A Perfectly Cromulent Blog

"Harry, I want you to sell me a condom. In fact, today, I think I'll have a French Tickler, for I am a Protestant."

Fight the power, Mr. Blackitts.

Everyone knows condoms prevent pregnancy and protect against sexually transmitted diseases. But how well do they work? That question is at the center of a debate over whether the labels on condom packages should be changed.

On one side are abstinence advocates, including a conservative congressman who is blocking appointment of a new federal drug agency chief until the labels are changed. On the other side are "safe sex" advocates who fear label changes could undermine confidence in condoms and increase the spread of AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases.

Each side has some truth in its argument: Condoms are very effective against the AIDS virus, but data for their effectiveness against some other STDs is surprisingly spotty.

"They do not provide 100 percent protection, but for people who are sexually active they are the best and the only method we have for preventing these diseases," said Heather Boonstra, a public policy official with the Alan Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit group that researches reproductive health issues.

Boonstra said Republican Sen. Tom Coburn, a physician from Oklahoma, and the abstinence-promoting Medical Institute for Sexual Health are "manipulating this data to drive home their own anti-condom, anti-contraceptive message."

Sorry to break in, but the "Medical Institute for Sexual Health" is a hilarious name. The only way it would be any better is if they called it the CompuGlobalHyperMegaInstitute for Scienceology.

Oh, and is he a Congressman or a Senator? Could he be both? That's Oklahoma for you.

The Medical Institute for Sexual Health's board chairman, Dr. Tom Fitch, who has previously pushed FDA officials for label changes, said some STDs are much more easily spread than others. In addition, STDs such as herpes and human papilloma virus, or HPV, can be transmitted by contact with skin not covered by a condom.

Fitch said he would not discourage condom use, but his group advocates abstinence or monogamy and it trains teachers how to teach students about abstinence.

Honestly, I don't disagree witb his assertions about contact risk, but it's one thing to provide information for different risk percentages and another entirely to use scare-mongering to foist your anti-sex agenda on us.

Man, remember when people used to worry about herpes?

Yeah, neither do I.

That's an "unrealistic explanation" for young people, said Dr. Shari Brasner, an obstetrician/gynecologist at Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York who has patients as young as 13 who are sexually active. "These conservatives are the same people that are trying to limit access to the morning-after (birth control) pill. They'll leave us with nothing."

Here's an idea...as long as we're hung up on truth in advertising, lets agree to change the wording on condom labels to reflect relative risk factors, provided Sen. Coburn's church posts a big sign out front that states the following:

"Despite this church's claims that it more accurately presents the word of God than its competitors, in reality, there is no way to determine the accuracy of that particular allegation. In truth, there's no substantial evidence the assertions made by those calling themselves 'Christians' are any more valid than similar ones by Buddhists, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, pagans, or animists.

Actually, when you get right down to it, there's really isn't any proof that a supreme being even exists. For that reason, we can't be held responsible for your prayers going unanswered, your puppy not getting into heaven, and the continued existence of homosexuals and fornicators, no matter how hard you wish 'god' would strike them dead."

I'm going out on a limb and assuming the guy isn't Buddhist.