Photos
Stephen Colbert responds to Michele Bachmann’s public stance against a vaccine known to reduce women’s risk of cervical cancer by simply saying, “Michele Bachmann is a fucking idiot” and then cutting to commercial.
 |
 |
You Might Also Like
 And Now The Daily Show Weighs In On The Michele Bachmann… | Stephen Colbert’s Super PAC Explained |  Here Are Some Afternoon Links! | Stephen Colbert Unveils His Wax Statue |
Leave a Reply
Sign inSign in with FacebookYou must be logged in to post, reply to, or rate a comment.
Michele Bachmann: Somehow managing to make Rick Perry look like the good guy since 2011
Thats quite an accomplishment http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/sep/13/rick-perry-texas-death-penalty
I’ll just leave this right here
YOU ARE LIVING IN A DREAM WORLD!!!
Must incorporate into my everyday speech.
Papes! I thought you might have bought a one-way ticket to Mans-ville! Welcome back.
Awwwwww. Thanks buhhhhhhhhddy. Weezin the juiceah. This is still a popular inside joke for us right? Have I been gone that long?
I can’t believe we have 14 more months of this shit.
- my parents 2 months before my 18th birthday
For the next 14 months I’m playing a drinking game where I have to do a shot – no matter where I am or what time it is – every time I hear a politician say, “The American people are smarter than that.”
A thousand facepalms can’t express.
But see, this is what America is all about: Freedom! Freedom to take a risk and potentially get cervical cancer. Should we as a government allow a woman to contract and subsequently die of cervical cancer just because she can’t afford or have access to a vaccine that could have reduced the chances of that happening? (cries of ‘YES!’ from the crowd) Well, the public has spoken. Liberty!
- Something that was probably said at a Tea Party debate.
What she said at the debate was slightly more nuanced than just ‘the vaccine is evil, yay freedom.’ She said that Perry’s program should have been opt-in, rather than opt-out.
I can agree with that in theory. It’s a good idea to make the vaccine as widely available as possible, but I feel like the default action should be asking if you want the vaccine, not just giving it to you unless you say no.
On the other hand there are other vaccines that are required to attend public school, or colleges in certain states, and I don’t have a problem with that so I guess people should get over it?
It is interesting that the vaccine is being heralded as a wonder-shot when in reality it hasn’t been around long enough for people to know how long it works, and it prevents an STD that you can avoid by not having unprotected sex. Neither of those two things are arguments against getting the shot, but they make me think.
What she said at the debate wasn’t slightly more nuanced – she blatantly lied.
I agree about vaccines being considered wonder drugs. I’m not saying they din’t work, but I’m highly suspicious of drug companies motives.
I never said I liked her, I’m just being honest about my thoughts. Obviously politicians claim to have a variety of views on the same topic depending on the audience and from what I remembered of the debate I wasn’t appalled.
Also, i can’t watch the video at work. I just saw where apparently she said somewhere that the vaccine could cause mental retardation? That’s the crazy bitch I’m used to.
Actually, condoms don’t always prevent HPV from being spread. It can be spread even just from skin-to-skin contact. HPV is also hard to detect in males, so even if your partner got tested and was deemed “clean”, and you were in the most guiltless of all monogamous/married/whatever relationships, you could still get HPV.
I guess just not having sex (or oral sex!) could help you avoid getting HPV, as well as any other STI/STD, but we all know how well that idea works in practice.
It works great! – Bristol Palin guest starring on Secret Life of the American Teenager, with no irony in her voice at all.
Also, i did not know that about how HPV spreads.
And what about men? If it can cause cervical cancer, what does that mean it does to us?
Genital warts!
Condoms are approximately 60-70% likely to prevent HPV if used from beginning to end of a sexual act. I don’t find that particularly reassuring. What’s more is that as mentioned above, you cannot detect it in men–and even if you could they are completely unaffected by the virus. So if anything, a “nobody’s gonna hurt my baby girl” line of thought would lead you to ensure that your daughter gets the vaccine–to prevent other people from infecting her knowingly or unknowingly. “Clean” partners can still give you HPV.
In regards to your question, HPV can rarely cause penile cancer in men and some strains (not the same ones that cause cervical cancer) can cause genital warts in both sexes.
“On the other hand there are other vaccines that are required to attend public school, or colleges in certain states, and I don’t have a problem with that so I guess people should get over it?”
I can’t remember if this was said during the debate (I’m pretty sure it was), but someone pointed out that those vaccines are for communicable diseases, meaning that failure to vaccinate could lead to a school-wide epidemic. Since HPV can only be spread by unprotected sex, and we’re talking about children in their early teens, this is a completely different type of vaccination.
Yes! That’s the crazy bitch. And good for you for looking at it objectively. Even crazy right wing nuts make sense. Some times.
What happened to freedom this Bachman talks so much about? However you might perceive, the inclement negative implications of underage sex, you can’t restrict a potentially life-saving procedure because you don’t trust the virility of a young persons choices.
I dislike Bachmann as much as any one man can, but you’re misrepresenting what she said. Bachmann didn’t “take a public stance against a vaccine;” she was upset that Perry issued an executive order which mandated the vaccination.* The debate isn’t about cancer or HPV, its about the role of government and what it should be allowed to enforce. Even if you disagree with her stance on the issue, that is a reasonable debate to have.
I really enjoy this website, but I wish you’d shy away from the political stuff. Just sayin’.
*The vaccine wasn’t actually mandatory, which is something I’m not convinced Bachmann understands. Parents had the option to “opt-out,” but several candidates argued that this was backwards: parents should have to choice to accept the vaccine, not the opportunity to deny it. No one at the debate argued against the vaccine or suggested that it shouldn’t be available.
I’m still at a complete loss for why an ‘opt-out’ vaccine is wrong??? Why would anyone chose not to get it, its just complete completely foreign to me that if you have the opportunity to prevent cancer, with a vaccine, that you wouldn’t let your child be vaccinated.
If the vaccine prevented ALL cancer would people still care? Gabe, you were around when the polio vaccine came out, how was that received?
Because its not about the vaccine, its about the role of government. To a certain extent, its semantics, since the parent has control over what happens to their child either way. But the concern is that such actions set a precedent: that the government can decide what is healthy or good for you and then enforce those opinions. Some people don’t think that the government should make those decisions for you, and an “opt-in” supports that idea more than an “opt-out.”
Of course, its much more fun to say “Michele Bachmann is pro-cancer.”
I didn’t even know who Michele Buttface was until a week ago mate, were not all American. We give this vaccination to teenage girls along with all the other standard vaccinations and no ones gotten in a lather over it.
Maybe its because of our health care system, our government (and people) can see that vaccinations prevent much greater cost in the long run. Its not rocket science.
Whoa whoa whoa…
…we’re not all American!?
I don’t know where you are from, so I don’t know the facts about what you are talking about. I understand how, in a universal health care system, taking steps to prevent a cancer for a large number of people by inoculating them from a particular carcinogen saves the state a lot of money. But the vaccine has only been around and available to the public for, like, four years. Has it already made its way into the standard vaccines like mumps? Also, if it is standardized, do they give it to boys too? The vaccine works for them too, they just can’t get cervical cancer. It would still save money to not have to treat chronic infection by vaccinating against it, yes?
I got the vaccine, but i still think it’s despicable to make an executive order concerning what should be a private health issue, thereby turning the subject of a a young person’s sexuality into a public concern. It isn’t. The shot is a good idea, but it should be something made available to me, not something I would have to actively deny. I feel like it would be similar to making me get a shot that makes me hate the taste of tobacco: It would prevent me from smoking most likely, which would in turn decrease the likelihood of me getting certain cancers. Is that something the government should be able to make me do, and require me to move through bureaucratic channels in order to avoid? That’s garbage. Also, the vaccine is available for boys and young men to prevent them from contracting HPV, but they didn’t have to get the shot, did they? They may not have the same cancer risks, but if they are trying to making it a public health issue, they can’t have it be gender specific. The whole thing stinks.
Michelle Bachmann is a hypocrite, no doubt. I don’t think she disapproves of the executive order for the right reasons, but at least someone pointed out in a national public forum that Rick Perry was a heavy-handed and sexist asshole.
pro-choice when it’s convenient to me.
pro-life when it’s convenient to others.