Skip to comments.
Perry orders anti-cancer vaccine for schoolgirls
Houston Chronicle/AP ^
| Feb. 2, 2007
| LIZ AUSTIN PETERSON
Posted on 02/02/2007 1:28:44 PM PST by YCTHouston
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 461-480, 481-500, 501-520 ... 781-786 next last
To: Alter Kaker
How many other viral (not bacterial) infections are we having success against? I thought we were still amateurs in that area.
481
posted on
02/03/2007 2:21:13 PM PST
by
Teacher317
(Are you familiar with the writings of Shan Yu?)
To: metmom
My son got chicken pox even though he had the vaccine.
To: Teacher317
How many other viral (not bacterial) infections are we having success against?Well, for starters, how about polio...?
483
posted on
02/03/2007 2:28:45 PM PST
by
Alter Kaker
("Whatever tears one sheds, in the end one always blows one's nose." - Heine)
To: July4
If your figures are correct, you may have a point about the need to protect adults, but I still don't see why children (male or female) need to be immunized against sexually transmitted diseases.Because the vaccine is most effective when administered to virgins. This isn't about childhood behavior, it's about the fact that any woman who has sex at any point in her life is potentially at risk of a preventable virus that could cause a cancer that will kill her.
484
posted on
02/03/2007 2:33:20 PM PST
by
Alter Kaker
("Whatever tears one sheds, in the end one always blows one's nose." - Heine)
To: RVN Airplane Driver
But your grand daughters could get the vaccine without Perry's order.
Just because you didn't know about how to prevent HPV doesn't mean the rest of us don't know how to prevent it.
I think the decision needs to rest with the parents.
To: Alter Kaker
The polio vaccine was/is merely a diluted form of the polio virus injected into the bloodstream. The body is left to create its own defenses. That's not exactly a discovery or technological advancement. If that's all we have today for viruses, then clearly we are not yet very far along in combatting them.
(Pardon my ignorance on our exact current status as virus-killers... but I recall being rather impressed that these microscopic monsters continue to baffle us, and I can't imagine any huge breakthroughs along those lines that would get by without some major coverage in the science journals.)
486
posted on
02/03/2007 2:36:14 PM PST
by
Teacher317
(Are you familiar with the writings of Shan Yu?)
To: Teacher317
How about Smallpox? Rubella? Measles? Yellow fever? Hepatitis A? Hepatitis B? Chickenpox? Mumps?
All are viral diseases protected against by vaccines.
487
posted on
02/03/2007 2:37:41 PM PST
by
Alter Kaker
("Whatever tears one sheds, in the end one always blows one's nose." - Heine)
To: Teacher317
The polio vaccine was/is merely a diluted form of the polio virus injected into the bloodstream.No, that's the Salk vaccine. The newer, Sabin vaccine contains no live virus. As for saying "merely," I'd like to see you come up with a technological innovation anywhere near as brilliant or as transforming.
That's not exactly a discovery or technological advancement.
It isn't?
If that's all we have today for viruses, then clearly we are not yet very far along in combatting them.
Huh? Public health workers have completely eliminated smallpox from every country on the planet, and yet you say that we're not far along in combatting it?
488
posted on
02/03/2007 2:41:01 PM PST
by
Alter Kaker
("Whatever tears one sheds, in the end one always blows one's nose." - Heine)
To: Teacher317
The body is left to create its own defensesUh, that's the whole point of any vaccine -- to stimulate the immune system to destroy a vector. That's how all vaccines work, how all vaccines have to work.
489
posted on
02/03/2007 2:42:39 PM PST
by
Alter Kaker
("Whatever tears one sheds, in the end one always blows one's nose." - Heine)
To: luckystarmom
But I'd like it to be used a few years to see what the real side effects are...Exactly. I would be very surprised if this was tested extensively on prepubescent girls to see if there are any developmental, or other side effects. I am not against the vaccination, I am against the government deciding what my is best for my daughter.
To: luckystarmom
Where did anyone say the responsiblity didn't rest with the parents.....or that I didn't know how to prevent HPV....or that they couldn't get the vaccine without Gov. Perry...
491
posted on
02/03/2007 2:54:18 PM PST
by
RVN Airplane Driver
("To be born into freedom is an accident; to die in freedom is an obligation..)
To: Palladin
but mass mandated vaccinations of eleven-year-old girls is not going to eliminate cervical cancers.Who said it was going to eliminate cervical cancer...but research indicates it could be a tremendous help in preventing it....
492
posted on
02/03/2007 2:56:53 PM PST
by
RVN Airplane Driver
("To be born into freedom is an accident; to die in freedom is an obligation..)
To: ConservaTexan
How did Perry get away with this? Executive orders can ONLY be issued in order to execute a valid law. What law did he use to justify this executive order? If he is just issuing arbitrary orders without enforcing an actual LAW, he is violating his oath of office and can expect his actions to be challenged in court. The governor is supposed to enforce the law, not make it.
To: old republic
How did Perry get away with this? Executive orders can ONLY be issued in order to execute a valid law.My guess is that Texas law gives the governor the power to modify the list of available vaccines given to school children. These sort of detailed items are usually not written into law but are under the authority of various agencies to administer.
To: ConservaTexan
I am not against the vaccination, I am against the government deciding what my is best for my daughter.The parents can opt out. If the "opt out" procedure is a big hassle and involves a visit from children's services then you have a point, but that doesn't seem to be the case here.
To: July4
I'm an old lady now, but I'd have fought like a tiger if anyone had tried to take away my children's childhood...for any reason. Stand up for your children, Texas.How is giving the parents of the school children of Texas the option receiving this vaccination "taking away any children's childhood"?
The vaccine reportedly works much better in people that are younger. That doesn't mean that the children are having sex, it just means that they will be protected later in life when they do start.
To: Alter Kaker
I understand your point about vaccinating females for HPV before they become sexually active, but why vaccinate little girls a decade before they likely will be exposed to the virus? I guess what I was trying to say and didn't say very well was that I wouldn't want to have to explain to a little girl or the rest of the family why she was being forced to have a vaccination for a disease frequently associated (rightly or wrongly) with sexual promiscuity. If this vaccination is a good thing for every woman to have, there's plenty of time for it later.
Although I don't question your motives at all, I have a sick feeling that there may be more to this movement than disease prevention. Something just doesn't compute.
497
posted on
02/03/2007 3:28:34 PM PST
by
July4
To: Palladin
Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could go back to the sexual standards of the forties and fifties, where virgin marrying virgin was the rule rather than the exception?
You would be utterly shocked if you were alive and of an adult age in the '40s, if you believe that. Even if you went back 200 years ago, you still wouldn't find the attitude that you think existed in the '40s and '50s. The only difference is that it's not as frowned upon these days. Back then, people didn't talk about it, now they do.
I have a friend who did professional genealogy research and who has researched quite a bit about the 1700s and 1800s in America and he showed me a lot of statistics that he and others compiled about records of that time - there were many children born less than nine months after their parents married. He and some others went to doctors, historians, archaeologists, etc., trying to come up with an explanation of why, and time and again they heard "look guys, you are not going to find some wide-scale medical or climate-related reason - people slept together before they were married, and in fact, in many instances they were married because the woman was pregnant".
What they found very amusing, is that they would find birth and marriage records at the county or state level (or in family bibles/histories passed down through the family) that made it look like everybody started having children 9-10 months after marriage, but when they went to the church or parish records, they would find that the actual marriages were within 6-7 months of the birth.
That's not to say that many people did not abstain from pre-marital sex - many do and did. It's just that we've never been this puritanical society that we are made out to be. Going back 100 years +, you think that because of the rural nature of so many families, and with church being such an important cornerstone of rural American back then, that kids were raised not knowing anything until the night of their marriage. The fact is, any kid growing up on a farm or ranch is going to know about sex at an early age. You can't exactly cover up a bull doing his duty (and God help you cover your medical expenses and hopefully you won't win a Darwin Award, should you try and prevent a bull from doing his duty, in order to prevent children from seeing it).
To: old republic
How did Perry get away with this? Executive orders can ONLY be issued in order to execute a valid law. What law did he use to justify this executive order? If he is just issuing arbitrary orders without enforcing an actual LAW, he is violating his oath of office and can expect his actions to be challenged in court. The governor is supposed to enforce the law, not make it.
How did he get away with the Corridor, or with the various commissions he created that are pushing that taxpayer-funded, already-built roads are being turned into toll roads, or that he plans on selling the state lottery?
Perry is doing a lot of stuff that makes me wonder what Republicans would do were this Ann Richards instead.
To: JeffAtlanta
My guess is that Texas law gives the governor the power to modify the list of available vaccines given to school children. These sort of detailed items are usually not written into law but are under the authority of various agencies to administer. That is interesting and I could see how that would be used to justify Perry's actions. However, it sounds very questionable because if the governor is actually writing and modifying the list of legally required vaccinations, he would be effectively legislating and changing Texas law. This violates the idea that the legislature cannot delegate its constitutional legislative powers to other entities without a constitutional amendment. A reasoning which I believe the Texas Supreme Court has been fond of in the past.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 461-480, 481-500, 501-520 ... 781-786 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson