Posted on 09/14/2009 11:22:07 PM PDT by Paleo Conservative
An adopted teen who has lived in Port St. Joe, Fla. since she was 3 faces possible deportation to England for refusing a vaccination, she and her mother say.
Simone Davis, 17, said she has no need for the vaccine Gardasil, which guards against the sexually transmitted human papillomavirus virus, because she is not sexually active, ABC News reported.
But the U.S. government requires female immigrants between the ages of 11 and 26 to receive Gardasil shots before they can become citizens.
Simone was abandoned as a baby in England and adopted at 3 by her paternal grandmother, Jean Davis, who married an American and moved to Port St. Joe, Fla.
Jean Davis started applying for citizenship for Simone nearly 10 years ago, ABC said.
As a devout Christian who has taken a virginity pledge, Simone argues she is in no danger of getting cervical cancer and sees no reason to get the vaccine. American-born girls are encouraged, but not required, to get the vaccine.
Simone and Jean Davis sought a waiver on moral and religious grounds, but were turned down. They have 30 days to appeal the ruling. Without citizenship, Simone can be sent back to England, ABC said.
"I kind of feel like they may be experimenting with immigrants to see how we will react and then give the vaccine to citizens," Simone said. "If it is such a great vaccine, why isn't it mandatory for everyone?"
On your point of “equality”, the law, in the present state of HPV medical science, could have required male immigrants, 11 to 26, to get a doctors test for at least the outward symptoms of being a carrier - genital warts. I think a televised Congressional tussle over making that case would be hilarious and yet might actually get the present Gardasil vaccination provision tossed out.
Will fullWillful defiance of the law by any immigrant here on a CONDITIONAL stay is grounds for deportation.
Not only do you lack reading comprehension skills, but your grammar and spelling leave much to be desired. Furthermore, your AMAZING caps LOCK skills IMPRESS no ONE.
I'd like to direct your attention to the article. Here's the second paragraph from the bottom. "Simone and Jean Davis sought a waiver on moral and religious grounds, but were turned down. They have 30 days to appeal the ruling. Without citizenship, Simone can be sent back to England, ABC said.
She and her adopted parents are working within the law. They sought a waiver which was denied. They have 30 days to appeal, which I assume they will do.
Do you grasp the difference between her actions and the actions of a criminal invader? She entered the U.S. legally. She's working within the legal boundaries of the system to challenge an unjust requirement.
You can't get much clearer that that, even if you typed it in Dane-ish.
Obtuse reactionaries often get that impression of me...
but shes not, she’s here on a conditional visa.
As for your bigoted opinion of FReepers ... I don't share it. Go troll some other forum with your race-baiting.
*SIGH* I love how you only underline the parts that you want to read and filter our the facts of the matter.
You’ve screwed up the facts in every post you have made.
Are you frightened that her vagina might attack someone?
Rick Perry wanted to make girls in Texas get this vaccine before he was called out on it.
Holy Heck, was this not just YESTERDAY in a Kansas newspaper??
http://www.kansas.com/news/story/968761.html
This vaccine is killing girls.
And a I'm amazed by your breathtaking ability to blatantly ignore facts.
How’s that? She’s in violation, this is clear. The extent of her punishment is the only thing that has yet to be deecided.
Would you say that Ted Bundy wasn’t a murderer until after he was done with all his court appeals?
You simply suffer from a guilty conscience. That’s something I can’t control
I'm sure there are more than a few Dane retreads wandering around FR.
They have 30 days to appeal the ruling.
You can’t control your mouth that’s for sure. I am guilty of nothing.
Drivel, rhetoric and hyperbole.
It's Dane, alright!
Are people whom are arrested for possession of drugs guilty of a crime or not? Certainly they feel that the law is in just. They may have been caught red handed and anybody who may know them. May know that they're addicts whom willfully disobey the law of the lands.
Are they in any common sense terms not guilty of until after all there trials AND appeals determined?
Go ahead, start with the weak repeated argument and grammar policing. Logic is not your friend...
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.