While browsing the NY Times on line this morning, I clicked on an article titled, “In New Hampshire, Soft Sell Eases Vaccine Fears.” (free registration required; in a week or so, will require paid registration to access)

I haven’t closely followed the addition of the vaccine against the virus that causes cervical cancer to the market, but I do remember thinking it would be a neat thing to vaccinate pre-teens against a potentially deadly cancer. If anything, I would have thought the concern would be that they would think they had less of a need for annual PAP smears as they matured. Instead, apparently, people seem to think vaccinating their 12-year-old will make her more likely to engage in sexual activity at an earlier age.

Huh? This implies 12-year-olds are abstaining from sexual activity out of a fear of developing cervical cancer. I don’t think so. I suspect cervical cancer is not the reason they abstain from sexual activity — it’s not even in the top ten reasons for abstaining. I doubt many if any of them even have a clue that cervical cancer exists unless it’s touched their lives via a loved one in some way.

I can think of a number of reasons why parents and opposition groups might oppose a new vaccine, but the idea that kids will decide that since it protects them from the virus that causes cervical cancer is one of them is ludicrous. In fact, I’ll go out on a limb and suggest there isn’t more than a handful of women alive who abstain from sexual activity out of fear of exposure to the virus that causes cervical cancer. I’m certain there are some, because there’s a human somewhere afraid of nearly anything or everything.

While Texas tried mandating it and encountered strong resistance, New Hampshire chose to offer it free for 11-18 year-olds, and they have a waiting list and have to prioritize who gets it.  That’s the real interesting part of the article — the discussion on the various approaches different states have taken to launching the vaccine.