You'd think that an English Lit undergraduate would understand the meaning of common words. Reni Eddo-Lodge writing in CiF would seem to contradict that thesis:
It is an absolute scandal that young women are being denied access to the [HPV] vaccine on religious grounds. Not only are some of these schools opting out of providing the injection, but they're also neglecting to inform GPs of their decision – thus preventing young women from accessing the vaccine altogether.Let's just dissect this, shall we? These "young women" are under 16 years of age, and therefore "girls" in the same way that "young men" under 16 are "boys". The school are merely opting out of making it easier for the girls to get the HPV vaccine. They have absolutely no obligation to fulfill that role. It's up to the girls' parents, who after all are in loco parentis, to arrange for the girls to get that vaccination - if they so choose.
Reni thinks that she has a killer stat:
The human papillomavirus claims 1,000 victims a year in the form of cervical cancers, and the HPV vaccine prevents 70% of them.700 lives saved (in the UK) isn't bad. Of course, the HPV vaccine Gardasil causes 1 death per month in the USA according to the FDA, so parents might figure that they'd rather their child protect themselves by refraining from promiscuous sex rather than receive a vaccine that may (however unlikely) kill them.
Reni's perspective is made clear:
Projecting adult paranoia about promiscuity on to young women helps no one. At the crux of religious opposition to the HPV vaccine is a belief that young women cannot be trusted to make decisions about their own bodies.A lot of young women (and men) are promiscuous, by any reasonable definition. If they weren't, we wouldn't be having the STD outbreak that we are currently having. So perhaps young women (girls) can't be trusted by their parents -- who, after all, are responsible for them and deal with the consequences of their decisions.
Hat tip: JuliaM at Orphans of Liberty.