"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.
It's an inevitability.
IIRC, the state where I live in mandated Hep B shots as a precondition of entering middle school right when I was in sixth grade. And meningitis before I could be admitted into the University of WI system.
And I also had to have the varicella vaccine, as I've never had chickenpox.
Having said that, the question is not exactly whether requiring this cervical cancer shot is the right thing to do, but to what end does the compelling state interest in a child's welfare extend.
I'm personally neutral on this. On one hand, it does prevent disease. OTOH, could it encourage promiscuity by providing a false sense of security--absolutely.
For government to blindly mandate it without providing a clear, rational, and logical reason via compelling state interest not only denies the parent's and doctor's choices on whether the vaccine is right for the child, I find it to be a blatant subversion of federal medical privacy laws (e.g. HIPAA at the state level.
Therefore, I concur. The decision must rest on the parents; it shouldn't be mandated.