Texas to mandate that girls be given Cervical Cancer vaccine

Post Reply New Topic

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070202/ap_ ... NlYwN0bQ--

Alot of states are considering doing that. Researchers at the university I attend (U of Louisville) invented it last year, it is now called Gardasil. It prevents the cervical cancer causing virus, which is mostly received as an STD, but can also arise from other factors.

They are close to learning how to make it out of tobacco, which would dramatically reduce its price. I think now it's over $100 a shot

Last edited by JBM on 02 Feb 2007, 5:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Yes, I think it's official. Gov. Rick Perry is psychotic.

Tim

Isn't Gov Perry a conservative Christian Republican?

Yeah, your link even says that. I do not know why Tim_Tex mentioned anything on that as I did not think that he even leaned right.

It says he bypassed the legislator to bring it into effect faster, as some member were threatening to block it.

I don't understand why women taking this vaccine or birth control promotes lewd behavior, but then no one has a problem with guys buying condoms over the counter for $5.

Whatever, it still says that Perry is promoting the vaccine.

The opposition comes from imposing this vaccine, not from allowing it. Parents think that giving their children additional protection will decrease the potential cost of sexually promiscuous activity thus encouraging it or that for the state to impose this is an infringement of parental rights. Others claim that these parents are burying their heads in the sand claiming that vaccine or no, children are going to commit sexual acts anyway, at the very least we can reduce long term costs for them doing so. The issue really does end up being one of where the state's control over children begins and where the parent's control ends, which is a very controversial issue as few people really can say that one side absolutely trumps the other, while the proper cutoff point is hard to determine.

I guess the logic is not that it will protect those who are vaccinated from the cancer risk from the virus but that by vaccinating women on large scale you will stop the virus from spreading to others. In that since its no different than any other mandated vaccines for students.
But since it fairly expensive I think the real motivation is the owners of the vaccine have provided an under the table payoff to get the vaccination program forced on people without approval of the legislator.

Well, I am not sure if that is the largest argument for it. I don't think that most people are arguing for the protection of the sexually promiscuous given that such is a choice society really does not find savory, but rather they want the protection of children who may end up having sex. Although, looking at the number of infected I could be wrong on that line of argumentation.

It definitely is the payoff though, as well as other close ties. "Merck is bankrolling efforts to pass state laws across the country mandating Gardasil for girls as young as 11 or 12. It doubled its lobbying budget in Texas and has funneled money through Women in Government, an advocacy group made up of female state legislators around the country.

Perry has ties to Merck and Women in Government. One of the drug company's three lobbyists in Texas is Mike Toomey, Perry's former chief of staff. His current chief of staff's mother-in-law, Texas Republican state Rep. Dianne White Delisi, is a state director for Women in Government.

The governor also received $6,000 from Merck's political action committee during his re-election campaign."

Last edited by Awesomelyglorious on 03 Feb 2007, 3:20 am, edited 1 time in total.

Since the females get the papilloma virus from sexual intercourse....the obvious solution is to cut off mens "contaminating member"....and start with the men who are passing this law.This is a ridiculous law and the world is a very scary place for it to even be debated.....I fear for our children's futures.

I happen to have a little button that has a baby holding scissors and says, "If you cut off my reproductive rights, can I cut off yours?" I fear for the future of our girls as if they're denied this vaccine, we'll lose even more women to this disease. We finally have a vaccine against cancer, so it should be used. Unfortunately, rape and sexual abuse of girls is all too common, which is why this vaccine should be mandatory.

Less Death = Good

They don't know if this vaccine is safe yet-- I think it should remain optional until it's been thoroughly studied. It can actually CAUSE cervical cancer in women who already have HPV when given the shot.

http://www.womentowomen.com/sexualityan ... anding.asp

My issue with the word manditory.The girls themselves are not going to have a choice.This is still a new "product" and we dont know all the possible long term consequences(see the bottom of the page above).I do not trust pharmacology companies who weigh the long term profit of a mandatory drug(thats a lot of money)against possible adverse effects on a minority of "victims".It is difficult and expensive to even take these companies to court and prove that the meds are responsible for your eventual symptoms.Look how many problems the Vets have had in getting anyone to acknowledge any possible side effects of the first gulf war"syndrom.There are over 100 wart viruses and this vaccinates against 4....will the vaccination create new resistant strains....what about possible long term effects from birth deffects.Anyone remember the babies born without limbs caused by vaccinating mothers.There are simply to many factors which I dont think have been investigated well enough to use the "mandatory".Would you guys feel different if it was males being used as a whole generation of genue pigs?

I think this isnt the "black and white" as you would like to believe.I understand the point of some vaccinations for things that are easily communicable but this isnt one of them....it is sexually transmitted.Let the government mandate meds?Not unless it is absolutely necessary to avoid epidemics(black plague,maybe).Otherwise,I dont want them taking away my freedom to make educated choice about my own body.

Even if there was a vaccine for death itself,I wouldn't want it to be mandatory.It should be freely available to those who want it but those who don't shouldn't be forced into taking it.What if it's discovered years from now that the vaccine does some kind of long term damage? there would be a bunch of pissed off women.

By the way HPV is a general term for viruses that cause warts (hand,face and genital warts).It's not just an STD it is also passed by birth and other fluid exchange (kissing too).

I feel thye same way you do krex,please don't generalize about guys....girls are poo-poo heads

What if this mandatory vaccine causes harm to an otherwise healthy normal 12 year old girl? What then? Is that just too bad? It's not like this is something that they could even give to other people through normal everyday contact, so mandatory vaccination sounds very irresponsible to me. They really have no idea what effect this will have 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 years down the road, or on their own children.