3,600 deaths annually from cervical cancer in the United States, 1,000 in France and 400 in Britain.”

Each of those women were mothers, daughters and sisters, and very dear to their families. Most of the deaths were a result of lack of access to preventive medical care. The poor and uninsured can’t get a $30 PAP test, but our public heath officials think its justifiable to mandate BILLIONS of dollars to inoculate young girls with a vaccine that could do more harm than good.

MERCK has sold $1.5 BILLION worth of Gardasil® vaccine in less than two years. Those Gardasil® sales are saving their Vioxx-ravaged balance sheet. How many PAP tests would that amount provide women who have limited, or no, access to preventative care? If the safety of young girls doesn’t make you want to take action and stop this madness, how about cost-effect, use of limited health care resources?

Breast cancer kills hundreds of thousands of women every year…and the numbers are rising. Would 1.5 BILLION dollars be better spent on breast cancer research? We think so.

Spending 1.5 billion on Gardasil®, chasing the ghost of “possible cancer” in the distant future, is not good stewardship of time, talent and treasure — unless you own MERCK stock.

Two years ago Leslie and I sent information to major media outlets, asking that they at least investigate the possibility that HPV vaccines might not be effective or safe for young girls.

We felt like the mythical Cassandra…no one was interested in the news.

To date, there have been 17-deaths and thousands of reported hospitalizations of previously healthy young women and girls. As adverse reactions started to be recorded to the NVIC database, investigative reporters began questioning the HPV vaccine’s safety and cost-effectiveness. Harvard just published a “Follow the Money” report delineating the cost benefit of the mostly, publicly, funded HPV-vaccination initiative.

In the fall of 2006, using published US census data, Leslie and I estimated the number of targeted girls and women (nine to twenty-six year old) and the reported cost of the series of three of the Gardasil® inoculation and estimated the cost to public health budgets. I was sure some bean counter in the bowls of MERCK had preformed the same calculations, with far better resources, when determining the Lobbying budget that got Gardasil® approved.

I wish I could say, we are please to report that with about 20-hrs work, an old calculator and a new MAC laptop we came within a $60K of the Harvard study; but it is actually kind of depressing. All it proves is that we need more inconvenient women, asking more questions, more often, with greater insistence.

Excerpt of Harvard Study

“The vaccines, which require three shots for a complete series, cost about $400 to about $1,000, depending on the country and the fees for doctors’ visits. Unlike older vaccines that save money by preventing costly disease, these vaccines cost health systems money.

The Harvard study concluded that giving the vaccine to 12-year-olds would cost $43,600 for every “quality adjusted year of life” it saved by preventing a cancer death; that price would often be considered acceptable by health officials in wealthy countries, experts say.

But if the vaccine were given to all girls and women up to age 21, the cost per year of life saved would be far higher — $120,400, the Harvard study concluded. And if the vaccines prove to require a booster shot, as many critics believe, that cost rises to $140,000. In such cases it might make more economic sense to rely on Pap smear screening alone, the researchers said.”

Read the full text of following NY Times article.

Email the links to as many women, and health professions as you can.

Inconvenient Women take ACTION!

Click here for the full ELISABETH ROSENTHAL’s NY Times article on Gardasil®, Published: August 20, 2008

“Two vaccines against cervical cancer are being widely used without sufficient evidence about whether they are worth their high cost or even whether they will effectively stop women from getting the disease, two articles in this week’s New England Journal of Medicine conclude.”

“The two vaccines, Gardasil by Merck Sharp & Dohme and Cervarix by GlaxoSmithKline, target two strains of the virus that together cause an estimated 70 percent of cervical cancers. Gardasil also prevents infection with two other strains that cause some proportion of genital warts. Both vaccines have become quick best sellers since they were licensed two years ago in the United States and Europe, given to tens of millions of girls and women.

“Despite great expectations and promising results of clinical trials, we still lack sufficient evidence of an effective vaccine against cervical cancer,” Dr. Charlotte J. Haug, editor of The Journal of the Norwegian Medical Association, wrote in an editorial in Thursday’s issue of The New England Journal. “With so many essential questions still unanswered, there is good reason to be cautious.”

In her article, Dr. Haug points out the vaccines have been studied for a relatively short period — both were licensed in 2006 and have been studied in clinical trails for at most six and a half years. Researchers have not yet demonstrated how long the immunity will last, or whether eliminating some strains of cancer-causing virus will decrease the body’s natural immunity to other strains.

More to the point, because cervical cancer develops only after years of chronic infection with HPV, Dr. Haug said there was not yet absolute proof that protection against these two strains of the virus would ultimately reduce rates of cervical cancer — although in theory it should do so.

Both vaccines target the human papillomavirus, a common sexually transmitted virus that usually causes no symptoms and is cleared by the immune system, but which can in very rare cases become chronic and cause cervical cancer”

For more information read:

The Evidence Gap: Drug Makers’ Push Leads to Cancer Vaccines’ Rise (August 20, 2008)

Send these links out to anyone who cares about the health issues of women and girls!

Inconvenient Women do not get angry…We get ACTIVE!!

©2012 An Inconvenient Woman. All Rights Reserved.

I was doing some research for a fiend whose child had just been “diagnosed” Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) by a school nurse who suggested drug therapy. My first thought was a Kindergarten version of ‘One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest’…dazed and compliant preschoolers.

In the past decade, ADHD, ”Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, a neurobehavioral developmental disorder has become one of the most commonly diagnosed conditions of childhood, and is being increasingly diagnosed in adults. ADHD is characterized by a persistent pattern of inattention and/or hyperactivity, as well as forgetfulness, poor impulse control or impulsivity, and distractibility. The pharmaceutical medical industrial complex currently considers ADHD a “persistent and chronic condition for which no medical cure is available. Methods of treatment usually involve some combination of medications, behavior modifications, life style changes, and counseling. (BTW side effects aside, MEDICAL TREATMENT is spelled with two-cha-chings!)

So how do most ‘school nurses’, Physicians’ assistants and doctors come up with the very common ADHD diagnosis? Most medical professions use the “Desk Reference to the Diagnostic Criteria From DSM-IV-TR®”, compiled by American Psychiatric Association. Available in a spiral-bound book, and online accessible by computer, or PDA, the diagnostic criteria from DSM-IV-TR® is one of the most commonly used tools used by Physicians and other “prescribing” health care professions. Another ‘tool’, Desk Reference (PDR), which includes every prescription drug package insert. The guides serve as ‘medical cliff notes’, listing symptoms, probably diagnosis, suggested drug protocols, prescription drug side effect information and possible drug interactions.

Guidelines issued by the American Academy of Pediatrics recommend medications like CONCERTA® among first-line therapies for children with ADHD as part of a comprehensive treatment program. Go to the CONCERTA® website(1), READ the SIDE EFFECTS.

What rational person would suggest a little kid’s developing brain be put at risk, to assure social compliance? I knew there had to be a better way to deal with “the fidgets” so I did what Inconvenient Women do best, I looked stuff up, and sent the results out to a few thousand of my closets friends.

In September of 2007, William Atkins did a brillant, if little noted, piece on hyperactivity in children. I found it on IWIRE one of my favorite obscure resource sources. For the full article go to: http://www.itwire.com/content/view/14399/1066/

Study links hyper kids with artificial preservatives and colorings

Sodium benzoate and other food preservatives and colorings have been linked with hyperactivity in children. Although such ingredients have been thought in the past to produce adverse behavior in children, this study is considered the first scientific evidence of its kind.

The British study from researchers at the University of Southampton, England, has found that the food preservative sodium benzoate (also called benzoate of soda, with chemical formula C₆H₅COONa), when found with food dyes and colorings, can increase hyperactive behavior in children. Jim Stevenson, psychologist at the University of Southampton, and lead researcher of the study states, “We now have clear evidence that mixtures of certain food colors and benzoate preservative can adversely influence the behavior of children. We have now shown that for a large group of children in the general population, consumption of certain mixtures of artificial food colors and benzoate preservative can influence their hyperactive behavior.”

Food colorings and preservatives–which are often found in sweets such as ice cream, candy, and soda, what children love to eat–were studied. For six weeks over one hundred fifty randomly three-year-olds and over one hundred forty randomly eight-year-olds, in Southampton, England, were studied as to their diet.

The children displayed behaviors previous to the study ranging from normal to hyperactive.

They were provided food that was free of additives. Each day they were given one drink, either fruit juice or one of two mixtures of sodium benzoate preservative and food colorings. One mixture contained sodium benzoate and sunset yellow, tartrazine, carmoisine, and ponceau. The other mixture contained sunset yellow quinoline yellow, carmoisine, and allura red. They were not told which they were given, the fruit juice or one of the two mixtures.

The children who were given the benzoate preservative and food coloring mixtures showed, in some cases, more hyperactive behavior than the children given fruit juice. However, the increases in hyperactive behavior were not consistent between the two mixtures. The researchers contend that the hyperactive behavior may be linked to sodium benzoate and one or more of the specific artificial colorings, rather than to all of the colorings.

The U.S.$1.5 million study was funded by the British Food Standards Agency (FSA) and written up on September 6, 2007, in the journal The Lancet.

From the website of the Food Standards Agency comes this advise, “Parents of children showing signs of hyperactivity are being advised that cutting certain artificial colours from their diets might have some beneficial effects. The colours – Sunset yellow (E110), Quinoline yellow (E104), Carmoisine (E122), Allura red (E129), Tartrazine (E102) Ponceau 4R (E124), and Sodium benzonate (E211) – were studied as part of new FSA-commissioned research.”

Within the Friday, September 7, 2007, FSA article “Agency revises advice on certain artificial colours”, Andrew Wadge, the FSA’s Chief Scientist, said: “This study is a helpful additional contribution to our knowledge of the possible effects of artificial food colours on children’s behaviour.”

“After considering the COT’s [Committee on Toxicity (COT)] opinion on the research findings we have revised our advice to consumers: if a child shows signs of hyperactivity or Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) then eliminating the colours used in the Southampton study from their diet might have some beneficial effects.”

“However, we need to remember that there are many factors associated with hyperactive behaviour in children. These are thought to include genetic factors, being born prematurely, or environment and upbringing.”

“The Agency has shared these research findings with the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), which is currently conducting a review of the safety of all food colours that are approved for use in the European Union, at the request of the European Commission. This review is being undertaken because of the amount of time that has elapsed since these colours were first evaluated.”

“If parents are concerned about any additives they should remember that, by law, food additives must be listed on the label so they can make the choice to avoid the product if they want to.”

[William Atkins' note: When buying foods, always LOOK at the labels. What you don’t read may hurt you and your loved ones when you consume such foods.]

Inconvenient Women take action. If you know a mom who is drugging their child at the suggestion of a school nurse or family doctor, ask her to take this or other nutritional research to them and at least try to change their child’s diet before resorting to the BIG PHARM option.

If the child is a little girl, get her to a female pediatrician, specializing in precocious puberty. Girls as young as four and five years old are experiencing what their moms dealt with at twelve and thirteen. (See precocious puberty in IconicWoman article archive and go to: http://www.HolyHormones.com)

Explore every option before “medicating” compliant behavior.

(1) CONCERTA® and OROS® are registered trademarks of ALZA Corporation

This site and its contents are intended for USA audiences only.

©2012 An Inconvenient Woman. All Rights Reserved.

It’s Summer: Time to Clean Up the Bikini Car Wash

By Kimberly Gadette – WeNews commentator

Editor’s Note: The following is a commentary. The opinions expressed are those of the author and not necessarily the views of Women’s Enews.

(WOMENSENEWS)–Ah, the sights of summer: movie lines snaking ’round the cineplex, kids splashing in wading pools and scantily clad young ladies at busy intersections holding hand-lettered signs reading “Car Wash Today!”

Bikinis are their work uniforms and their job is to dance, jiggle, wave and sing out; anything to lure customers to the fundraising car wash for their schools, youth clubs or churches. These teen queens’ acts of solicitation are more than merely tolerated; they’re fully sanctioned by their teachers, ministers and parents.

The men driving by often slow down to a crawl in order to take a good, long look at this show from female teens. But have any of the teens’ authority figures similarly taken a good look? At themselves?

If this is the charity that begins at home, perhaps it’s time to call in child services.

According to the Web site of Green Girls Global, an international pro-environment, people and animals group, “The car wash fundraiser is about as American as apple pie. I don’t know of a student, boy-girl scout, or church group that hasn’t participated in one.”

But with the young ladies dressed in no more that string-tied halter tops, shorts cut down-to-there while up-to-here, is this apple pie? Or, rather, underage cheesecake?

This supposedly innocent, altruistic activity has recently trickled down to my own sleepy suburban neighborhood. For the past few weekends, I couldn’t help but notice a group of teens–a dance team from a nearby high school–performing energetic choreography, signs in hand, at a heavy-traffic intersection.

Arresting Antics

Though I knew they wouldn’t be able to hear me over their sing-song shouts, I wanted to say, “Careful, girls, watch all that jumping around in those loose halter tops and teeny low-riding shorts. The goal is to be ‘arresting,’ not ‘arrested.’”

Instead, I walked over to the woman in charge, an enthusiastic mom who seemed happy to answer my questions. But she withheld her name, saying, “I’ve gotten in trouble from speaking up before.”

It turns out that though this dance team had made it to the Top 4 in state competitions in the past, this year the club wanted to capture first place. To do so, the mom explained, the team needed extra dollars for better costumes, an outside choreographer and a rental bus to transport the team to meets. “If we didn’t want to be as good, we wouldn’t do this.”

I pointed to the teens feverishly jiggling at the primarily male drivers cruising by. Was she concerned about the spectacle of the young women dressed in sex outfits, literally working the street for the almighty dollar?

“It’s a learning experience”–she paused, struggling for the right word–”in advertising. After all, they’re always going to have to market themselves.” She smiled broadly. “Besides, the girls are so pretty. People want to help the kids.”

Was this her idea? Nope. I found a number of Web sites that offered definitions of the different varieties of car wash available: “manual,” “automatic” and “bikini.” One, a la a Hooters car wash, is considered commercial, in which bikini-clad young women charge a fee for the entertainment given to the car owners.

Bikini Wash-Out

The other variety was right on the money: “This car wash system is usually done in summer in the United States and Canada . . . A fund is generally raised in the name of a school, sport association or for charity purposes. The pretty school girls in bikinis call by the donors at the roadside with colorful cardboard signs and the cars are then washed by their male and female classmates at a nearby place.”

In this case, it was the middle-aged mothers dressed in baggy T-shirts and loose shorts who were assigned to wash the cars. The young ladies were simply used as bait. “You should see how the guys’ faces fall when they pull up and see it’s us instead of the girls,” the mom laughed.

I didn’t know which “bad signal” was worse: a) the expectation that the young women were expected to service strange men’s cars, doing the literal dirty work, or b) the fact that because they possessed the requisite desirable anatomy, they were exempt from the physical labor. Ignorant of the idea that it’s the very act of displaying, strutting, luring that is, in itself, the dirty work.

I wondered at the questions this type of event might leave buried in the mind. (E.g., “Though I get what I want by parading myself, I’m only a body. What happens when I’m older, does anyone credit me for having a brain?”)

I noticed a few young ladies assigned to take the donations, cart water bottles to the car-washing moms, replace the dirty water buckets for clean ones, etc. They were a bit chubby, some of them plainer than their streetwalking sisters. I assumed that they probably didn’t make the cut. How were they taking that rejection? It’s easy to say they were lucky, but many might not take it that way.

Distorted Concepts

Distorted concepts of sex appeal, body image and self-esteem are examined by many female awareness groups, including the National Organization for Women, which is planning a self-acceptance event on Oct. 15 entitled “Love Your Body Day”  http://loveyourbody.nowfoundation.org/.

Also available on NOW’s Web site is “Sex, Stereotypes and Beauty: The ABCs and Ds of Commercial Images of Women,” a get-the-facts project that takes a hard look at over 70 ads that demean the female. In particular Gucci, Dolce and Gabbana, and Lucky Brand cast females in the role of the eager server, bent on catering to the male’s every whim.

With that kind of media conditioning, it’s no wonder that the guy’s face fell when he realized that the Lolita-like teen who waved him in wouldn’t be working up a lather while personally massaging each one of his oh-so-impressive rims.

Not that there aren’t objections raised about these do-it-yourself carwashes. But these concerns are strictly environmental, with many green-minded groups objecting to the problems of untreated chemical runoff discharging into the storm water system, seeping into nearby streams, rivers and lakes.

If only there were a similar outcry as to a whole other pollution: that of the highly-impressionable, adolescent brain.

Ideally, such an outcry just might drown out the confusing body image concepts bombarding today’s young woman. Outcries from her trusted authority figures: her teachers, her minister, her parents. But when they, too, send a mixed message as clouded as the runoff from the car wash, then it’s time for them to rethink their priorities. And clean up their act.

A freelance writer based in Hillsboro, Ore., Kimberly Gadette’s writings encompass politics, film, sports, travel, dating and dogs (though dogs seldom date). Her twice-weekly film reviews can be found on Rotten Tomatoes.

Reprinted with permission:Women’s eNews welcomes your comments. E-mail us at editors@womensenews.org . -

Related Stories 9-11 Widows Want All Our Safety; Let’s Listen Up http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm?aid=2824 Long Arm of Law Reaching Up U.S. Women’s Skirts http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/2655/ Male Backlash Muddles and Misses Facts http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/2695/ Why Dressing Up for Halloween Is Wearing Thin http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm?aid=2503

©2012 An Inconvenient Woman. All Rights Reserved.

By Kristen Tsetsi – WeNews commentator

Editor’s Note: The following is a commentary. The opinions expressed are those of the author and not necessarily the views of Women’s Enews.

(WOMENSENEWS)–Almost 70 percent of all teens who had sex by age 14 have gone through one or more types of abuse in a relationship. One in five, or 20 percent, of all 13- to 14-year-olds in relationships say their friends have been struck, hit or slapped in anger by a boyfriend or girlfriend. Forty percent of 11- and 12-year-olds report that their friends are victims of verbal abuse.

Those are some of the unsavory facts released July 8 by Teenage Research Unlimited in a survey on tween (11-14) and teen dating violence and abuse.

They join an already robust database of similar statistics. The federal National Crime Victimization Survey found that in 2006 an estimated 272,350 victims age 12 and older were sexually assaulted, despite reported declines in violent crimes overall.

In March the Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network reports college-age women are four times more likely to be sexually assaulted than any other group.

Yesterday, in concert with the data release, Attorney General Patrick C. Lynch of Rhode Island, the president of the National Association of Attorneys General, urged attorneys general to implement teen dating violence education policies and curriculum in every state in the country.

Dangerous Artifact

My hope is they begin by issuing a warning to parents, tweens and teens about one cultural artifact in particular, “The Art of Kissing,” by Hugh Morris.

This seemingly innocuous 1938 book may seem like something you’d only find gathering dust in an antiquarian book shop, but in fact it’s selling online.

Its Amazon ranking is low, but it is generating some sales there and clicks elsewhere on the Web as well.

More bothersome than its potential popularity is how book sellers are presenting it. “Parody,” or “retro entertainment,” would be appropriate. But one seller categorizes it as etiquette. Another suggests it as a reference on “practical romance.”

My guess is that any girls and boys impatient for an introduction to their sexuality and sexual propriety would find it interesting.

Kissing is, after all, the first great mystery. But what they’ll also get here is a book with a section that reads like a date-rape tutorial. Girls, the author teaches, are objects to be acted upon and manipulated by boys.

The first illustration in the book is of a young woman tucked between a man and the high arm of a couch. “Arrange it so that the girl is seated against the arm of a sofa,” the caption reads. Later, in the text, he explains why: “In this way, she cannot edge away when he becomes serious in his intentions.”

Primitive Message

To the extent any unsuspecting boy or young man treats it as a trusty, time-honored guide to girls he runs the risk of adding to the kind of statistics in the Teen Research survey. “Sex is a powerful force not to be denied,” is the book’s essential message. “Look here, this is how you get it.”

“He must be the aggressor,” Morris says. “He must always give the impression of being his woman’s superior, both mentally and especially physically . . . He must be able to sweep her into his strong arms, tower over her . . . All of these are impossible when the woman is the taller of the two . . . The kiss becomes only a ludicrous banality . . . Nothing could be more disappointing.”

Morris doesn’t stop there.

“If she flinches, don’t worry. If she flinches and makes an outcry, don’t worry. If she flinches, makes an outcry and tries to get up from the sofa, don’t worry. Hold her, gently but firmly, and allay her fears with kind, reassuring words. Remember what Shakespeare said about a woman’s ‘No!’”

No Means Yes

No means . . . yes? In fact, the only time a boy should stop forcing himself on a girl, according to Morris, is if she “flinches, makes an outcry, a loud, stentorian outcry, and starts to scratch your face.” Then, Morris says, a boy should “start to worry or start to get yourself out of a bad situation.”

Then he blames the girl. “Such girls are not to be trifled with . . . or kissed. It is such as they, in most cases, who still believe the story of the stork which brings babies because of the consequences of a kiss.”

When it comes to this notion of the girl or woman being at fault, it’s clear some thinking hasn’t changed enough since the 1930s.

After the editor of the University of Connecticut’s Daily Campus newspaper wrote in early May about her own recent sexual assault at an outdoor college campus party, people posted online comments blaming her for being out “alone,” even though she was surrounded by other students. We learn this behavior, whom to blame, whom to let slide, through subtle and not-so-subtle cues such as those in “The Art of Kissing.”

It was difficult to find even one negative review of Morris’ book online, but I did find one. “It promotes date rape in a comedic way. Not the best thing for people to be reading this century.”

I agree, except I would add that I’m not happy boys were reading this in 1938 either. The cultural roots exposed in this book at least partially explain why a U.S. attorney general initiative is required today for teen dating violence.

Kristen J. Tsetsi is a reporter for the Journal Inquirer newspaper and the author of “Homefront.” Her Web site is www.kristentsetsi.com.

Women’s eNews welcomes your comments. E-mail us at editors@womensenews.org

Reprinted With Permission: Copyright 2008 Women’s eNews. The information contained in this Women’s eNews report may–with the prior written authorization of Women’s eNews–be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed. To obtain permission, go to http://www.copyright.com/ccc/do/showConfigurator?WT.mc_id=PubLink and provide the publication or broadcast date and the name of the newspaper, magazine, radio or television station, cable network, Web site, newsletter or list serve where it will be replicated. Please include the approximate size of the audience you intend to reach. Answers to your most frequently asked questions about permissions to reprint or repost Women’s eNews content are available here: http://www.womensenews.org/reprint_faq.cfm

©2012 An Inconvenient Woman. All Rights Reserved.

Canadian reporters struggle to shed light on a muddled debate that’s as much about business as it is about health.

When federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty announced $300 million in funding for a program to vaccinate girls and young women against the virus known as human pappiloma, it was hailed as the most important development in women’s reproductive health since the Pill.

This vaccine promises to tackle more than the warts caused by certain strains of HPV. It is billed as the first-ever anti-cancer vaccine designed to prevent the vast majority of cervical cancer cases.

But it’s too early to tell whether this is just a victory for women’s health or also the triumph of an aggressive, multimillion-dollar marketing campaign that has infiltrated our living rooms and the political backrooms.

The process has been so tainted by one drug company pursuing its own commercial interests that it’s difficult to know whether financing the human pappiloma virus (HPV) vaccine is the right decision from a public health perspective. It might well be, but the heavy lobbying effort, from the prime minister’s former aide on down, muddles the debate.

In coming weeks, the Ontario government is expected to announce its financing of the vaccine, which in partnership with federal funds, is crucial to the establishment of an HPV vaccine program. The province, like Stephen Harper’s Conservatives, has come under intense drug company lobbying.

Meanwhile, we have seen health officials and women’s groups debate the merits of this vaccine on the front pages of newspapers. Many are in favour of the vaccine, calling it a revolution in health care, while others aren’t so sure it’s necessary and wonder if other health care needs are more pressing, such as reducing wait times for cancer surgery or the doctor shortage.

Parents have weighed in, admitting they don’t know whether they want their preteens and teens vaccinated.

Many people are confused. No wonder. This isn’t just a health story, it’s a business story, and when we look at it in that light, the urgency around the issue makes more sense.

The multinational drug giant Merck Frosst makes Gardasil, the only approved HPV vaccine available, and it has a lot riding on a successful launch of the vaccine.

According to last week’s Wall Street Journal, Merck faces patent expirations on other best-sellers and legal costs related to Vioxx, the withdrawn painkiller linked to heart attacks and strokes. Some analysts believe Gardasil’s annual sales could reach $2 billion U.S. or more by 2010.

Until its competitors can get their own versions of an HPV vaccine approved (GlaxoSmith Kline has one in the pipe), Gardasil is the only girl in the pageant. And that makes Merck quite keen to see a government program to finance wide-scale vaccination while it has the only vaccine on the market.

But in order to create a public appetite for the vaccine, it must convince us our daughters need this vaccine. It also has to deal with our lapses in medical knowledge (who knew a virus caused cancer?), as well as our squeamishness around an issue most of us don’t want to think about — our preteen girls one day having unprotected sex.

Sheila Murphy, spokeswoman for Merck, explained in an e-mail how difficult it is to explain Gardasil to the masses.

“The fact that a virus causes cancer, in this case anogenital cancers, is a big paradigm shift for many people,” she wrote, adding, “When I started working on the Gardasil team, I didn’t know that HPV was the reason I

was having a Pap test.”

She said it’s equally challenging to communicate to people that a vaccine exists to prevent those cancers.

“We are working with individuals and groups who share our desire to improve the wellness of Canadian women by communicating information on HPV.

“We are using all the channels of communication open to us to get the message about our cancer-preventing vaccine out.”

Gardasil is a three-course vaccination that prevents four strains of the human pappiloma virus, including HPV 16 and 18, thought to cause 70 per cent of cervical-cancer cases. While cervical cancer is common in developing countries, it’s relatively rare in North America. About 400 women will die of cervical cancer each year in Canada. Women already have a very effective method of prevention — regular Pap tests. During the past five decades, this exam has contributed to an 80 per cent reduction in cervical-cancer deaths. However, some critics argue the $300 million would be better spent ensuring Pap tests for immigrants, aboriginals and women who live in poverty — all disproportionately represented among cervical cancer cases.

It’s expected the vaccine will not only reduce cancer deaths but the number of actual infections, the developments of precancerous lesions and the need for biopsies. In Canada and the U.S., even before the vaccine was approved, Merck financed information campaigns that linked the little-talked-about human pappiloma virus with cancer.

Last April in the U.S., Merck began the “Tell Someone” advertising campaign featuring girls (actresses), in interview style, expressing surprise about the cause of cervical cancer and promising to tell other women.

These ads didn’t mention the vaccine — Merck wasn’t allowed because it hadn’t been approved by the Food and Drug Administration — but represented a first step in linking cancer with a virus. At the time, a Merck spokesperson denied the campaign had anything to do with the vaccine.

In Canada, women can consult www.tellsomeone.ca, which describes the link. It also tells viewers about a vaccine against HPV but, of course, Merck’s name isn’t mentioned because direct-to-consumer advertising for cancer therapies is not allowed.

Once the FDA granted approval in the U.S. last June, a full-scale ad campaign began which Canadians are generally exposed to because these advertisements show up in our homes on American TV channels.

In one TV spot, girls skipping ripe on a sidewalk are chanting: “O-N-E-L-E-S-S.

I want to be one less. One less.” In another, a young women skateboarder faces the camera and says, “I could be one less. One less statistic.” The ads are poignant and gripping.

In Canada, we won’t be seeing the “One Less” type advertising. While direct-to-consumer advertising is generally allowed for vaccines, in the case of Gardasil, Merck cannot mention cancer in any ads. This has to do with the classification of the disease.

In the absence of the TV ads, Merck has to rely on various doctors and women’s groups to promote the product. It hasn’t been difficult.

A spokeswoman for the Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists of Canada told the Citizen that Merck gave the doctors’ group a $1.5-million grant to educate people about HPV. The SOGC’s website on the issue (www.hpvinfo.ca) does not mention Merck, but serves the larger purpose of educating people about the cancer/viral link.

The society, which has come out strongly in favour of the vaccine, was only too happy to oblige when asked by Merck to educate the public about HPV. One of their main mandates is public education, said SOGC spokeswoman Kelly Nolan. Dr. Vyta Senikas, the executive vice president of the SOGC, said that aggressive marketing of products is a fact of life. She likened Merck’s marketing of Gardasil to Microsoft’s marketing of the video game system Xbox. She said physicians are smart enough to withstand any undue pressure and believes Canadians will receive unbiased information about a new product she thinks is revolutionary. She stressed that, despite Merck financing, all information coming from the SOGC is peer-reviewed and fact based.

Merck has also had to convince lawmakers of the vaccine’s value, which has been particularly difficult in some parts of the U.S., where the Christian right feared protection from a sexually transmitted disease might lead to promiscuity.

Still, with the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommending the vaccine for females between the ages of nine and 26, Merck, which has lobbied state-by-state to get vaccination laws passed, has had many successes. Twenty states are considering mandatory vaccination, while Texas* and Virginia required it for girls entering sixth grade.

In February, Merck halted its lobbying when it was learned that at least some of the lawmakers had accepted donations from the company. The Associated Press reported the Texas governor’s chief of staff met with key aides about the vaccine the same day its manufacturer donated $5,000 to the governor’s campaign. An organization backed by the company continues to push for similar laws.

In Canada, the campaign to make the vaccine a must-have for every preteen is more of a backroom affair.

Shortly before Flaherty announced funding for vaccination in the budget, Merck hired Ken Boessenkool, a former aide to Prime Minister Stephen Harper, to lobby the federal government. Boessenkool works for Hill & Knowlton, a giant public relations and lobbying firm. After his hiring was revealed by the Citizen, a Merck spokesperson said Hill & Knowlton

would help explain the importance of the new vaccine to policy makers.

Now, with the federal money committed, Merck is lobbying the individual provinces for matching funding and the establishment of vaccination programs.

Last month in Ontario, two lobbyists registered on behalf of Merck to lobby the health minister and others on “the proposed policy decision to support a childhood immunization program for HPV and funding related thereto.” Both men work for Hill & Knowlton. One of them, Jason Grier, was the former executive assistant to Health Minister George Smitherman.

Merck has also courted other groups with the power and potential to lobby the Ontario government. The seemingly innocuous health committee of the Ontario Chamber of Commerce, for example, is considering a resolution that, once passed, would urge the Ontario government to expedite funding of vaccines.

Why would this group have much interest — except as parents — in the funding of Gardasil? In fact, the committee counts as members representatives of the pharmaceutical industry, including one from Merck.

Another pharmaceutical industry representative on the committee — Jeff Connell, who works for the Canadian Generic Pharmaceutical Association — told the Citizen he has complained about Merck’s involvement in the resolution.

“Once I found out that the OCC Health Resolution was part of Merck Frosst’s international campaign to get governments to pay for Gardasil, I raised concerns with the OCC Health Committee,” he said.

Prior to this resolution, he said the issue of immunization had never been raised at the committee.

He said he told the committee, “I just can’t seem to shake the feeling that the immunization funding resolution represents the voice of Merck Frosst far more than the voice of Ontario business.”

Connell wrote to the group, asking them to reconsider the resolution, although he acknowledged it would still be passed.

So there you have it: A very small glimpse into the lengths Merck has gone in order to convince politicians and the people that millions of Canadian girls and young women need this vaccine.

Reprinted With Permission: Ottawa Citizen

©2012 An Inconvenient Woman. All Rights Reserved.

Synthetic drug treachery has plummeted to a new ethical low with a disturbing development that may grant Big Pharma eternal immunity from consumer lawsuits. This most recent affront to justice involves a birth-control drug with side effects believed to have caused the deaths of 40 women, along with thousands of additional heart attacks and strokes. About 3,000 women subsequently united in a class-action lawsuit against the birth-control drug manufacturer. As the lawsuit takes shape in an Ohio federal court, this drug maker has taken a position that is a staggering example of Big Pharma’s bottomless greed and nonexistent morality.

Thanks to a legal concept called pre-emption, approved by the US Supreme Court earlier this year, the birth control manufacturer has a strong defense against the lawsuit: Since the FDA approved the drug, the pharmaceutical manufacturer that created the drug claims it should not be held liable for any of the deaths, heart attacks, strokes or other maimings the drug may have caused. Shockingly, legal experts believe this defense might be bulletproof—setting up a distressing potential precedent where Big Pharma may never be held accountable for the dangerous synthetic drugs it unleashes on an unsuspecting public.

Dangerous Deceit

How did this travesty happen in the first place? The estrogen used in birth-control drugs, when delivered at levels that are too high, carries the risk of provoking blood clots—which in turn cause strokes and heart attacks. The birth-control drug named in the lawsuit, which comes in the form of a patch, was marketed as a way to deliver less estrogen than a pill while still remaining effective. The FDA approved this patch in 2001.

The truth came out years later: An independent organization found that the patch in question delivered more estrogen—not less— than its pill counterparts. The patch’s manufacturer was well aware of the dangers associated with high estrogen levels. Unfazed, they not only submitted the drug to the FDA for approval, but deceptively labeled it as having a much lower level of estrogen than was actually the case. After four years on the market and thousands of serious adverse events reported—including deaths—the FDA finally issued a formal warning about the birth-control patch.

Drug Déjà Vu

Does this scenario sound ominously familiar? It is, to quote Yogi Berra, déjà vu all over again: A dangerous drug is released to the public, thousands of people are injured or killed as a result of taking it and then the FDA issues its warning—far too late for those who have been devastated by horrible side effects. Despite its now-legendary drug approval failures— and despite its thinning resources—the FDA has inexplicably decided to continue focusing a great deal of its regulatory energy on the one arena that’s promoting health without dangerous side effects: nutritional supplements.

So how do you feel about Big Pharma’s refusal to take responsibility for its dangerous medications? Has your confidence in the FDA’s drug-approval process faltered? Speak your mind and make your voice heard! Tell your elected officials that you want the FDA to leave nutritional supplements alone and instead focus its regulatory resources on Big Pharma! Rage against the preemption that may enable Big Pharma to release dangerous drugs without fear of repercussions!

In addition, patronize independent natural health food stores and purchase safe, natural nutritional supplements from companies that have no pharmaceutical industry ties.

Source: The Nutritional Health Alliance (Reprinted with permission)

The Nutritional Health Alliance is one of the most active political organizations in the nutritional health community, founded in 1992 in Santa Ynez, California. Organized by consumers, health care professionals, retailers, distributors, supplement manufacturers, mail order and multilevel marketing firms, and industry trade and consumer publications, the NHA became the much-needed umbrella organization to bring together the various constituents of the natural products industry in a single, powerful voice that would be heard by Washington policymakers and regulators.

There is plenty you can to do get involved and support the NHA. Join NHA now and communicate on NHA forum, browse through the NHA PDF Library, view the NHA press and videos or search NHA’s related links to gain further knowledge on laws that affect your rights to buy vitamins and supplements.

Let your voice be heard, write to your Congressperson or view NHA current activities to find out ways to keep your right to buy vitamins in your own hands… Don’t let Congress and the FDA take your vitamins away!

For the sake of health freedom, join the Nutritional Health Alliance (NHA) health freedom advocacy group today!

©2012 An Inconvenient Woman. All Rights Reserved.

We all have to question if Merck’s GARDASIL ® Billion Dollar Gambit is the correct utilization of increasingly limited public health resources, or one of the most infamous transfers of wealth from public to private sector in American history

Cervical Cancer Factoids

Between 1975 and 2001 use of the Pap smear is credited with cutting the age-adjusted cervical cancer incidence in half, from 14.8 to 7.9 cases per 100,000 women; and with reducing the age adjusted cervical cancer death rate from 5.6 to 2.7 deaths per 100,000 women. In 2002 cervical cancer was the reported cause of death for 4,000 women in the United States.

While researching alternative HPV detection and treatment options, I came upon this Lancet Oncology Report, posted in July 2006.

Testing for human papillomavirus (HPV) may be a useful first step for cervical cancer screening in women younger than 35 years, preliminary findings indicate.

Testing for HPV is better than standard cell testing at picking up pre-cancerous changes, but it is also more likely to yield false results. This is particularly true among young women, where there is a higher rate of infection, Dr. Guglielmo Ronco explained.

Using the strategy of HPV testing first, followed by cervical cell examination if needed, “we showed that it is possible to have a relevant increase” in pre-cancer detection without increasing the false results, even among young women, said Ronco, from the Centre for Cancer Prevention in Turin, Italy.

In the new study, Ronco and the New Technologies for Cervical Cancer Screening Working Group assigned 5,808 young women to screening with or without HPV testing.

In the group that did receive HPV testing, cell testing was performed and, if pre-cancerous changes were seen, the women underwent colposcopy, an examination of the cervix with a special instrument, was performed. The procedure in the group that received HPV testing was similar, except cell testing was only performed if the HPV test was positive.

As noted, the HPV test/cell test approach was better than the conventional approach at detecting pre-cancerous changes. Moreover, unlike HPV testing alone, the HPV test/cell test approach did not increase the number of false results.

The follow-up of this study and other similar trials should provide information to help guide “the decision to switch to HPV testing as a routine method for cervical screening,” Ronco said.

SOURCE: The Lancet Oncology, July 2006.

NLM, the National Institutes of Health (NIH)

©2012 An Inconvenient Woman. All Rights Reserved.

When a French website called Ma-Bimbo quickly boasts 1.2 million subscribers, Nicholas Jacquart, developer and entrepreneur, moved to South London with a 30-year-old businessman, Chris Evans and set up Ouza Ltd to try his luck with Baby British Bimbos.

Looks like he gauged the market correctly. Recently the London Times reported that “since the site opened last month (February 2008), it has managed to register as many as 200,000 members, mostly 9 to 16 year old girls, but probably quite a few old, balding, pervy men too.”

What the intrepid entrepreneurs hadn’t counted on was the firestorm that exploded when British and American parents fingered out what their little darlings doing with all those “Text messages”. The Girls, and the freaky old Pervs could access the Miss Bimbo site though a “free registration”; however the site does charge £1.50 for text message that buy “dollars” to spend on clothes, and other Bimbo necessities like “boob jobs”.

The Inquirer.net writer, Sylvie had one of the best takes on the story’

http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2008/03/25/boob-jobs-encouraged-online

A WEBSITE FOR GIRLS aged between 9 and 16 has caused outrage amongst parents who found their little treasures giving their online bimbo characters boob jobs and subjecting them to crash diets.

The Miss Bimbo web based game lets little girls buy their virtual characters plastic surgery, diet pills, facelifts, lingerie and fashionable clothes to become “the coolest, richest and most famous bimbo in the world”. Well, at least, unlike most MMOGs, where characters just run around medieval kingdoms, this game actually has a point to it.

However, angry parents, and groups representing people with eating disorders have slammed the game saying that it puts ideas into impressionable children’s heads. Presumably unlike big-breasted, ultra- thin, Barbies, popular television shows or their favorite pop stars do.

In the game, players compete against each other and attempt to achieve the goals set for their characters on every new level. On level 7, for example, a character is told that she binged after breaking up with her boyfriend and “Now it’s time to diet . . . Your target weight is less than 132lbs”. On Level 11 girls are cheerfully told: “Bigger is better! Have a breast operation”.

A spokesman for parents’ group, Parentkind, Bill Hibberd, reckoned that “after playing the game some [girls] will then aspire to have breast operations and take diet pills”. But Mr. Jacquart says that the game only teaches children what they will later learn in the real world anyway. He also claims “the missions and goals for the bimbos are morally sound”. For a Frenchman, maybe.

The BIMBO site’s introduction came as research showed that British children as young as 6 were developing acute eating disorders such as anorexia and bulimia. On Monday it emerged that increasing numbers of British teenagers were undergoing breast enlargement surgery.

The rules section of the site warns that even though Bimbos should ideally be waif thin “every girl needs to eat, every now and again” and suggests feeding the character to prevent her dying from starvation.

The Miss BIMBO site users are set a sting of targets that would make most parents flinch:

Level 7

After you broke up with your boyfriend you went on an eating binge! Now it’s time to diet … Your target weight is less than 132 lbs

Level 9

Have a nip-and-tuck operation for a brand new face. You’ve found work as a plus-size model. To gain those vivacious curves, you need to weigh more than 154 lbs

Level 10

Summertime is coming up and bikini weather is upon us. You want to turn heads on the beach don’t you?

Level 11

Bigger is better! Have a breast operation

Level 17

There is a billionaire on vacation … You must catch his eye and his love! Good luck

Mr. Jacquart, entrepreneurial partner, Chris Evans, admitted that the story line for the Miss BIMBO script had been “…created by “lads” and no professional advice was sought about how girls may interpret issues surrounding weight loss and gain.”

After reading several stories about the Miss BIMBO site, I decided to look at it myself and found the following text on the homepage:

“Dear Players,

Due to unforseen worldwide interest in Miss Bimbo we have had difficulty in maintaining our game in the manner players have become accustomed. We are sorry for this inconvenience and can assure you that our game will be up and running as soon as possible.

As a result of this rather surprising media attention we have decided to remove the option of purchasing diet pills from the game. We apologize to any players whom this may inconvenience but we feel in light of this weeks proceedings it is the correct action to take.

We would also like to sincerely apologize to our players for the media comparison of Miss Bimbo and Paris Hilton. We feel that this does a dis-service to the players whom send their bimbos to university, tea parties or chess tournaments.

At this time we would also like to remind players that the Miss Bimbo team assume no responsibility or liability for any fashion faux pas, hairstyle disasters or boob jobs incurred in real life as a result of playing the Miss Bimbo game.”

The brouhaha about the game is as interesting as the game itself.

There will always be prevy old guys looking to exploit the unprotected.

Many of the ‘cultural’ influences that impinge on girls’ innocence, have more to do with the fantasies of 30-something men in LA and New York, who conceived and cast TV programs that target young girls, than actual societal norms. The non-so real, but very rude worlds devised and shown on MTV or VH1 are programming our youngsters to a very different expectation of life. We can rile against the pervy exploiters of children, however we — parents and guardians are ultimately responsible for their safety and their belief system. We must give them the tools to recognize and reject rubbish when they see it.

Miss BIMBO is a digital canary, a marker of where this culture is  going — a warning to be heeded and acted upon.

©2012 An Inconvenient Woman. All Rights Reserved.

Backgrounder on the man who would be emperor…

Rick Perry was elevated to the Governor of Texas in late 2000 from Lieutenant Governor upon the election of then-Governor George W. Bush as President of the United States. Perry was subsequently elected Governor in his own right in 2002 and ran for a second full term in 2006.

Below you will find the best legislation Merck’s Money could buy.

PRESS RELEASE FROM THE OFFICE OF THE GOVERNER — Feb. 02, 2007

Gov. Perry Establishes HPV Vaccination Program for Young Women

Vaccine will save lives of Texas women by preventing cervical cancer caused by HPV

AUSTIN – Gov. Rick Perry today issued an executive order directing the Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC) to adopt rules requiring all girls age 11 and 12 to receive the Human Papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine prior to entering sixth grade, effective September 2008. The executive order also directs HHSC and the Department of State Health Services (DSHS) to make the vaccine immediately available to eligible young females through the Texas Vaccines for Children program for young women ages 9 to 18, and through Medicaid for women ages 19 to 21.

“The HPV vaccine provides us with an incredible opportunity to effectively target and prevent cervical cancer,” said Perry. “Requiring young girls to get vaccinated before they come into contact with HPV is responsible health and fiscal policy that has the potential to significantly reduce cases of cervical cancer and mitigate future medical costs.”

HPV is the most common sexually transmitted disease in the United States. Today, approximately 20 million people in the nation are infected, including one in four 15 to 24 year olds. Certain strains of HPV cause most cases of cervical cancer. Texas has the second highest number of women suffering from this devastating disease in the nation. In 2006, there were 1,169 new cases and nearly 400 deaths from cervical cancer in the state.

Parents may choose to opt out of mandatory vaccinations for reasons of conscience, including religious beliefs. The governor’s executive order directs DSHS to ease the opt out process by providing exemption request forms online.

Executive Order RP65 – February 2, 2007

Relating to the immunization of young women from the cancer-causing Human Papillomavirus.

BY THE

GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF TEXAS

Executive Department

Austin, Texas

February 2, 2007

WHEREAS, immunization from vaccine-preventable diseases such as Human Papillomavirus (HPV) protects individuals who receive the vaccine; and

WHEREAS, HPV is the most common sexually transmitted infection-causing cancer in females in the United States; and

WHEREAS, the United States Food and Drug Administration estimates there are 9,710 new cases of cervical cancer, many of which are caused by HPV, and 3,700 deaths from cervical cancer each year in the United States; and

WHEREAS, the Texas Cancer Registry estimates there were 1,169 new cases and 391 deaths from cervical cancer in Texas in 2006; and

WHEREAS, research has shown that the HPV vaccine is highly effective in preventing the infections that are the cause of many of the cervical cancers; and

WHEREAS, HPV vaccine is only effective if administered before infection occurs; and

WHEREAS, the newly approved HPV vaccine is a great advance in the protection of women’s health; and

WHEREAS, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommend the HPV vaccine for females who are nine years through 26 years of age;

NOW THEREFORE, I, RICK PERRY, Governor of Texas, by virtue of the power and authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the State of Texas as the Chief Executive Officer, do hereby order the following:

Vaccine. The Department of State Health Services shall make the HPV vaccine available through the Texas Vaccines for Children program for eligible young females up to age 18, and the Health and Human Services Commission shall make the vaccine available to Medicaid-eligible young females from age 19 to 21.

Rules. The Health and Human Services Executive Commissioner shall adopt rules that mandate the age appropriate vaccination of all female children for HPV prior to admission to the sixth grade.

Availability. The Department of State Health Services and the Health and Human Services Commission will move expeditiously to make the vaccine available as soon as possible.

Public Information. The Department of State Health Services will implement a public awareness campaign to educate the public of the importance of vaccination, the availability of the vaccine, and the subsequent requirements under the rules that will be adopted.

Parents’ Rights. The Department of State Health Services will, in order to protect the right of parents to be the final authority on their children’s health care, modify the current process in order to allow parents to submit a request for a conscientious objection affidavit form via the Internet while maintaining privacy safeguards under current law.

This executive order supersedes all previous orders on this matter that are in conflict or inconsistent with its terms and this order shall remain in effect and in full force until modified, amended, rescinded, or superseded by me or by a succeeding governor.

Given under my hand this the 2nd day of February, 2007.

RICK PERRY(Signature)

Governor

Attested by:

ROGER WILLIAMS(Signature)

Secretary of State

©2012 An Inconvenient Woman. All Rights Reserved.