Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Mandating Gardasil: A Gross Infringement On Parental Rights
standardnewswire.com ^ | 02/09/07 | Unknown

Posted on 02/09/2007 11:44:19 AM PST by Froufrou

Children of God for Life is urging West Virginia lawmakers to scrap HB 2835 mandating Merck's new Gardasil HPV (human papilloma virus) vaccine.

Following last week' hotly debated Executive Order by Governor Perry to mandate Gardasil in Texas, West Virginia is the latest of at least two dozen states proposing to add the controversial vaccine as a requirement for school attendance. However, unlike Texas and 48 other states including DC, which have laws allowing parents to opt-out, WVA and Mississippi are the only two States that do not provide religious or philosophical exemptions for vaccines.

"It is utterly disgraceful that WVA would force this vaccine on families, especially when their State law provides no relief to those who object to other vaccines," stated Children of God for Life Executive Director, Debi Vinnedge. "Even if they include an opt-out for Gardasil, such a move would be unconstitutional for parents who have religious objections to other vaccines, such as those using aborted fetal cell lines."

While Gardasil does not utilize aborted fetal cell lines – a primary focus of Children of God for Life, the group noted it raises other moral concerns. And they are not alone. Since Perry's actions last week, numerous family and medical groups agree that this is a family decision for the parents – not the State.

In a statement released Jan 22, the American College of Pediatrics noted that mandating Gardasil for school attendance "is a serious, precedent-setting action" replacing parental medical decision making with government regulations.

Likewise, Focus on the Family warned last year, that state officials, not parents, would become the primary sexual-health decision makers for America's children.

Vinnedge noted, "Mandating Gardasil is like the State mandating condoms for children. And neither one is effective at preventing cervical cancer. The HPV virus's incubation period is 20 years, yet this vaccine was tested for only 4 years. No one knows whether this will prevent cervical cancer at all."

Last year the Associated Press reported the FDA warning that, "any advantage the vaccine provides in protecting against the four virus types could be offset by infection by any of the multiple [over 100] other types of HPV that the vaccine does not cover." The FDA further noted that "the vaccine may lead to an increased number of cases of a cancer precursor among patients already infected by any of the four virus types at the time they receive the vaccine, and whose immune systems have not cleared the virus from their bodies."

"West Virginia is already a quagmire of contention in their antiquated State regulations on vaccines," noted Vinnedge. "If they intend to mandate Gardasil, they must provide an opt-out clause and add religious exemptions for other vaccines as well. Anything less would be a gross infringement on parental rights."


TOPICS: Culture/Society; US: Texas; US: West Virginia
KEYWORDS: cogforlife; debivinnedge; gardasil; hpv; hpvvaccine; merck; rickperry
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 181-196 next last
To: LtdGovt

"Informed consent gives patients and childrens the right to refuse.
We will not tolerate for one second any such informed consent in Texas.
Our stock in Merck is at risk if the children or their parents dare to refuse."

81 posted on 02/09/2007 3:07:01 PM PST by Diogenesis (Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Nevernow
60% of boys have it too, so why aren't boys being vaccinated? They spread it. They can get hurt by it.

The political correctness of this nonsense is just unbelievable. Why should boys get vaccinated? They are not the ones getting cancer because of this. Furthermore, think of this in economic terms. A boy has less incentive to take a vaccine, because (almost) nothing can happen to him anyway. Then, girls might get hurt. Very politically correct, but idiotic (no disrespect).

I don't think a 9 year old is going to say that. I think 13+ girls are going to say, well I had this vaccine so I'm safe.

Okay, so it's better to keep the HPV and the cancer that might result from it as a potential punishment for having sex?
82 posted on 02/09/2007 3:07:48 PM PST by LtdGovt ("Where government moves in, community retreats and civil society disintegrates" -Janice Rogers Brown)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: WV Mountain Mama

I don't know the specifics of this virus, but in general, I'm for protecting children with vaccines (if they are generally safe). Why? I hate to see a child die because of a parent's fringe religious beliefs. Centuries ago, there were people who refused their child medical treatment, because they believed a particular illness was a gift from God, and that humans had no right to interfere. That was wrong, this is wrong.

Now, if there is genuine concern about safety and side-effects, I support the parents.


83 posted on 02/09/2007 3:10:19 PM PST by LtdGovt ("Where government moves in, community retreats and civil society disintegrates" -Janice Rogers Brown)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker
There are lots of diseases out there. But precious few of them have infected 80% of the female population of the United States by their 50th birthday. I don't think your argument holds water.

Oh please. It's an almost totally benign "infection". A teeny percentage *might* get cancer decades down the road. Big deal. You're forgetting that the whole point of mandatory vaccinations for school kids is so that kids can go to school without catching deadly diseases while there. Nobody catches HPV in the classroom.

84 posted on 02/09/2007 3:13:57 PM PST by Sandy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: LtdGovt

No. But they can spread it, possibly to girls who haven't been vaccinated for medical reasons or religious reasons, giving them HPV. It's not about being politically correct, it's about public safety, especially since HPV can give boys cancer, just not cervical cancer for obvious reasons. It doesn't make sense to say you're for protecting against something and then not vaccinating people who can and will spread it. That is, it would be if this was a public safety issue, but since there are other more dangerous things that they aren't focusing on, I doubt it's that.

If the vaccine was safe, reliable, and actually was proven to prevent cervical cancer, that'd be one thing. But it's untested, doesn't prevent cervical cancer entirely, and it isn't punishing someone for having sex if they chose not to get the vaccine. That's like saying that not forcing people to wear condoms is punishing people for having sex by letting them risk STDs. It's each person's choice, not the government's duty to shove its nose in and save people from themselves, or else they should outlaw cigarettes and save smokers and their loved ones from lung cancer.

Whatever your stance on this issue, it's sexual at its very core.


85 posted on 02/09/2007 3:16:59 PM PST by Nevernow (No one has the right to choose to do what is wrong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: LtdGovt

There IS genuine concern over the safety. Those are my reasons. I don't agree with a parent refusing a vaccine that's clearly safe on religious grounds, but I respect that parent's right to raise his or her own children.

This vaccine hasn't been tested on children under 16. It's caused seizures, allergic reactions, and possibly two cases of a sometimes deadly syndrome. There have been absolutely no long term studies on this, so there's no telling if the vaccine will even last for more than 5 years or if it will give people problems later in life, like other vaccines have in the past.

It hasn't been tested extensively enough to safely make it mandatory.


86 posted on 02/09/2007 3:20:46 PM PST by Nevernow (No one has the right to choose to do what is wrong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Nevernow
It's not about being politically correct, it's about public safety, especially since HPV can give boys cancer, just not cervical cancer for obvious reasons.

Can you provide evidence for this? As far as I know, boys can't get cancer from HPV. I hadn't even heard of this virus until last year.
87 posted on 02/09/2007 3:32:22 PM PST by LtdGovt ("Where government moves in, community retreats and civil society disintegrates" -Janice Rogers Brown)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: Nevernow

If so, then why is everyone fixated on the allegedly sexual nature of this vaccine? It appears that some people are more concerned that teenagers will not get cancer from having sex, than about the supposed safety concerns.


88 posted on 02/09/2007 3:35:19 PM PST by LtdGovt ("Where government moves in, community retreats and civil society disintegrates" -Janice Rogers Brown)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: LtdGovt

The political correctness of this nonsense is just unbelievable. Why should boys get vaccinated? They are not the ones getting cancer because of this. Furthermore, think of this in economic terms. A boy has less incentive to take a vaccine, because (almost) nothing can happen to him anyway. Then, girls might get hurt. Very politically correct, but idiotic (no disrespect).

-----

Your argument is ridiculous. If this is the public health crisis you tout it is, then boys who can be carriers and infect girls should also be vaccinated, so that they do not spread the virus. It takes two to spread a sexually transmitted disease. And your incentive argument is illogical. What incentive is there for children to have the Hep A vaccine if they are not in a place where Hep A is spread? Perhaps, since there is no incentive, Hep A vaccine should not be mandatory.


89 posted on 02/09/2007 3:38:07 PM PST by keepitreal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: LtdGovt
Can you provide evidence for this? As far as I know, boys can't get cancer from HPV. I hadn't even heard of this virus until last year

------

From the Mayo Clinic:

In men, genital HPV infection is considered a major cause of penis (penile) cancer. It is also associated with cancer of the anus and other genital cancers. These cancers are most common in males with HIV infection. In addition, HPV has been linked to oropharyngeal cancer. The oropharynx is the part of the throat just behind the mouth.

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/HPV/AN01309/
90 posted on 02/09/2007 3:42:12 PM PST by keepitreal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: keepitreal
If this is the public health crisis you tout it is, then boys who can be carriers and infect girls should also be vaccinated, so that they do not spread the virus.

It takes two to spread a STD, yes, but that also means that vaccinating one is enough to prevent the STD from being spread. Why do you insist on vaccinating the boys, political correctness?

And your incentive argument is illogical. What incentive is there for children to have the Hep A vaccine if they are not in a place where Hep A is spread? Perhaps, since there is no incentive, Hep A vaccine should not be mandatory.

Uhm, but there is an incentive for an HPV-vaccine, because girls can get cancer from HPV.
91 posted on 02/09/2007 3:45:31 PM PST by LtdGovt ("Where government moves in, community retreats and civil society disintegrates" -Janice Rogers Brown)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: LtdGovt

see my post #90 - what's the difference in incentive?


92 posted on 02/09/2007 3:46:41 PM PST by keepitreal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: keepitreal

Penile cancer? How obscure. I've never heard of it.

And someone else was claiming that it was dangerous to get the vaccine if you were infected by HPV. Since boys are the ones who have the virus in the first place, would that not be dangerous?


93 posted on 02/09/2007 3:47:02 PM PST by LtdGovt ("Where government moves in, community retreats and civil society disintegrates" -Janice Rogers Brown)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: Froufrou
Update:

Clash over Perry's vaccine order heats up

Many of those opposing the vaccine requirement are social conservatives who fear it sends a message to teens that sex is permissible. But the Texas Medical Association also opposes the mandate, citing the vaccine's newness, liability concerns and cost.

--------

The Texas MEDICAL Association is against this?

Hot dog!

94 posted on 02/09/2007 3:49:11 PM PST by MamaTexan (Perry Pompadour can kiss my patootie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: LtdGovt

That's not true. The majority of threads I've read on FR are critisizing the fact that it hasn't been tested enough. The media is focusing on the religious concerns, but most people who oppose this aren't doing it on the sexual implications as much as they are the dangers of untested vaccines. Even the person you responded to talks about health concerns, in this thread. The OP does, too.

The nature of this vaccine IS sexual. But that's not where the majority of concern lies, though it is a big point. If the government can't push birth control on people, it shouldn't be able to push an anti-STD vaccine on people, though it does. Look at Hepatitis B. I'm still convinced that's why Merck is calling this anti-cancer, though it's not really a vaccine against cancer. There was so much of an outlash against the Hep. B vaccine, they probably don't want to go through it with this one. But that's what this is, another anti-STD vaccine. It's sexual in nature. It's emotional language to say, "You want girls to have cancer as punishment for sex," not logical language, by the way. It's making an assumption that paints someone who disagrees in a negative light. It happens all the time on FR, but it doesn't make it right.

It's not idiotic to be against this vaccine. It's concern for your children, either because you think there's not enough known about this vaccine yet, or because you think it's putting your children at sexual risk by misrepresenting the benefits of this to children. Most people I talk to don't realize how little protection this vaccine really gives, and think it's 100% effective against cervical cancer and HPV. It's a dangerous assumption and dangerous misrepresentation.


95 posted on 02/09/2007 3:49:15 PM PST by Nevernow (No one has the right to choose to do what is wrong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker; Froufrou
If this were a vaccine for any other disease, I bet 90% of you wouldn't care.

Not true at all. There's lots about this issue to care about. I care about payoffs to politicians by companies to have them force me to buy the company's product.

I care about any vaccine that isn't necessary and has been tested so little.

I care about being the guinea pig for any vaccine that so little known about and knowledge of the long term consequences is simply nonexistent.

If politicians are truly so worried about cervical cancer, the most effective way to combat it would be by making Pap Smears mandatory for all women. That way they'd catch cervical cancer no matter what its cause.

My children are not going to be any body's guinea pigs or cash cows.

96 posted on 02/09/2007 3:49:24 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: LtdGovt

I said that. It comes from the CDC, or FDA, I forget which.

And boys aren't the only ones who spread it, but they do spread it.

You also just said you'd never heard of HPV until recently...so isn't that obscure enough so this vaccine shouldn't be mandatory in the first place?

Tell people who have gotten penile cancer from HPV that they shouldn't have the same protection girls have because well, you haven't heard of penile cancer until now.


97 posted on 02/09/2007 3:52:38 PM PST by Nevernow (No one has the right to choose to do what is wrong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: Nevernow
That's not true. The majority of threads I've read on FR are critisizing the fact that it hasn't been tested enough.

Okay. Now is that a cover for other concerns or not. Obviously, you are mostly concerned about the health aspects, you come across as thoughtful. But I think that if your views were more widespread, at least some people would criticize the person who claimed that Rick Perry had called all the girls in Texas wh--res.

If the government can't push birth control on people, it shouldn't be able to push an anti-STD vaccine on people,

Your comparison is not sound. Some people do want children (and don't want birth control), but I can't think of any individual who would want an STD.

though it does. Look at Hepatitis B.

I'm not sure that's right. But giving HPV-vaccines (after adequate testing) is right, since boys don't get it by having sex.

It's emotional language to say, "You want girls to have cancer as punishment for sex," not logical language, by the way.

Close to that. That's the impression I get. Especially people who claim that this encourages promiscuity. Apparantly, getting cancer should be a risk of having sex, otherwise, it encourages having many sexual relations.

or because you think it's putting your children at sexual risk by misrepresenting the benefits of this to children

That should not be a problem, since you're in a position to tell them the truth.
98 posted on 02/09/2007 3:58:51 PM PST by LtdGovt ("Where government moves in, community retreats and civil society disintegrates" -Janice Rogers Brown)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Nevernow
You also just said you'd never heard of HPV until recently...so isn't that obscure enough so this vaccine shouldn't be mandatory in the first place?

Apparantly not. When 1% of 60% of girls get cancer from HPV, I think that's a significant public health risk, espcially since it can be prevented.

Tell people who have gotten penile cancer from HPV that they shouldn't have the same protection girls have because well, you haven't heard of penile cancer until now.

No one is saying that they shouldn't have protection. They can choose to pay for their inoculation themselves, but I don't think that the risk is high enough to justify government intervention.
99 posted on 02/09/2007 4:01:17 PM PST by LtdGovt ("Where government moves in, community retreats and civil society disintegrates" -Janice Rogers Brown)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker; Nevernow
Because in clinical trials, not a single serious adverse reaction has been linked to Gardasil.

Keep telling yourself that because nobody else with any credibility will.

Moreover, Gardasil confers long term (and most likely lifetime) immunity.

Nobody knows that for sure because it hasn't been tested that long, so you're making some pretty groundless speculations there.

The flu vaccine has to be re-administered, at great effort and at great expense, annually.

Which happens anyway. And besides, to make it mandatory, they have to have enough of a supply and I don't ever recall that being the situation.

100 posted on 02/09/2007 4:02:09 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 181-196 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson