Cervical Cancer Shot May Be Standard In 6th Grade

The Indy Channel ^ | September 12, 2006 | AP

[Abathar]

A bipartisan group of Michigan lawmakers wants all sixth-grade girls to be vaccinated against cervical cancer.

A Republican state senator who is the lead sponsor said it's the first legislation of its kind in the U.S.

The vaccine was approved by federal regulators this summer and hailed as a breakthrough in cancer prevention. The shots prevent infections from strains of a sexually transmitted virus -- human papilloma virus, or HPV -- that can cause cervical cancer and genital warts.

At the time, conservatives expressed concern that schools would require the vaccine for enrollment. They argue that such mandates infringe on parents' rights and send a message that underage sex is OK.

If approved, the measure would go into effect for the next school year.

The vaccine was approved for females between ages 9 and 26. In studies, it was credited with preventing disease from the two types of HPV that are responsible for approximately 70 percent of all cervical cancers, according to Detroit television station WDIV.

The legislator who proposed the requirement noted that, as with all other school-required vaccines, parents may opt out of this requirement for medical, religious or philosophical reasons.

[spatso]

"It ends up sounding more like the restrictive attitudes toward women and sex that another religion spouts."

Now I think your being provocative or teasing, but I am not sure. If your talking about Islam, it surely is behind the times in recognizing the equality of women. Or, on the other hand, are you referencing Roman Catholic or other Christian faith communities that impose restrictions on religious orders and offices?

[Antoninus]

Wow. Mandatory vaccinations against an STD. And they call it a vaccination against "cervical cancer" to make it more palatable.

Who didn't see this coming?

[linda_22003]

I was talking about Islam, and it surprises and dismays me to see their attitudes parroted here.

[Antoninus]

What is the logic of rejecting a treatment that prevent CANCER?

No one's saying that you have to reject it. We're objecting to the government making it MANDATORY. If you want your little girl to get the "slut shot", be my guest. As for my family, we're going to teach them how not to catch STDs. And I'd appreciate it if you kept your nanny-state out of my business.

[WilliamWallace1999]

Nope, that's not a true statement. Exposure to the virus before age 25 is the risk factor. The cervix has finished maturation by that point it time and is not susceptible to mutation. The FDA only approved the vaccination up to age 26 based on this finding. Also, they have not proven how land the immunity lasts and if it truely prevents the cancer. They only followed the test subjects for five years and found no abnormal pap smears in the treated group. From this, they SURMISED that cancer would be prevented. A significant number of OB/GYN's are still wondering what will happen as immunity wanes.

Are we just putting things off for tens years? Time will tell.

[zerosix]

Liberal response to decades of teaching sex to students in government schools. First we are treated to abortion on demand until moment of birth; states allowing non-parental adults taking under age girls to abortion mills and/or taking across state lines to get them in other states; abortion pill OK'd then OK'd to be sold over-the-counter; anyone over 18 (yet to buy cigarettes, sign says you must be 27 in my state); rampant Herpes Virus of genitals that can result in cervical cancer.

Once upon a time, cervical cancer was limited to prostitutes' sexual exposure to many partners - now it's American girls, so the usual liberal response, vaccinate them, and it's the government's job to do it in schools so that "their ignorant parents don't get the opportunity to object".

Why not go back to the source - Sex Ed in schools; predator teachers; etc. Sex Ed being taught in schools was the camel's nose under the tent to our vulnerable youth - "we need to do that to prevent unmarried teens from getting pregnant." No matter that pregnancy rates soared 400% after but a few years.

[Antoninus]

I am not familiar with this disease. It is obviously transmitted by promiscuity. Can it also be transmitted in (real) monogamous relations?

No.

[linda_22003]

I agree with you (surprise!) about making it mandatory. That's a family decision, not a governmental one. I disagree with your characterization about what the shot should be called.

[Antoninus]

Because the sex addicts who are cramming sex education down the kids' throats refuse to be honest with these kids about the consequnces of promiscuity.

You got it. HPV was NEVER mentioned by these people until they had a vaccine for it. Now they can't stop talking about it.

[linda_22003]

I had heard about HPV and testing for it for years, but I've probably had more visits to the gynecologist than you have had. :)

[spatso]

"Wow. Mandatory vaccinations against an STD. And they call it a vaccination against "cervical cancer" to make it more palatable."

I think that is a really awful thing to say. I would like to know that don't believe young women should be punished because, at some point in their life, they may choose to be part of a relationship that includes sexual intimacy.

[Antoninus]

Since HPV is the cause of most cervical cancers, this vaccine will prevent a lot of malignancies.

So, considering how this is being marketed, if someone has the shot but still gets cervical cancer, can they sue?

[ahayes]

Nope. It's marketed as an HPV vaccine. Media calling it something else doesn't make the drug company liable.

[Antoninus]

I think that is a really awful thing to say.

I'm sorry you're offended. Emphasis on the word "mandatory" might make you feel better.

If our culture wasn't sodden with encouragements to casual sex, do any of you really think that HPV would infect as many people as it does? Or be any kind of issue at all?

God willing, HPV will be wiped out by this vaccine. However, the underlying cause of HPV isn't being addressed by this vaccine at all. Until it is, another even more virulent STD will come along. And another. And another.

When you play fast and loose with Natural Law on a regular basis, bad things will happen to you. It's axiomatic.

[Antoninus]

Media calling it something else doesn't make the drug company liable.

Then perhaps one can sue Planned Barrenhood and the other kid-sex propaganda groups.

[spatso]

"I was talking about Islam, and it surprises and dismays me to see their attitudes parroted here."

You are right. It is more than tragic. It strikes me that only hate is powerful enough to motivate some of those attitudes. It astounds me how judgemental and bitter people can become. When they wrap that hatred in Catholic "faith package," I feel personally offended.

[ahayes]

This is odd. You think someone to lazy to do their own research ought to sue others for not spoon-feeding them information?

[Gone GF]

BTW, I'm not in favor of this vaccine being mandated. But I don't understand equating it with birth control pills or crossing your fingers.

[Fawn]

I don't see why people wouldn't do this? Do you only get cervical cancer from sex??

[AppyPappy]

Nah it doesn't make sense. People tend to forget that HPV can be spread through rape as well. But I don't see why it must be mandatory