I suppose this was inevitable, but the growing movement of doctors and pharmacists who decide that you’re not worthy of medical treatment if you’re female and engaging in sexual behavior they disapprove of has reached the point where some doctors are refusing to perform Pap smears on unmarried women. I guess you probably don’t really need one if you’re a virgin, because they’re looking for cervical cancer, which is linked to HPV, which is sexually transmitted. For the people who think unwanted pregnancy and STDs are just the proper punishment for unmarried, sexually active women, it follows that death from cervical cancer should go on the “punishments for sluts” list.
49 Responses to “Conservative doctors to unmarried women: If you’re having sex, you *should* die of cervical cancer”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Of course, HPV is not the only cause of cervical cancer — merely one of the things that ups the risk of occurrence. Though your chances of developing cervical cancer are probably dramatically lowered by not having HPV, that’s no guarantee that you’ll never get it. And so pap smears are still a good idea, whether or not you’re married.
One can only hope that these doctors lose so many patients due to refusal of treatment that they’re no longer a concern. Refusing to perform preventative care on unmarried women for such an arbitrary reason is despicable.
I scream for the chance to scream in their ears.
I blame the Harper climate, we used to be smarter than this.
My doctor has always told me that I need a pap test if I’m sexuality active, OR, if I’m over 19.
My stupid mother shares the belief that you don’t need the test if you aren’t marry, and she was the one who had problems there not caused by anything sex related, but /stress/.
http://www.4women.gov/FAQ/pap.htm
“A Pap test can save your life. It can find the earliest signs of cervical cancer - a common cancer in women. If caught early, the chance of curing cervical cancer is very high. Pap tests also can find infections and abnormal cervical cells that can turn into cancer cells. Treatment can prevent most cases of cervical cancer from developing.”
An STD /increase your chance/ of getting cancer, but what cancer is, is cells gone mutant, you don’t need an STD to get cancer.
Dear god, if the government falls on Tuesday, I hope that Harper doesn’t win, I’m so worried.
Jesus fucking Christ. Not only should someone who hates women that much not be allowed anywhere near one with any sort of medical implements, but how can someone so ignorant and hostile toward their patients in general be allowed to practice?
BTW: If your mother took DES (a popular pregnancy-related drug taken during the 60s and 70s), you have a much greater chance of getting cervical cancer.
The other evening, I was having dinner with a bright young woman who asked me why the same people were behind anti-abortion activism and abstinence-only education. Didn’t they realize that abstinence-only education would produce more unwanted pregnancies, and more abortions? She was appropriately horrified to see how much of right-wing social politics can be understood as a way to punish women who have premarital sex.
I was surprised to see this story originating from Canada.
At first glance, I expected it to have come out of Alabama or Utah.
Nevertheless, these “doctors” should either get on a time machine back to the 16th century, or just quit their profession.
This post made me literally gasp. Literally, I gasped! And it takes a lot to make me gasp.
Up until “Pap smear” I thought it was going to be about HPV vaccines, the controversy around which is at least semi-rational in that it involves minors (though obviously the arguments against the HPV vaccine are also rooted in hatred and distrust of women). But when I hit “Pap smear” my jaw dropped open. That’s like refusing to do a cholesterol test on anyone who isn’t a professional hot dog eater. Or something. I’m starved for a good analogy because this is just so absurd.
Can someone help me with a good analogy that doesn’t involve professional hot dog eaters?
I remember conversations about pharmacists’ right of refusal for Plan B, and wondering where that would lead: refusing to sell HIV medications? It never occurred to me that the trend would lead to this (which I can only ascribe to naivete on my part, because in retrospect it seems obvious.)
I used to work for the American Cancer Society. My mother is a hospice social worker, and recently had a 30-something client who died of cervical cancer. The idea that cancer is an appropriate consequence of sex is odious and evil; the idea that someone charged with preserving health would deny care on this basis requires a whole new vocabulary, because ‘odious’ and ‘evil’ just aren’t strong enough.
“Can someone help me with a good analogy that doesn’t involve professional hot dog eaters?”
It’s like refusing to prescribe cholesterol-lowering medication to anyone who isn’t underweight according to the new BMI on the grounds that it’s the sin of gluttony making people fat.
Or rather, “fat” and in need of the drug. I am aware that just being too heavy according to the BMI does not mean a person has high cholesterol, blood pressure, or anything else.
So if an unmarried woman gets pregnant, will they refuse to deliver the baby?
“So if an unmarried woman gets pregnant, will they refuse to deliver the baby?”
That’s in the next phase - part of The Gilead Initiative…
Then those dirty sluts will be properly punished for their sins…
So why do married women need the Pap smears, since they are according to this logic either in a lifelong mutually monogamous relationship, or former irresponsible sluts, or have a cheating husband? Maybe the doctor should require proof of a cheating hubby to determine if there’s a valid reason for a test.
Can someone help me with a good analogy that doesn’t involve professional hot dog eaters?
It’s like refusing to treat an accident victim’s injuries because people shouldn’t get into traffic accidents.
Tara, Antisocial SocialWorker,
They will only refuse to deliver the baby if the mother is not white or Christian. Delivering brown or black babies would of course violate their religious beliefs. Har. Although, come to think of it, take Christian out of the equation. The little ones could always be brainwashed to the appropriate level of religious submission.
That’s a great point windy. By their logic pap smears would never be necessary. I’m not even convinced that a cheating husband is a good enough reason. After all if I am a good dutiful wife, a super adventurous sex partner, chaste but extremely and effortlessly attractive why WOULD my husband cheat? If he is then I am doing something wrong and death is an appropriate punishment.
Or at least that would seem to be the next step in their non-logic.
I am ALSO someone who was told that you should be sexually active or 18 years old to get a Pap. I went even though I hadn’t become sexually active yet. I didn’t realize that sluttiness was a factor. But, obviously, since it’s a medical procedure that involves women’s bodies at SOME POINT conservative assholes are gonna wanna bring “morality” into. Because, you know, what’s more moral than letting women die?
Ah, my neck of the woods. Yay.
New Brunswick seems to have a shortage of comeptant medical professionals. The big story right now is regarding a pathologist who’se sloppy work is requiring the review of over 15,000 cases over his career in this town.
There’s a lot of scarcity issues here in the province, since the major industries (Fishing and forestry) have been in a long slow decline. A lot of the workers here have moved out west to the oilfields of Alberta, taking services and tax base with them.
On the plus side, it’s mitigated by the universal health care system a little: you can literally go to any doctor, clinic or hospital in the province, provided you have the time and transportation to get there.
Ouais, I remembered when the neurotic, borderline-homicidal Right was shrieking about not inoculating teenagers with the HPV vaccine lest it encourage them to have sex, but I never dreamed it would go this far. Shame on me.
Okay so I just read Rebecca’s post and she said it better. Go read her post!
Oh and shout out at MikeEss for the Handmaid’s Tale ref.
Just completely agreeing with Left_Wing_Fox. We’re in a truly special section of the Frozen North. NB has a truly horrific doctor shortage. Of every friend I have in town, I think I might be the only one with a family doctor. And finding woman-friendly doctors here (or even competent ones) is a crapshoot. Both of my parents have been misdiagnosed with terminal illnesses by careless doctors. (Very simple, easily treated things were the real cause.)My girlfriend was recently misprescribed and had results overlooked. I’m not the least bit surprised that the local Morality Brigades are pulling this nonsense.
Thus far, I’ve been amazingly lucky. I’ve only had a few bad experiences with doctors, and have been fortunate enough to find not one, but two feminist ob-gyns, one to refer me for a tubal ligation, one to perform it. And a family doc who does my checkups with not a speck of judgement.
And people who love me - and some who don’t, I’m sure - wonder why I get so worked up about each lost inch in the sloppery slope against women’s autonomy! ‘Lighten up before you have a heart attack,” they say.
The day George W. Bush became president, my sister was crying and her husband asked why. She explained that “there goes Roe v. Wade.” “What do you care,” he asked, “You’ve had a hysterecomy.” Aside from the MANY OTHERS reasons that that remark was stupid (being uncaring as long as something can’t affect you directly, forgetting that he has two teen daughters, etc.), one thing he clearly doesn’t see is that this chipping away at women’s reproductive autonomy will get closer and closer to all women’s lives. Now, not only is his daughters’ ability to get abortions under thread, not only is their ability to get contraception under threat, but now, their ability to get screened for cancer may be under threat next. I wonder if he sees the slippery slope YET??? i’m about to email him and ask him. Wish me luck.
And people who love me - and some who don’t, I’m sure - wonder why I get so worked up about each lost inch in the sloppery slope against women’s autonomy! ‘Lighten up before you have a heart attack,” they say.
The day George W. Bush became president, my sister was crying and her husband asked why. She explained that “there goes Roe v. Wade.” “What do you care,” he asked, “You’ve had a hysterecomy.” Aside from the MANY OTHERS reasons that that remark was stupid (being uncaring as long as something can’t affect you directly, forgetting that he has two teen daughters, etc.), one thing he clearly doesn’t see is that this chipping away at women’s reproductive autonomy will get closer and closer to all women’s lives. Now, not only is his daughters’ ability to get abortions under thread, not only is their ability to get contraception under threat, but now, their ability to get screened for cancer may be under threat next. I wonder if he sees the slippery slope YET??? i’m about to email him and ask him. Wish me luck.
It’s like refusing to treat an accident victim’s injuries because people shouldn’t get into traffic accidents.
————————————————————–
Well the accident could have been caused by another driver. The doctor probably should wait until its determined who caused the accident before beginning treatment. Of course none if its their fault.
If this is true, it’s outrageous.
If you click the links though, there is no evidence that this is true.
It’s not “doctors”, it’s a) a receptionist and b) another doctor. There are no names involved, it’s all friend of a friend. If you search the original http://antichoiceantiawesome.blogspot.com/ there seem to be no posts containing pap smear or pap smears.
If you visit the Canadian Medical Association and use their search or use google, there are no hits at all for “conscience clause.”
I suspect you have been punked.
This report is almost certainly bullshit. It is outrageous if true. But the report itself stinks to high heaven and I am surprised (no I am not) that no one here has noticed it yet.
For explication visit LGM and look for my posts in the comments.
Again, if it’s true, the MDs involved should have their licenses revoked. But there is no evidence it is true.
Just because we are feminists, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be reality based.
Pap smears, of all things? What do they think baseline tests are for?
I am shocked. These quacks should have their licenses pulled yesterday. Even without sexual activity there are large numbers of women at risk for cervical cancer. Genetics, environmental toxins, or childhood diseases are all possible causes and do not contradict any beliefs.
Would would their Jesus say about their hate and their deathwish?
Sure sounds Evil to me.
Would would their Jesus say about their hate and their deathwish?
Not much - I’m pretty sure they’d be ripping out his tongue before nailing him up.
Mold,
Yeah, but really, it’s only putting women at risk, anyway, which is a very small price to pay for 70 virgins and a harp. Wait, am I mixing up my sky daddies again?
Yeah, I’m nitpicking but Allah - “the god” - is the same old Abrahamic skydaddy. When Muslims insist they worship the same god as Jews and Christians, how can they, or we, object?
“No god but God”: check, although some of us stop halfway through. First commandment. Even I put no gods before Him (though I do love statues of Venus adjusting her sandal).
In other words, the dichotomy “God or Allah” is on the order of “Gott oder Dieu”.
I really wish this would have named names. I’d love to do some independent investigation of this, especially since I have friends in New Brunswick, including a cervical cancer survivor.
But something about this smells. I have a dear friend who is a 30-something virgin who had a gynecological issue recently and I went with her to the doctor as her support. Both the doctor and nurse chided her for not having regular paps. When she said “I don’t have sex.” and both looked at her like she’d grown another head and asked what that had to do with anything. Anyone practicing gynecology more than 20 minutes knows that HPV may be the primary cause of cervical cancer, but isn’t the only one, at all.
Private member’s bill would protect ‘unborn victims of crime’
But Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada spokeswoman Joyce Arthur said judges and parole boards can already take the injury or death of a fetus into account. …
Last Updated: Thursday, February 14, 2008 | 4:38 PM ET
http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2008/02/23/conservative-doctors-to-unmarried-women-if-youre-having-sex-you-should-die-of-cervical-cancer/
Effin sheet-checking Ken Epp is bringing those women who have lost their unborn child to parliament to guilttrip people into stripping the rights from women onto fetuses.
Losing a baby is hard. Legally, the term is fetus, but I understand that to people who want their babies, it’s hard to think in clinical terms. Heck, people feel a heavy sense of lost, over a child they couldn’t have, when they couldn’t conceive.
If concern about pregnant women is the key, that instead of writing rights for fetuses, the focus should be against the /maiming/ of women. A fetus isn’t a person, as long as inside a woman, growing off her, it’s a part of her body. The /person/ harmed when a women miscarry as a result of an assault is not a fetus, but the women in question, who had her bodily integrity interfered with by an abortion she did not chose to have.
PS: Does anyone know of any Canadian centric feminist blogs?
My Firefox tab’s internet address bar is slow to catch up;
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/02/14/epp-bill.html?ref=rss
I think there already are laws against assaulting (maiming) a woman. And technically, medically, a fetus is not part of a woman’s body — that’s why there is a placenta.
I agree with wtf, the story is almost certainly nonsense. Click on wtf’s links.
The name of any doctor or pharmacist who refuses basic services based on their superstitious beliefs should be splashed all over the news. Publicity will be necessary to out these people and dry up their businesses.
It’s like refusing to treat lung cancer because you are opposed to smoking.*
It’s like refusing to treat hepatitis because you are opposed to people using illegal drugs with needles.*
it’s like refusing to treat HIV-positive patients because you are don’t like gay men or illegal drug use involving shared needles.*
It’s like refusing to treat a cirrhosis patient because you are opposed to alcohol abuse.*
It’s like refusing to prescribe Viagra because you don’t believe in sexual intercourse other than for procreation.
*Yes. I believe one can have any of these illnesses for reasons other than those stated, but I also believe one could need a Pap smear for reasons other than “immoral” sexuai activity.
That these people dare to call themselves “Doctor” disgusts me. Even if this report is inaccurate, I, myself, have gone to a dr. (just the once) for a migraine prescription who used the appointment to try to talk me out of taking the birth control pill. No lie. I subsequently learned he is very “pro-life.”
Windy, because it’s understood and accepted that men will have multiple sex partners in their lifetimes.
So why do married women need the Pap smears
Because cervical cancer takes quite a long time to develop. This is why Amanda believes it is necessary to mandate vaccinations of an untested chemical into 9 year old girls. (Even though at other times she correctly agrees that we should keep the government off our body.) See evilslutopia’s amazingly great faq on gardasil for an eye opener.
Anyway, there is of course no evidence that doctors are refusing to provide pap smears for any women. There is at most one unverified report that one, just one, particular doctor is. The quote from the spokesman from Canadian’s for Choice makes absolutely no sense whatsoever since the “conscience clause” applies to pharmacists, not to doctors.
Man, I am sick of anti-vaccination cranks. They interrupt my usually firmly held belief that the left is blessedly short on the crankery that pervades the right wing. And I do think that adults have every right to be crazy cranks who avoid vaccinations, though I reserve the right to condemn them for being cranks. But children are human beings, not extensions of their parents, and they should not be subject to disease because their parents are cranks. A parent who is withholding medical care from children is not exercising the child’s rights, but treating the child like property.
Um, forcing a vaccination for a disease that may or may not occur 20-40 years later, using an unproven drug with no long term testing, a drug whose developers say it should not be given to children in this fashion, … well… that’s not “withholding medical care.”
I see no reason to think that evil slutopia is any sort of crank much less an anti-vaccination crank.
Believing that one vaccine is problematic, especially to give to children about to enter puberty does not make one an anti-vaccination crank.
Believing that we mistakenly entered Iraq does not make us terrorist sympathizers or cowards. I would have hoped you had learned that by now.
On the other hand, your belief in this unverified report of one particular doctor being representative of some sort of belief held by conservative doctors does call into question your ability to rationally understand and critique that which you read.
Sorry, yep. It’s against my policy to argue with cranks. I can think of much better uses of my time.
There are laws against assault, but interpretation can vary. Degrees.
Technically, just laying hand on someone to get their attention or to move them aside in a crowd, is a assault, but it is not. …if the laying hand was applied roughly, someone faceplanted and needed stitches, definitely assault.
The law is against the maiming of any persons, which includes women, but what counts as maiming?
http://www.cjc-ccm.gc.ca/english/lawyers.asp?selMenu=301268
Where allegation is “maim”:
To “maim” means to cripple, mutilate or disable.
…generally interpreted as an injury, the result of which, is significant and cannot be undone.
There was a case in which a very pregnant woman was shot in the belly, the fetus took the bullet, shielding her organs, so while the pregnancy was terminated, the woman’s body recovered.
Ken Epp propose writing a right for the /fetus/, so the person who caused its termination would be held responsible for terminating the fetus, for violating the rights of the /fetus/. Ken Epp, is underhanded, he prose as comforting the women who have lost their pregnancies, but really, he’s dehumanizing them, it isn’t about what the women lost, because the women are just wombs, it’s the almighty cargo.
The person harmed when a pregnancy is forcibly terminated, is the woman, and that is enough. To say that her pain is not enough to persecute, is bullshit. Her pain alone is enough. An assault on a woman which resulted in the termination of her pregnancy, should be interpreted as an act of maiming because the result to her is significant and can not be undone.
I’m living in NB right now, I know Peggy Cooke, and I’m surprised by this report.
I’m pretty sure the writer isn’t quite right about “conscience clause” law here in Canada; several provinces impose specific duties to inform and refer on medical practitioners. NB just isn’t one of them. And since NB has piss-poor medical services by Canadian standards, it’s entirely possible for women to get stuck in situations where the only doctors they can realistically see are anti-choice.
I don’t think being afraid of Gardasil for my daughter, for now, at least while it’s new, makes me a “crank.” I know military people who took the anthrax shot and had their health ruined, immediately (a google of “anthrax no” brings up lots of good websites). A doctor at Tulane, testing blood samples to try to figure out what the hell “Gulf War syndrome” really is found SQUALENE in all of the samples, which was not FDA approved, but companies had wanted to test on humans, been unable to get permission to do so, and then bingo, it shows up in a bunch of sick G.I.’s.
I also have a friend whose son was fine until he got a round of vaccine and promptly began to exhibit strange behaviors that were ultimately diagnosed as autism. She believes it was the themerasol.
I question ALL chemicals. I question the use of plastics because of the estrogen-mimicking effects. I won’t buy milk that isn’t organic because of bovine growth hormone and antibiotic presence.
Either I’m a crank for questioning ALL of these things, or else Gardasil is fair game for suspicion as well.
Oh, p.s., I’m writing this from inside a FEMA trailer, which, we know now, may be causing cancer and asthma because of the formadehyde used in the pressed board. I’m not making that up - even FEMA finally admits it. So, really, we don’t know what ANY chemicals may do to us, especially when one considers the overall body burden.
I’d drag my pre-pubescent daughter to the doctor to get Gardasil, if I had one, but I’m not quite ready to get on board with compulsory vaccination just yet. Sure, the folks railing against it are cranks, but the fear they express doesn’t quite fall below the threshold of rationality. I think it’s possible for reasonable people to disagree about whether Gardasil is right for their children, at present.
Of course, in 15 years, we will have done enough follow up studies that we can weigh the long-term side effects against the benefit of avoiding these strains of HPV, and, hopefully, find that Gardasil is doing a huge amount of good, and not so much evil. Then, make it compulsory. However, if we discover that 10% of women who are vaccinated have liver failure within 5 years, then we wipe our brow and breathe a sigh of relief that it wasn’t compulsory. Unfortunately, only the cranks’ kids benefit, but at least we avoid a strong backlash against the very concept of public health initiatives.
Jesus christ… *facepalm*