According to a recent study, giving children tetanus shots will not, in fact, encourage them to stab themselves with rusty nails or be less cautious when playing outdoors. Various political organizations have advocated against the tetanus vaccine, arguing that tetanus shots send the message that recreation is acceptable, and that if children know they're protected from lockjaw, they will be less vigilant about avoiding the kinds of cuts and scrapes that can lead to deadly nervous system infections. Attempts to require tetanus vaccination have met extreme backlash from conservative groups who argue that mandating the vaccine is an assault on parental rights and family values.

Even bills that simply would have made the vaccine free for low-income children without mandating it were vetoed by Republican governors. Doctors hope that these study results, which show that tetanus-vaccinated children are no more likely to engage in unsafe recreational behavior than their unvaccinated peers, will increase the tetanus shot rate for children of parents who fear that tetanus shots encourage risk-taking.

At this point, you're thinking, I hope:

"What in the world is this lady talking about? Everyone gives their kids tetanus shots! You'd be irresponsible not to inoculate your child against tetanus, and you're nuts if you think that giving a kid a tetanus shot will make him be less careful about slicing his skin with filthy rusted metal. And there's absolutely no political controversy around tetanus shots."

You would be right. If only the same were true of the HPV vaccine.

According to a recent study, giving girls the HPV vaccine will not, in fact, encourage them to engage in sexual activity any earlier than their peers. Various political organizations have advocated against the HPV vaccine, arguing that the vaccine sends the message that sexual behavior is acceptable, and that if girls know they're protected from HPV, they will be less vigilant about avoiding the kinds of risky sexual behaviors that can lead to pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections.

Attempts to require the HPV vaccine were met with extreme backlash from conservative groups who argue that mandating the vaccine is an assault on parental rights and family values. (And one Republican candidate for president even claimed, with no evidence, that the vaccine caused mental retardation.)

Even bills that simply would have made the vaccine free for low-income children without mandating it were vetoed by Republican governors. Doctors hope that these study results, which show that HPV-vaccinated girls are no more likely to engage in sexual behavior than their unvaccinated peers, will increase the HPV vaccine rate for children of parents who fear that the HPV vaccine encourages risk-taking.

HPV affects 20 million people in the United States alone. It comes in many strains, and the vaccine protects against the most common ones. Some strains of HPV cause warts; others can lead to various cancers. The most common is cervical cancer, which is caused almost entirely by HPV and infects 12,000 American women every year. Globally, it's the second most common cancer in women, and it kills 250,000 women every year. The HPV vaccine could nearly eliminate cervical cancer.

But we're wringing our hands because of sex.

Americans like to think that we live in one of the most modern, forward-thinking societies in the world. But when it comes to just about anything sex-related, our Puritan roots shine on through. The HPV vaccine is, like most other vaccines, effective at curbing the spread of an infectious and dangerous disease. But because HPV is spread through sexual contact and not by, say, stepping on a rusty nail or sharing a soda, the usual culture warriors are up in arms about its very existence. As much as conservative activists in the United States will tell you that they're "pro-family and pro-life", they're actually not all that concerned with babies, children, women, families or life. They are, however, disturbingly preoccupied with your sex life – especially if you're a woman.

Sex without "consequences" is a problem for conservatives (by which I don't mean all right-leaning Americans; I'm using "conservatives" as shorthand here for rightwing political actors who are trying to inject their own religious and cultural views into American law and politics). In their view, sex is a bartering chip – women embody sex but want commitment; men want sex but determine when to offer commitment, and so women should only give sex when they get the commitment of marriage. That way, men will be coerced into getting married, women will get the commitment they so desire, and a nuclear family is born where Dad is the in-charge breadwinner and Mom is the homemaker.

Unfortunately, this set-up hasn't ever worked in the whole of human history. It turns out people are complicated: lots of women like sex because sex is fun and not because it's always a means to an end; some women like power and influence and independence and prefer a role other than serving a husband and children; and some men like women as people and don't need to be bribed into marriage. But the rightwing political model revolves around trying to force people into roles that they don't necessarily want, hence the objection to anything that makes it easier for women to work (equal pay, maternity leave) and anything that makes it easier for men and women to plan their families and have children when they're ready (birth control, abortion, sex education).

This is also why social conservatives don't like it when scientific progress makes sex safer or better. Sex outside of their ideal scenario (in marriage, at the husband's wish, for reproduction) should be punished, and steps to mitigate that punishment (STD prevention, pregnancy prevention) should be discouraged or lambasted as immoral.

Unfortunately, again, sex outside of the ideal conservative scenario is how the vast majority of Americans are having sex – either outside of marriage and/or for pleasure and recreation. Arguing that the kind of sex we're all having is bad isn't going to fly. So conservatives use scare tactics and claims of the moral high ground to assert positions that are misogynist, anti-science and anti-sex.

The HPV vaccine is case in point. As this latest study proves, it's asinine to think that a vaccination is a gateway drug to sex. I have a difficult time seeing "Hey baby, I'm vaccinated" proliferating as an effective pick-up line in the middle-school cafeteria. The vaccinations-lead-to-sex argument also assumes that teenagers are delaying sex specifically because they fear HPV. It probably is true that some teenagers delay sex because they don't want to contract a whole host of sexually transmitted infections. That's good and fine, and we should encourage teenagers (as we should everyone) to avoid sexually transmitted infections by both practicing safer sex and delaying sex until one is capable of having a thorough conversation about sex and safety with one's partner.

We should not, however, limit access to a vaccine that prevents cancer because we'd prefer to continue using a potentially deadly disease as a "don't have sex or else" threat.

But that's the endgame for conservative activists. Under the guise of "parental rights", they're arguing that parents should have the right to refuse to vaccinate their children against a form of cancer because this particular form of cancer comes from a sexually transmitted infection, and many parents would like to pretend that their kids are not going to have sex until marriage (which would be mysteriously HPV-free). In their universe, marriage is a magical place where there are no STDs or unwanted pregnancies; it's not. Where the threat of cancer is an effective deterrent to sexual activity; it's not. And where actual cancer is a punishment for bad women; it's not.

Those aren't pro-family or pro-life values. Those are anti-woman and anti-sex values.

Now that a study has bolstered the common-sense conclusions of most doctors, individuals and parents, and now that it's clear this vaccine prevents cancer without promoting risky behavior, we should watch how conservative policy-makers and agenda-setters respond. I'd like to think they would rank "not getting cancer" ahead of "scaring kids out out of having sex". I'd like to see them support vaccinating girls and boys against HPV. (Boys can contract the virus, too; and although it's less common, they can also get cancer from it.)

I suspect, though, that we'll see them put their fingers in their ears and pretend they can't hear us while they continue to promote policies and behaviors that put all of us, but especially girls and women, at risk.

If only there were a vaccine against wilful ignorance.