“What colour is Rage?” asks Pavlov in her post responding to this one from Tigtog.

PC is rightly enraged by the wingnut insistence that vaccinating pubescent girls against cervical cancer is equivalent to sending ‘em down to the docks to pick up a few sailors to supplement the family income, and women who get cervical cancer due to being sexually active when young are just askin’ for it.

My rage was focused on the mealy-mouthed, patronising utterances of a Ms Rachel David of the (privatised, naturally) CSL, who was interviewed for this mealy-mouthed and patronising AGE article, with its insistence that Girls (with Parents) with Disposable Income shall be the saved ones:

IF YOU are a woman – or parent of a pre-pubescent girl – with a spare $460, you might like to consider a new way to spend your disposable income…

Gardasil, the most expensive vaccine to hit Australia, was yesterday injected into women and girls for the first time since its approval for use…
Because of its high cost, the vaccine may remain an option only for those with enough disposable income.

Rachel David, spokeswoman for CSL, said the company would “reach out” to women or parents of young girls who may forgo an “iPod, new phone or holiday” for protection against most cervical cancers and genital warts.

Rachel, kindly stuff your iPods and holidays and phones (who spends $460 on a phone? Oh, right, your target constituency) up your friggin’ arse. Your message comes across loud and clear: if you haven’t got disposable income, you’re disposable.

Yeah, if some people in the US are implying that having sex is “asking for” cervical cancer, some people here seem to be implying that having no money is asking for it.