[Cincinatus' Wife]

Government should have no role in protecting their citizens from disease?

Or is it just the SEX part that you object to?

Let’s put it this way, “the shot will protect those who come into contact with those who are infected.”

If that is objectionable to you, you better make sex illegal because “innocent” people are going to die from this cancer.

[Just mythoughts]

Government should have no role in protecting their citizens from disease? Or is it just the SEX part that you object to? Let’s put it this way, “the shot will protect those who come into contact with those who are infected.” If that is objectionable to you, you better make sex illegal because “innocent” people are going to die from this cancer.

I think I understand why the Republicans are NOT throwing out ObamaCare... and why it is acceptable to give pills instead of procedures to old American grandmas so there will be plenty of money to fund sex I mean cancer drugs.

What part of 'we the people' are GOVERNMENT do you not understand, NOT a few elected high minded executors of mandates = taxes to pave the road to 'salvation'.

[DB]

I never objected to anyone who wants to get the vaccination from getting it - though I do think they should pay for it.

I stated what I object to more clearly in #24.

[annelizly]

and some innocent girls died from the vaccine. It should be the parents decision and probably the girls whether or not its worth the risk. It shouldn’t be the governments job to force parents to have their daughters innoculated with a new and untried drug.