Cancer? Better than encouraging sex!

The Post has picked up the cancer vaccine story. I think this is a good example of Conservative values confusion, and we should talk about it widely to trumpet their evil balancing of moral issues. From the Post:

"I've talked to some who have said, 'This is going to sabotage our abstinence message,' " said Gene Rudd, associate executive director of the Christian Medical and Dental Associations.

Isn't the point of the abstinence message to keep your children safe from harm? Isn't preventing the vaccination of your child against a disease that is the leading cause of cervical cancer the opposite of protection? I'm so angered by this feeble logic. Yes, abstinence may protect your daughter until she gets married, but that's not going to do a lick of good if her husband picks up HPV somewhere before that. Immunizing all children before any are sexually active is the only way to be sure of preventing HPV.

This should be simple. Instead, the Conservative reaction leads me to believe that they're depending on the threat of disease to enforce their abstinence education initiatives, which seem rooted in ideological and not public health grounds. That, to me, is morally reprehensible.