Will the Ark Encounter be exempt from the Americans with Disabilities Act?

Update 12-31-14 After rereading the section of North Carolina law, I have decided that it did not claim what I thought it did.  For readability, I just deleted the argument that I made using it.

I am still trying to find a statute that requires that "religious organizations" be non-profits.  So far it seems to me to be more of a recommendation than a requirement. 

However Answers in Genesis's claim that the Ark Encounter LLC is a religious organization may also have more consequences than whether or not they decide to not hire Catholics or Episcopalians as life guards.   "Religious organizations" are exempt from the Americans with Disabilities Act.

SEC. 307. EXEMPTIONS FOR PRIVATE CLUBS AND RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS.

The provisions of this title shall not apply to private clubs or establishments exempted from coverage under title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000-a(e)) or to religious organizations or entities controlled by religious organizations, including places of worship.

Maybe the ADA should be the next line of questioning that AiG receives.  I am still waiting on this question:

So you say that Kentucky wants you to hire people who aren't Christians, but is it not true that most people in Christian sects like Catholicism and Episcopalianism would not be allowed to work at your park?

Do these statistics bother you?

Right Wing News posted this to their facebook this April.  First off there was no sourcing.  Second miscarriage is far more likely than abortion.  Years ago, I wrote a summary.

At an hour old, this single cell has an up hill battle. About 19.6 out of every 1000 women annually will have an abortion. This means that 22% of pregnancies will end in abortion [4], but this embryo only has about a 30-70% of even implanting in the uterus to transition from conception to pregnancy. [6] Even if she implants, she may not implant in the uterus. Ectopic pregnancies occur at 19.3 out of every 1000 pregnancies or about 2% of pregnancies. [7] Once implanted correctly, she still has about a 31% chance of miscarrying. [8] Things get a little more dicey when you considered that one out of eight embryos form twins, but only one out of 80 twins make it to birth. [9] All of this adds up to the embryo having as great as a 70% chance of not surviving to birth [8].

 The abortion rate used to be higher, but I think that it is safe to postulate that miscarriages are about twice as likely than abortions since 1973.  So the image should look something like this.

Now, I cannot vouch for the other statistics.  I know enough to know that AIDS, cancer, and heart disease survival rates have been increasing while violent crime has been decreasing.  However. miscarriage is never mentioned even though it is far more prevalent.

The War on Christmas is Over

The War on Christmas is over.  With Michael W. Smith releasing a version of Irving Berlin's Happy Holidays this year, Happy Holidays has officially won. :)

Citations please II

This December, I have written a few blogs on the Ark Encounter controversy.

AiG or the Ark Encounter versus Kentucky

A couple of more points on the Ark Encounter

Citations please

Last night, I started to examine Ken Ham's claim which had one of it's most recent iteration in a video he posted to facebook. 

We even looked into building in Indiana, but Kentucky’s incentive encouraged us to build here. Yet most secular bloggers and many in the media would have you believe that we are asking the state for money to complete the Ark. So let me say again, that’s simply not true.

I am at a lost to find secular bloggers who are saying this.  At best, they are arguing like Ham himself that the tax incentives would offset the creation of the park.  I cited five secular bloggers that are not claiming this.  These were not low level no names, they were some of the main bloggers arguing against Ham on this issue.  Two of them, PZ Myers and Dan Arel have gotten personal responses from Ham.  Ham knows that at least these two are not making this claim.

I also called into question, Ham extrapolating a particular meaning from an infinitive used by Maddow when he used the same infinitive in his recent video.  Infinitives can have multiple meanings depending on the context.  For some reason, Ham assumes an interpretation that makes Maddow's statement false, when most interpretations would make the statement true.

Well, it is time to add another secular blogger that is not claiming that the Ark Encounter is "asking the state for money to complete the Ark."  The Sensuous Curmudgeon has written a December 18, 2014 blog, Is Opposing Ken Ham’s Tax Breaks Anti-God? on Ham's criticism, Lexington Herald versus God!, of a recent editorial in the Lexington-Herald, Few questions for Answers in Genesis. The Sensuous Curmudgeon wrote:

That newspaper has previously opposed tax benefits for Hambo’s new theme park — see Problem for Ken Ham’s Ark Park? That was back in August, before Hambo was officially notified that the state wouldn’t provide sales tax rebates for his Ark project.

 So the number is up to six which means Ham must provide seven to support his claim.  However Ham's line of evidence is found wanting. He questions whether tax incentives are "tax breaks".  He even parses infinitives for the worst possible interpretations.

The Sensuous Curmudgeon does a great job discussing Ham's over reaction (with even an exclamation mark) to the Lexington-Herald editorial.  He did not deal though with Ham's citation of someone in the media claiming the Ark Encounter "is asking the state for money to complete the Ark", so I will deal with it here.

Ham starts out claiming that the Lexington-Herald "[f]or years, it has spread untruths and misleading information about Answers in Genesis and our life-size Noah’s Ark project."  He then begins the next paragraph:

I suggest that the editors of the Herald-Leader have an anti-Christian agenda. It has resulted in inaccuracies in its stories and editorials concerning the Ark project.

 In the third paragraph, he triples down.

In a recent typical anti-Christian editorial against the work of AiG, we read considerable misinformation and downright untruths. Actually, I believe it’s clear that the editors are really shaking their fist at God.

OK, so he is claiming that the editorial is saying things that are so untrue that they are "shaking their fist at God." What are these untruths?  Well he cites two examples from the editorial which he criticizes by specifically using the word true ("not true" and "doesn't tell the truth here").

Perhaps Answers in Genesis should give up thanking God that intolerant liberals “can’t sink this ship,” and ask the deity instead whether it can be built without more government handouts.

Ham does not quibble over whether or not these tax incentives are "government handouts".  He does argue that "[t]his certainly implies that AiG has already received government funding to build the Ark."  Even for Ham, he can only claim that this "implies" this falsehood.  It only does if you take the worst interpretation.

Ham also accuses this point as being untrue.

Since the Ark park would rely on such secularists [sic] services as highways, sewer systems, and police and fire protection to attract and accommodate its visitors, the $18.25 million in taxes it wouldn’t pay to support those services would fall on other taxpayers.

 Ham's response is strange.  He argues that this is untrue, because the rebate "would [only] be given is if the park is operational and is having a positive economic impact, bringing significant dollars into the state." Ham is right, but he is beside the point.  The point is the rebated sales tax would not go to fund  "highways, sewer systems, and police and fire protection to attract and accommodate its visitors".  Since Ham is not funding them as much as he would, someone else would need to.  The statement is clearly true.

Ham also disputes the nature of the bonds and his property tax discount.  He disputes that the Ark Encounter has not hired anyone yet and we do not know what the standards would be (even though they are claiming that it is legal for them to follow AiG's standards.)  I am not dealing with those claims, because they are beside the point to this discussion.

Ham argues:

Yet most secular bloggers and many in the media would have you believe that we are asking the state for money to complete the Ark.

I am searching, but I still cannot find support for his claim.  Remember, to be true someone must now provide seven examples of individual bloggers.

Citations please

About a week ago, Ken Ham made the following claim in a video he posted to Answers in Genesis' (AiG) facebook. 

We even looked into building in Indiana, but Kentucky’s incentive encouraged us to build here. Yet most secular bloggers and many in the media would have you believe that we are asking the state for money to complete the Ark. So let me say again, that’s simply not true.

Now I have tried to validate this claim and find out what in the world Ham is talking about.  I admit about three years ago, there was some confusion for me about the nature of the tax incentives.  After doing some research, some on AiG's website, I learned that the incentives were a rebate on sales tax at the park.  The state would only give this rebate if the Ark Encounter (AE) generates a required amount of sales tax and even then they would only refund a certain amount.  There are no tax breaks from Kentucky until after the park has been opened.  Still Ham admits, like any good businessman, he was counting on those rebates similar to how people count on their tax returns.  You do not have to have them, but they sure help.

Still, I find it hard to believe that "most secular bloggers...would have you believe that we are asking the state for money to complete the Ark."  Who are these bloggers?  They are certainly not PZ Myers, Hemant Mehta, Dan Arel, JT Eberhard, and Michael Stone.  So who is Ham talking about?  I have listed five bloggers, Ham would need to list at least six to validate his claim.  Ham knows that Myers is not one of them, but more on that later.

Ham has taken issue with some in the media, particularly Rachel Maddow.  However, as far as I can tell, Maddow has never said that AiG is using tax dollars to build the Ark.  In this 2010 video, she said "tax breaks" which is what rebates are, though Ham disagrees.  May 28, 2014, Ham had this to say about a May 2014 Maddow segment. (The bold is in the original.)

First—and I don’t know how many times we’ve had to correct the urban myth that is being spread by the secular media and bloggers—no Kentucky taxpayer money is being used to “build” (her word) the Ark Encounter. It’s a lie that won’t die, and the journalists at MSNBC should know better.

So Maddow should know better according to Ham.  Though Ham provides the entire video, he only quotes in this blog one word, "build", that he takes exception.  This word is a "lie" according to Ham. This is the full quote that Ham is referring.

And when the creationist group Answers in Genesis announced their plans to build their Noah’s Ark theme park, the state of Kentucky offered them $43 million dollars in tax incentives for them to build that theme park.

No where does Maddow claim that "Kentucky taxpayer money is being used" to build AE.  She said, "the state of Kentucky offered them $43 million dollars in tax incentives for them to build that theme park."  The Christianpost in their May 28, 2014 article seemed to try and help Ham out by providing another quote that Maddow could have meant that "taxpayer money" was being used to build the AE.

There will be dinosaurs on Noah's ark, just as soon as the creationists finish finding the dinosaurs in piles of leaves and plant debris, and putting them on the ark with little assist from state government – 43 million in tax incentives. Your tax dollars at work – amazing.

Still here, Maddow is very clear, saying that AE has received tax incentives. "Your tax dollars at work" is a well known chastisement of government officials and government programs. It does not necessarily mean giving tax dollars to a program.  In his May 28, 2014 blog post, Myers took issue with Ham's rebuttal to Maddow.

[Ham] declares that no Kentucky taxpayer money is being used to construct the Ark Encounter, but that is a claim no one made. Maddow says quite clearly several times that the Ark Park has been given $43 million in tax incentives — that is, Answers in Genesis has been exempted from a requirement to pay taxes on their for-profit enterprise, and will also receive rebates on sales taxes. So all Ham has done is rebut a claim that Rachel Maddow did not make.

May 30, 2014, Ham used his facebook to rebut Myers. After citing the first Maddow quote he wrote,

You can hear Maddow say it for yourself at around the 1:55 mark of the video captured at https://answersingenesis.org/…/media-co…/rachels-rant-msnbc/ . The atheist blogger has once again, as such secularists often do, did not tell the truth—and of course Rachel Maddow didn't tell the truth, either. These atheists realize that if you "throw enough mud at the wall, some of it will stick." Others sadly believe their lies and then continue to spread them.

Ham is convinced that the infinitive, "to build", makes the sentence a lie. In the comments he states that he does not even want to call the tax incentives, "tax breaks" like Maddow did in 2010.

Like with the ChristianPost, someone tried to help Ham out, but Ham was having none of it.

Further even while rebutting a secular blogger who continues to claim that no one is saying AE is receiving money for constructing the Ark, he concluded with this point.

Now that we've pointed this out for the "millionth time," I fully expect the atheists to simply ignore it and just continue to disseminate untruths--it's the nature of the spiritual battle in which we're engaged.

It shouldn't be surprising that in a sinful world, those who oppose our Christian message will take what is an obvious situation and claim the opposite is true!

Myers responded with a blog entitled, Is Ken Ham literate?

I said, and Rachel Maddow said, that Ham received $43 million in tax incentives. We know exactly what that means: he got tax exemptions and rebates that would total $43 million as an incentive to construct his monument to idiocy...Which I also clearly said in that bit of mine that he quoted.

You know, on the cop shows when a suspect is accused of X, and he immediately starts blustering “I did not do Y!”, you kind of suspect that he’s guilty of something. What is Ken Ham hiding?

 Remember Ham's big fuss is over the word "build".  Do you remember what he said in the quote that I started?

We even looked into building in Indiana, but Kentucky’s incentive encouraged us to build here.

A little over a week ago, Ham said essentially the same thing that he chided Maddow for saying.  There is not much difference between Ham's comments and this contested quote:

And when the creationist group Answers in Genesis announced their plans to build their Noah’s Ark theme park, the state of Kentucky offered them $43 million dollars in tax incentives for them to build that theme park.

 So far Ham cannot back up his claim that most secular bloggers "would have you believe that we are asking the state for money to complete the Ark."  If most secular bloggers would have me believe that, then citations should not be hard to come by.  His argument about Maddow rests on stretching an infinitive that he himself has been caught using.  If these things are really being said, you should not need to rest your arguments on parsing verbs.

A couple of more points on the Ark Encounter

This is a continuation of my research regarding the Ark Encounter.

Can the Ark Encounter discriminate with their hiring?

[I AM NOT A LAWYER]

There seems to be some debate online about whether a for-profit can be a "religious organization" under Title VII.  The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) had this to say in an article entitled, Questions and Answers: Religious Discrimination in the Workplace.

Religious Organization Exception: Under Title VII, religious organizations are permitted to give employment preference to members of their own religion. The exception applies only to those institutions whose “purpose and character are primarily religious.” Factors to consider that would indicate whether an entity is religious include: whether its articles of incorporation state a religious purpose; whether its day-to-day operations are religious (e.g., are the services the entity performs, the product it produces, or the educational curriculum it provides directed toward propagation of the religion?); whether it is not-for-profit; and whether it affiliated with, or supported by, a church or other religious organization.

From what I can tell, one does not have to be a non-profit to be classified as a "religious organization", but it does help.  Being a "religious organization" is not a a one trait thing, but a conglomeration of traits that add up to make one exempt.

• whether its articles of incorporation state a religious purpose
• whether its day-to-day operations are religious (e.g., are the services the entity performs, the product it produces, or the educational curriculum it provides directed toward propagation of the religion?)
• whether it is not-for-profit
• whether it affiliated with, or supported by, a church or other religious organization.

One does not need all four to qualify.  The Ark Encounter seems to have at least three out of four, but I am not a lawyer.  A judge may rule that they do not meet the criteria.

Who are the jobs going to?

When the Ark Encounter first began, Ken Ham said:

The Ark Encounter is going to employ almost a thousand people, and the impact on the number of jobs associated with that is going to be in the thousands, and our particular research has shown it will be many thousands, and it will bring millions and millions of dollars into the community. In fact, the research that we did shows that the economic impact of the Ark Encounter project over 10 years will be something like $4 billion.

According to Answers in Genesis' (AiG) letter to the Kentucky Tourism, Arts and Heritage Cabinet (TAHC), the Ark Encounter was originally owned by three entities and intended to not discriminate while hiring.  However two of the three entities abandoned the project leaving Crosswater Canyon Inc, which is run by AiG, as the sole owner.  With the other investors no longer in the picture, AiG decided that Ark Encounter was going to religiously discriminate with their hiring.  AiG claims that they informed the TAHC about this change months ago.

So far Ark Encounter has no employees, but it seems like the requirements will be similar to AiG.

• Salvation testimony
• Creation belief statement
• Confirmation of your agreement with the AiG Statement of Faith

When Ham promised a thousand jobs to a city that has less than 4000 and to a county that has less than 25,000, Kentucky's governor was on board.

Kentucky’s Democratic governor supports the tax incentives. He says he wasn’t elected to debate religion, he was elected to create jobs, especially in hard-hit communities like Williamstown near where the ark park will be located and where a majority of the unemployed have been out of jobs for over two years.

Over the last few years, Ham has changed his mind, all of the jobs will only be available to Christians who can agree with among other things, the following statements.

• The various original life forms (kinds), including mankind, were made by direct creative acts of God. The living descendants of any of the original kinds (apart from man) may represent more than one species today, reflecting the genetic potential within the original kind. Only limited biological changes (including mutational deterioration) have occurred naturally within each kind since creation.
• Scripture teaches a recent origin for man and the whole creation, spanning approximately 4,000 years from creation to Christ.
• The view, commonly used to evade the implications or the authority of biblical teaching, that knowledge and/or truth may be divided into secular and religious, is rejected.

Forget hiring Atheists, these jobs will be limited to a minority of Christians.  Catholics or even William Lane Craig need not apply to be lifeguards.  Maybe Grant County is mostly biblical creationists.  However if the county is not, this might not be as big of a boom to the county's economy.

Will the Ark be built entirely of wood?

AiG claims that the pre-flood civilization not only had iron seams, but they knew how to smelt iron.  The Ark was not built by Bronze Age tools, but by Iron Age tools.  Also, Tim Lovett seems to imply that the Ark might have been reinforced by iron.  

AiG or the Ark Encounter versus Kentucky

Ark Encounter LLC is a for-profit corporation that is solely owned by the non-profit Crosswater Canyon Inc which is run by the non-profit Answers in Genesis (AiG). This is why AiG wrote a web release refering to AiG while the Kentucky Tourism, Arts and Heritage Cabinet (TAHC) references to merely the Ark Encounter.  The TAHC only references AiG when in connection with Ark Encounter's actions.  AiG seems to see little distinction which is why they say things like:

By letter on Dec. 10, state officials told the theme park’s developer, Answers in Genesis (AiG), that the only way AiG could participate in the rebate program is if AiG would agree to two conditions: 1) waive its right to include a religious preference in hiring, and 2) affirm that it will tolerate no “proselytizing” at the theme park.

Here is what the TAHC actually wrote:

The first reason the Commonwealth can no longer grant incentives to this Project is the applicant’s changed position as it relates to the hiring of employees. In its original Tourism Development Agreement, Ark Encounter, LLC expressly agreed not to discriminate in hiring based on religion. However, it is now the applicant’s stated intention to discriminate in the hiring of employees for the Project based on religion…The Commonwealth’s position hasn’t changed. The applicant’s position has changed. The Commonwealth has not and does not provide incentives to any company that discriminates on the basis of religion and will not make an exception for Ark Encounter, LLC.

 Here is a portion on proselytizing:

Certainly, Ark Encounter has every right to change the nature of the project from a tourism attraction to a ministry. However, state tourism tax incentives cannot be used to fund religious indoctrination or otherwise be used to advance religion. The use of state incentives in this way violates the Separation of Church and State provisions of the Constitution and is therefore impermissible.

You can read the letter for yourself. Nowhere does the TAHC extend an ultimatum to AiG, but AiG does not seem to see it that way:

AiG has countered that the state’s new conditions are unlawful because it is well-established under both federal law (Title VII) and state law (KRS § 344.090) that religious organizations and entities like AiG are specifically permitted to utilize a religious preference in their hiring. Moreover, the government cannot show hostility toward religion or discriminate against persons or organizations who express religious viewpoints.

However that is not what AiG actually countered (pg 4):

Your legal counsel should readily acknowledge that it has long been established in federal law and state law that religious entities are permitted to give employment preference to members of their own religion. The federal law that prohibits discrimination in hiring practices, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, specifically carves out an exception for churches and religious organizations, which are permitted to give employment preference to adherents of their own religion.

As noted above, Ark Encounter, LLC is clearly a Christian company with plainly religious attributes and ownership. It thus meets the legal standard for the Title VII exemption on religious preferences.

AiG did not counter about Title VII in reference to AiG.  They countered with Title VII in reference to the Ark Encounter, because this is the only argument would make rational sense.  When AiG is talking with the government, they maintain a distinction, but when they are talking to their own followers they maintain no distinction.  At best, one could argue that AiG is trying to dumb things down for their audience.  Clearly it is on the surface factually incorrect to say:

...state officials told the theme park’s developer, Answers in Genesis (AiG), that the only way AiG could participate in the rebate program is if AiG would agree to two conditions...

or

...AiG has countered that the state’s new conditions are unlawful because it is well-established under both federal law (Title VII) and state law (KRS § 344.090)...

In both AiG's letter and TAHC's letter the main conversation was about the Ark Encounter.  At best AiG could argue that technically the Ark Encounter has no employees and AiG runs Crosswater Canyon, so anyone dealing with Ark Encounter is actually dealing with AiG.  Until Ark Encounter has a person to answer the phones, they could be reduced to functionally the same company.  This is the best interpretation.  After all, they did provide both letters on their own website.

Then there is the worst interpretation:  AiG is intentionally trying to confuse their readers into thinking that TAHC wants AiG to start hiring Catholics and to stop proselytizing.  AiG obviously could try and educate their readers about the Title VII and for-profit companies, but for some reason they chose to confuse the issue.

Gardasil and 1 out of 912

This has already been well debunked over at Internet Myths, Lies and Misinformation.  I am going to add my own two cents, but I want to give credit to one of the first things I read on this.  I used to write and link more about Gardasil when Bachmann was running for President.

9/15/11 HPV Vaccine does not cause retardation

9/17/11 12 year old girls might mistake a HPV vaccine for a HIV vaccine
10/19/11 Flashback to Gardasil

11/15/11 Bachmann: "Ravages of this Vaccine"

1/13/12 Many Teen Girls Mistakenly Think HPV Vaccines Cut Risk for All STDs 

Today, I came across this meme from Cancer Truth.  

The source cited is a blog written by Dave Hodges, September 17, 2013. Hodges wrote.

Merck and the CDC have determined that 1 out of every 912 who received Gardasil in a large study, (see page 8) died. Yet, the cervical cancer death rate is only 1 out of every 40,000 women per year. In other words, girls are better off not taking the shot because the Gardasil shot kills the girls in greater numbers than does the disease it purports to treat.

The study linked is a great study.  They analyzed seven clinical trials which used placebos as a control.

• 29,323 received injections.     
• 15,706 received Gardasil
• 13,023 received a placebo

With both the Gardasil and the placebo only 0.1% died: 21 in the Gardasil group and 19 in the placebo group. (In case you were wondering 1 out of 912 is 0.1%.)  Honestly if Gardasil was increasing mortality rates, you would expect to see more people dying with vaccines than injecting someone with a placebo.  However that is not what the data shows.  The meme could just as easily read:

Still you might say that 0.1% is still pretty bad right? Who cares about the 99.9% if you are the 0.1% right?  Well, lets look at the causes (plural) of death. 

The events reported were consistent with events expected in healthy adolescent and adult populations. The most common cause of death was motor vehicle accident (5 individuals who received GARDASIL and 4 individuals who received AAHS control), followed by drug overdose/suicide (2 individuals who received GARDASIL and 6 individuals who received AAHS control), gunshot wound (1 individual who received GARDASIL and 3 individuals who received AAHS control)

That's right the most common causes of death break down like this:

Hodges is such a honest guy *cough* that he is including 5 traffic accidents, 2 suicides, and for good measure, a gunshot, in his statistic, because in his own words "the Gardasil shot kills the girls"...with traffic accidents and causing girls to get shot.  He is literally arguing that "the Gardasil shot" gets you shot.  Again going back to the placebo, our control group, one could just as easily say that the "[placebo] shot kills the girls".  By injecting people with essentially nothing, they managed to get three times as many suicides and three times as many gunshot victims.  If Gardasil was really killing people, we would expect to see greater rates of death among Gardasil than placebo.

So what about these 13 and 6 deaths that are left? Well, both Gardasil and Placebo had a death attributed to pulmonary embolus/deep vein thrombosis. So that brings us to 12 and 5 deaths.

In addition, there were 2 cases of sepsis, 1 case of pancreatic cancer, 1 case of arrhythmia, 1 case of pulmonary tuberculosis, 1 case of hyperthyroidism, 1 case of post-operative pulmonary embolism and acute renal failure, 1 case of traumatic brain injury/cardiac arrest, 1 case of systemic lupus erythematosus, 1 case of cerebrovascular accident, 1 case of breast cancer, and 1 case of nasopharyngeal cancer in the group that received GARDASIL; 1 case of asphyxia, 1 case of acute lymphocytic leukemia, 1 case of chemical poisoning, and 1 case of myocardial ischemia in the AAHS control group; and 1 case of medulloblastoma in the saline placebo group.

Dying after taking a vaccine or a placebo does not demonstrate cause and effect.  In order for cause and effect to be demonstrated cause of death must occur more often in the vaccinated community than in the non-vaccinated community.  One or two cases is not enough to demonstrate that.  Remember what the paper blamed?

The events reported were consistent with events expected in healthy adolescent and adult populations.

Now it would be one thing if Hodges was arguing honestly. However:

• He excludes the placebo group which had the same mortality rate
• He includes traffic accidents, suicides, and gunshots in his statistic
• He rewords the paper to argue Gardasil kills when the paper actually attributes the causes to "events expected in healthy adolescent and adult populations."

Remember, this is Hodges' source.  He even gave the page number.  At best his "1 out of every 912" is actually 1 out of 1208 without any real evidence to imply cause and effect.  In case you were wondering, the death rate in the US is actually 807.3 out of 100,000 or about 1 out of every 125 (yes, I know there are reasons not to reduce it that much).  In the mean time cervical cancer killed 4,092 in 2011.

For further reading I found these on NPR.

HPV Vaccine Doesn't Raise Risk Of Blood Clots, Study Finds

Parents And Teens Aren't Up To Speed On HPV Risks, Doctors Say

Cervical Cancer Vaccine Also Helps Prevent Genital Warts

Girls Vaccinated For HPV Not More Likely To Be Sexually Active