Posted on 09/13/2006 4:14:30 AM PDT by 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.
I know that HPV can be transmitted other ways but the other ways isn't why many young girls have it. They have it because of sexual activity, promiscuous or not. I'm used to people calling girls sluts,etc. when they get pregnant, get a disease as if they did it to themselves ;-) I'm not surprised that this thread has had a lot of name calling. Personally, I'm skeptical of ALL vaccines but I think the HPV vaccine should be available.
The problem with *opting out* is the pressure to get the vaccine is tremendous. The schools don't want to hear that your child is not vaccinated with a required vaccine.
It seems like the issue people keep forgetting about is not whether the vaccine is effective or needed but the *mandatory* part. Offering the parents the choice to take it is a whole different issue than making it mandatory and having them opt out.
We should not not be required to do something with the option of opting out, and then have to fight every inch of the way to exercise our right not to have it. And that's what ends up happening.
You seem to be the one calling it a slut shot. And doing most of the name calling. The original comments, had you stopped to read them were about how feminism/government views girls. Have you watched TV lately? Or looked at what's being marketed to girls from 6-12, Bratz Bralettes and thongs ? I suppose you think all of that's okay?
You need to direct your anger at the person who hurt you and not everyone who disagrees with your "the government knows best" attitude. Good luck with that.
>>>You seem to be the one calling it a slut shot>>>
Quoting Antoninus, a poster on this thread.
I don't think it will be a high pressure deal for opting out of this, its not like anyone but the kid and their Dr. will know whether she has had the shot or not. I doubt highly that the teachers would know who gets them and who doesn't, that is if it was done properly. If they line them up and walk them through the gym and do them all at once people will know who gets them and who doesn't, but I doubt that is the way it will be handled.
Not assumption. Observation.
>>>You need to direct your anger at the person who hurt you and not everyone who disagrees with your "the government knows best" attitude. Good luck with that.>>>
The person 'who hurt' me? Who do you think you are, Freud?
My anger is with people who get on this thread and claim that THEIR daughter does not need this shot because only sluts need this shot because THEIR daughter wouldn't sleep around and THEIR daughter's husband would be a virgin too, blah blah blah. And it makes me sick because THEIR holier than thou attitude along with THEIR daughters imperfection or THEIR future son-in-laws imperfection of complete abstinence could be a death sentence for THEIR daughter. And it makes me sad for THEIR daughters. Because THEIR daughter could be like my mother, who died from this STD as so many call it. Through no fault of her own, other than marrying an imperfect man.
No, Antonius didn't. He said that the root cause which was sex outside of marriage should be addressed, then there wouldn't be HPV. Imagine that. You called him a fundamentalist who hates women, among other things. Try again.
Well said.
No, that's not Sandbar. See post #104 for the "slut shot" mention.
Yes, I was the one who made the apparently notorious "slut shot" reference. I guess it hit a little too close to home for some of the sensitive sallys on here.
How many women took the Hormone stuff? I real the "strongest" test results. If you took it for 20 years, you would live 8 additional days.
I'm not convinced this is the solution to cervical cancer.
My apologies. Sandbar was still way out of line.
It shouldn't be mandatory no matter what excuse the state uses.
Driving normally does not involve colliding with anything. I have been driving pretty much every day for more than 20 years, and have never once been in an accident where my seat belt saved my life or an airbag deployed.
Injuries and fatalities are measured per hundred million passenger miles, because a smaller sample would have too many digits after the decimal point and the math would be more difficult. So to say that "normal" driving doesn't result in a crash is both proscriptive -- telling people not to die in a crash -- and descriptive -- reflecting the fact that most people don't.
Sexual contact only within a monogamous marriage is not, and has never been, the norm for a majority of people on Earth. So your use of the word "normal" can only be read as a moral distinction. It is proscriptive, not descriptive.
Fact: If every frog in America suddenly developed wings, they wouldn't bump their asses from hopping.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.