Go Perry!
In 2005, a cure for cervical cancer was announced and subsequently approved by the FDA, but a bunch of hard-right nutjobs tried to block the distribution of the vaccine, under the patently stupid excuse that it would encourage their teenage daughters to immediately go haring off on wild sexual escapades.
While I'm still baffled how they got from "cure for cancer" to "sexual abandon," at least Governor Perry of Texas, (whom I normally consider to be a useless, empty hair-piece), is standing firm against these deluded twits by insisting on mandatory cervical cancer vaccinations for all girls in Texas. Even more astonishing, Perry backed up his decision by saying something insightful:
Hrm. Perhaps he's not quite the political tool I thought he was... I shall re-evaluate my stance.
As for the continued opposition of "concerned parents," if you're so worried about your daughters flopping to the ground and spreading their legs at the first opportunity, perhaps you'd be well-advised to look closer to home for the problem. And you should probably seek the advice of a mental health professional, while you're about it -- for yourselves, not your daughters.
While I'm still baffled how they got from "cure for cancer" to "sexual abandon," at least Governor Perry of Texas, (whom I normally consider to be a useless, empty hair-piece), is standing firm against these deluded twits by insisting on mandatory cervical cancer vaccinations for all girls in Texas. Even more astonishing, Perry backed up his decision by saying something insightful:
Governor Perry, a Republican and conservative Christian who stands against abortion and embryonic stem-cell research, disagrees that the vaccine will encourage promiscuity any more than the Hepatitis B vaccine encourages people to take drugs, and he challenged the critics by asking them if they would oppose a cure for lung cancer on the grounds that it might encourage people to take up smoking.
Hrm. Perhaps he's not quite the political tool I thought he was... I shall re-evaluate my stance.
As for the continued opposition of "concerned parents," if you're so worried about your daughters flopping to the ground and spreading their legs at the first opportunity, perhaps you'd be well-advised to look closer to home for the problem. And you should probably seek the advice of a mental health professional, while you're about it -- for yourselves, not your daughters.
posted by Jar(egg)head at 08:02
7 Comments:
I don't buy the line that taking the shot would make them more promiscuous either. What I have a problem with is my government TELLING me that they decided I must have my daughter take a shot for her own good that has no consequence for her classmates and is unproven for effectiveness and side effects over the long-term. Not to mention that this decision was just made by executive order without representation.
Had this instead been a opt-in program that strongly suggested that as a parent you consider the benefits and possibly avail yourself to the state-sponsored program, I would be all for it.
If this were a viral plague that would potentially harm others around my children while at school, I would also feel differently, but it's not.
I believe that I should retain the right to choose for my children when my choice does not affect other children around them.
I heard that next year the government is going to require that all first grade children take a fat pill to keep them from becoming obese. Following that, there's a shot in the works to make sure that their eyes are blue and their hair blond.
Interesting... So you do you support the right of parents to deny their children modern medical care -- even to the point of allowing them to die -- based upon an absolutist interpretation of First Amendment religious freedom? You're walking a very fine line of choice.
If the minor doesn't have the right to choose, and I will concede that as a workable legal definition of the concept, then can parents be held criminally liable in the event of causal fatality? And if so, where do you draw the line between cases, because your argument puts you at least nominally in the same camp as Christian Scientists.
I don't deny that government over-reach is to be guarded against and that science, (real science, not the Christian variety), should be brought to bear equally with civil rights considerations. The problem is that someone has to decide where that line is, and then enforce it.
If paranoia costs someone more money, (i.e. - refusal to get a "discount card" at their local grocery store in the belief that such action will preserve their privacy), then that is their choice and the consequences are both minor and equitable. But if a human death is incurred due to such action, the legalities get much murkier.
No, I do not support the right of parents to deny their children modern medical care. I support the right of parents to have a choice, or at least a say in the development and wellbeing of their children and not have that right taken away from them by the government without discussion.
FYI, when my daughter is of age, I more than likely will pay for this vaccination myself. I just want that choice since there is no evidence that can show that if I choose not to have her vaccinated, that anyone else will be harmed, including my daughter.
The point is that my and my daughters rights of choice are being taken away. Like I said earlier, have a state sponsored, highly suggested recommendation to have them vaccinated. As a tax payer, I'll even support offsetting the cost for those who cannot afford it. But don't unilaterally decide without discussion that everyone must comply or not be allowed to attend school.
As for the religious side of this argument, I could care less. I actually agree with your stance on organized, fear-mongering religion, so that has absolutely no bearing on my stance.
We elect our government to protect us from threats, foreign and domestic. To me, that includes protecting our right to choose, which is why most of us live where we do today. Admittedly, some people should not have that right, but you can't legislate everyone just to protect the few.
All I am saying is that the executive order should be an opt-in program instead of one that without any discussion takes away my rights as a parent to choose what is best for my daughter. This has nothing to do what-so-ever with religion or public health in my opinion.
As a middle-aged male, you are at a genetic predisposition for alcohol dependence based on scientific study. By order of the state of Texas and this Governor, you are hereby ordered to attend weekly AA meetings as a precondition to obtaining a work permit. God save Hillary!
It's the same argument. Whether you approach it from a First Amendment perspective, a Fourth Amendment interpretation, or simply as procedural oversight in government, it all boils down to the same argument: where the line is drawn and who draws it.
Health hazards from second-hand smoke are bunk; the science behind it was rigged by special interests. Yet that bad science is driving a whirlpool of anti-smoking legislation.
I do not favor a nanny-state mentality; neither do I favor medicine being driven by ignorance, religion, and politics. The latter is what Perry is trying to prevent. Freedom of choice is a very powerful thing, and it is in many ways the core foundation of American culture. But when you allow that freedom of choice to extend to proven endangerment, (over a possible extrapolated endangerment), you're walking a very tight rope over a very big chasm. It becomes, in essence, precautionary principle politics, and no good ever comes from such.
On the third hand, and all hi-falutin' philosophy aside, perhaps that's what this really comes down to: liability. By mandating it, the government is removing the possibility that they could be held liable for not providing the vaccine to minors. That's a cynical way to look at it, but it's just as possible as the more optimistic interpretation, I suppose.
I truly do not wish to see your right to choose taken away. And while you in particular aren't going to deliberately endanger a child to satisfy some imagined principle, there are plenty of wackos out there who would take that opportunity if presented with it. So my other choice is to simply not give a damn about the entire issue. Given that choice, I'll take mandatory vaccination.
This is not new. Mandatory vaccinations for preservation of the public health have been done for some time. The following address explains fairly well.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/RS21414.pdf
The next address gives a good argument against:
http://www.newcoalition.org/Article.cfm?artId=702
I can see good points to both arguments. A comprehensive review of all mandatory vaccinations with an emphasis on proving it is for the greater good is needed. There should also be room to make allowances for special circumstances. I for one do not usually agree with one-solution fits all occurrences. In the event that an open to the public review stands up to scrutiny I would lean toward government having the authority to mandate it. I base this off the idea that not all parents are good advocates for their children. The government does need to have some authority in regards to the public health. Without it they would not have much ability to protect the public in the event of an outbreak.
Most situations involving government power require good checks and balances to keep it honest. This is what the constitution was all about for the most part. Laying down rights and freedoms and putting strict guidelines on what authority the government had over the countries populace. Based off of some of the statements from the second article there does not seem to be enough checks and balances. Not that it’s an easy thing as all involved need to be watched for motive.
In this instance it appears that mandatory vaccinations would reduce the spread of the virus and save lives. If this is true than the government has a good case for making it mandatory. That said, what are the side effects and will it endanger lives that would not have been otherwise. This needs to be part of the evaluation process.
Contrary to popular belief I do not believe that managing the rights and safety of millions of people to be an easy thing. It is very complex and should always involve a lot of research and discussion. As long as you don’t drag it on so long that it’s to late to act.
Anyway, just my two cents worth.
Later
The long-term results from testing are not known. So your argument about liability concerns works both ways. I'm not basing my argument on this, but; What if.... the long-term results find that some other form of really bad thing happens to those immunized. What then? Did the Government open themselves up to a can of worms or what?
By setting guidelines, recommendations and making it easy for parents to make the right choice, they take away that downside without removing rights for whatever reason you wish to stand behind; be it religious, constitutional or whatever.
You talk about the chasm and who draws the line. I personally do not want the government making my decisions and deciding for me where to draw the line when it does not make sense for the majority as it doesn't in this case.
Curt talks about the two web sites and how they both have merit. Read the first one and look at the diseases they list where there are required immunizations. These I understand and agree with. Why? Because they are all communicable diseases that you can contract by proximity. HPV can only (as far as I know) be contracted by sexual activity.
Again I draw the parallel to what's next? It's not a far stretch to compare the 9700 new cases of cervical cancer per year with 3700 deaths attributed, to the 112,000 Obesity deaths per year relative to healthy weight individuals.
Using that logic, shouldn't the government be mandating liposuction as a prerequisite for public school? Why can't they fix that problem? Oh, that's right, they did and it's called P.E.
I know it's a stretch, but the point is that the government is mandating a treatment for a disease that is not communicable via normal contact. Without knowing the long-term effects. Without there being a public threat to others without their consent. And in my opinion, probably the most important, without the weight of public opinion and debate.
I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on this one.
Ok, ok.... Just one more bit of info that I came across today.
The vaccine is mandated and will cost $$ per child to participate.
There is an opt-out for basically any reason you see fit, just fill-out the paperwork and submit to the school.
So, who do you think will choose to opt-out? That's right, those that you say you want to force into child protection since they can't make rational decisions for the welfare of their children on their own. This will be one decision for that group that will be easy for them to make. $$ out of pocket or fill out a form? Hummmmm.... I think I'll take the free form.
Even if the state funds or partially funds the injections, the low-life parents who's children you are trying to protect will more than likely choose not to take off work without pay and just opt-out.
Just another thought. Ya'll have a great day!
Post a Comment
<< Home