“Santorum had it right, why wasn’t it an ‘opt in’ instead? “
Opt in wouldn’t make it a covered vaccine.
Opt out made it a required coverage vaccine.
As far as I’m concerned, the parents who are moral and are teaching morals probably opted out - exactly the girls who are chaste.
Those raising immoral kids probably didn’t opt out. May be a good thing...
$350 is the reason. OPT IN made the vaccine insurance that much higher.
If they did, they are foolish. Eventually those girls will find husbands with unknowable exposure. Or they may be victims of rape.
Chastity does not protect you from the behavior of others.
Folks don't plan to get into accidents but carry insurance just the same. How is this different? It's managing risk.
I can't understand parents who see a vaccination as commentary on their parenting or children's moral character. It's daft. Do they believe illness is punishment for bad behavior or are they stubbornly resistant to their child's maturation into adulthood and the additional risks that will inevitably bring?
You probably described "real life" quite correctly.
Add to that the thought that those parents raising immoral kids would never consider paying the $350.00 for the vaccine, even it it might have helped their immoral kids.
The GOOD parents would have taken the option Perry put in to opt out. The other do-nothing parents would have done nothing and received a vaccine their parents didn't care enough to pay for but their daughters may have benefited from.
I am on the fence on this, especially having cared enough to home school my children. Obviously, I don't like any kind of interference of parental rights at all. But then, as I mentioned to you previously, I cared enough about my parental rights to keep my children out of government schools to begin with.