« Patraeus: "We're Just Getting Started" | Main | The Democrats Risk-Free Iraq Strategy »

TX Legislature Blocks HPV Vaccine

MSNBC story:

(...)
Republican Rep. Dennis Bonnen, the bill's House sponsor, said he believes it is fair and reasonable.

"I think the governor should see this as the Legislature making a very clear and respectful statement, and I hope he'll accept our wishes," Bonnen said.

The vaccine protects girls and women against strains of the sexually transmitted virus that cause most cases of cervical cancer and genital warts.


It's unimaginable to me that when we have a vaccine which provides a virtual 100% defense against one of the most deadly forms of cancer, that there would be so much effort to prevent its use. I wonder if there would be this much fuss if there was a vaccine against prostate cancer...


Note: Wizbang Blue is now closed and our authors have moved on. Paul Hooson can now be found at Wizbang Pop!. Please come see him there!

  • Currently 3.2/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Rating: 3.2/5 (6 votes cast)


Comments (25)

The only argument I've heard against the vaccine is that it will somehow make young women who are vaccinated "promiscuous". How anyone can believe that is beyond me....

P. Bunyan:

"a vaccine which provides a virtual 100% defense against one of the most deadly forms of cancer"

This statement is so ignorant and wrong it belongs on CBS news.

"The vaccine tested in this study has several limitations, noted NCI's Hildesheim. For one thing, the vaccine offers no protection against other types of HPV that can also cause cervical cancer. In addition, it's unknown whether the vaccine's protection against HPV-16 is long-lasting. Finally, it does not prevent HPV-16 infections already present at the time of vaccination from progressing to cancer."

Source: http://www.cancer.gov/

Of course the statement I quoted at the top of this comment was typical for a member of the fabricated reality based community.

engineer:

"...Perry made national headlines with an executive order requiring the human papillomavirus vaccine for sixth-grade girls."

Let's not leave out that it is a requirement. Convenient how when we want to argue our point, that we leave out pesky little details like that. Why is that important?

The 'required' vaccines that children receive now are for communicable disease that are spread by casual contact or airborne. These are things that people can not prevent unless you live in a bubble. This vaccine is to prevent sexual transmitted strains of the virus. That is quite a bit different than a communicable disease. It is a disease that can be prevented by a change in lifestyle.

So an argument against the vaccine could be, "Why should I (the taxpayers) pay for somebody else irresponsible lifestyle?" Let the individual decide (although a sixth grader - 11 year old - can not make a medical decision like that)if they want to partake in activity that could eventually be lethal to them.

Paul Hamilton:

P. Bunyan: You are correct that it won't reverse an existing condition. That's why you give the vaccination before the person becomes sexually active. And, BTW, I believe that it should be given to boys as well as girls since HPV affects both. And if the protection only lasts a certain time, fine, they should get another shot when it's appropriate. Just like with any other vaccination.

Paul Hamilton:

Engineer: Is it "irresponsible" if a woman doesn't have sex until marriage but her husband has not been so chaste and infects her even though she did nothing promiscuous? Besides that, sound medical practice is much more than just advocating morality. Yes, that should be a part of it since there are many other diseases out there which are spread by sexual contact for which there is no protection. But so long as we have an effective means to stop something which is definitively linked with cervical cancer, how can you morally justify saying that promiscuous sex should carry a death sentence? That is hardly a Christian, loving response to the situation.

Diogenes[TypeKey Profile Page]:

First, I do not want the government making healthcare decisions for my family.

Second, follow the money. Merck has spent a bundle on promoting Gardasil and another bundle on campaign contributions. I'm sure they're donating the serum for state mandated innoculations, right...

Paul Hamilton:

Diogenes: Do you feel the same about earlier vaccination programs which virtually wiped out polio and *did* wipe out smallpox? Why would HPV be different than these conditions, if you believe that to be the case?

And I agree with you that Big Pharma has a stake in this, but that doesn't change the fact that wiping out cervical cancer is a worthwhile goal.

P. Bunyan:

Well Paul, I see you decided to ignore the fact that this vaccine is no where near a 100% defense in your response to me.

And thanks engineer, as I was going to add the points that you addressed in this comment, but now I don't need to except to add that there is a risk in taking ANY vaccine. Very small yes, but not zero. Add that to the false sense of security this may give some young girls and there is a great potential for harm from these vaccines.

It should be a personal choice. There is no justification for forcing this on everyone. Not everyone has leftist sexual values.

Matt:

The original posting misses out on the fact that Gov Perry enacted the requirement based on executive order, trying to circumvent ANY public discussion and ignor the legislature, the body that is supposed to pass legislation, not the Govenor.

One of the problems of mandating Gardisil for HPV prevention in children, is the fact that it hasn't been tested against that age group, nor formally authorized for used in adolescents by the FDA.

An adult woman choosing to get or not get the vaccination is a far cry from FORCING a child to get a vaccination for a disease that isn't easily communicable, and that isn't a major health threat for the community.

matt:

The original posting misses out on the fact that Gov Perry enacted the requirement based on executive order, trying to circumvent ANY public discussion and ignor the legislature, the body that is supposed to pass legislation, not the Govenor.

STATEMENT IN THIS SPACE IN MY PREVIOUS POST HAS BEEN REDACTED, IT WAS WRONG.

An adult woman choosing to get or not get the vaccination is a far cry from FORCING a child to get a vaccination for a disease that isn't easily communicable, and that isn't a major health threat for the community.

Paul Hamilton:

Matt, thank you for redacting that statement in your first post. I always appreciate people who go to the trouble to learn the facts and discuss on the basis of those facts.

Paul Hamilton:

P. Bunyan, could you please define what you mean by "left-wing sexual values?"

I will say that I believe in sexual responsibility. People need to realize that any sex act carries both physical and emotional risks and that, as a rule, sex is best when confined to a long-term, mutually-monogamous relationship. That being said, I realize that not everyone shares my values on this subject and so I still wonder why anyone would think it was appropriate to add an additional, unnecessary risk for those who choose to have sex outside a monogamous relationship.

Bo:

First, and foremost, the headline of this post is grossly inaccurate. What the legislature did was to block an attempt at making the vaccine mandatory via executive order.

This vaccine is, quite honestly, too new to have been proven to be effective over the long term, and carries a risk of numerous side-effects. To make it mandatory at this point could put more girls' lives at risk than would be at risk of getting the disease it seeks to avert.

There is, however, no problem for people to choose to have their children vaccinated in Texas. They can actually still make a decision regarding their child's health on this front, something the "nanny staters" have a hard time with, obviously.

engineer:

"Engineer: Is it "irresponsible" if a woman doesn't have sex until marriage but her husband has not been so chaste and infects her even though she did nothing promiscuous?"

Fine, let her and her future husband decide to get the vaccine before she gets married, don't force it on her when she is 11 years old. And they can pay for it herself, or through their insurance. And if a girl wants to be promiscuous and engage in possible harmful activity, again let her foot the bill. Don't hand me her bill.

"But so long as we have an effective means to stop something which is definitively linked with cervical cancer, how can you morally justify saying that promiscuous sex should carry a death sentence?"

Didn't say that. I stated that it is the individual's responsibility. If they want to be promiscuous, then they should shell out the money for the vaccine themselves, or face the copnsequences of their actions.

"That is hardly a Christian, loving response to the situation."

The wages of sin is death. Pretty straight forward. Unfortunately, we live in a society that doesn't want to hear that.

Paul Hamilton:

>>And if a girl wants to be promiscuous and engage in possible harmful activity, again let her foot the bill. Don't hand me her bill.

What about my example of a woman who remained celibate until marriage but who would bear the consequences of her husband's actions?
And one more thing -- which do you think is a better use of taxpayer dollars -- the proverbial ounce of prevention or the pound of cure, if the person can be cured at all...

>>Indeed. And we are all sinners. Jesus made special note of the one guy who bragged that "at least I'm not as bad as that OTHER guy..." So my slate isn't anywhere near clean enough to say that anybody else deserves to be punished for their deeds, and especially punished with cancer. Remember that we will be forgiven by the same measure with which we forgive others.

Paul Hamilton:

I messed up the last paragraph in my note directly above. It was supposed to be in response to the following quote:

>>The wages of sin is death. Pretty straight forward. Unfortunately, we live in a society that doesn't want to hear that.

engineer:

"What about my example of a woman who remained celibate until marriage but who would bear the consequences of her husband's actions?"

Reread my post, it is answered.

"So my slate isn't anywhere near clean enough to say that anybody else deserves to be punished for their deeds, and especially punished with cancer. Remember that we will be forgiven by the same measure with which we forgive others."

Nobody's is. But again, I didn't say that 'the wages of sin is death', God through the Bible says it. And unfortunately, it is true. Paying the consequences for your actions and forgiveness are too totally different animals. You can forgive somebody for what they do, but that doesn't mean there still isn't consequences for what they do.

engineer:

"And one more thing -- which do you think is a better use of taxpayer dollars -- the proverbial ounce of prevention or the pound of cure, if the person can be cured at all..."

Free vaccines for all - $$$$$$$$ from the taxpayers

Vaccines paid by those wanting them - No taxpayer's dollars!

Abstainance - free

Wow, big difference in tax payer's dollars!

Ryan:

"Leftist sexual values" oh man, I spit coffee all over the screen. I'm just picturing him saying that in person with like a little sneer or something, LMAO.

P. Bunyan:

"P. Bunyan, could you please define what you mean by "left-wing sexual values?""

No snear at all. I meant it sincerely.

As far as a definition, well that could take a book, or at least several chapters. In this case, the simplest way I can think of to descripe the particular "value" is that leftists seem to believe that people have no controll over their actions when it comes to intercourse.

P. Bunyan:

By particular "value" I meant the particular value that applies in this thread.

(need to proof read better...)

P. Bunyan:

"picturing him saying that in person with like a little sneer or something"

FWIW, I'm very liberal sexually. I have no problem with premarital sex. Hell, I don't even mind porn or stripper joints (not that I've indulged in either since I've been married...lol). I do think that people who careless sex are stupid and anyone who calls a pregnancy an accident is disingenous at best.

I also think extra marital sex is about as horrible a thing as anyone could do and have no respect for those who do.

P. Bunyan:

I meant "indulge in careless sex..."

(darn)

Ryan:

P. Bunyan, I'm not sure about one thing you said. My wife and I have a son whose creation was, in fact, an accident. (Although he will never be considered this in anyone's eyes) We were not yet married, "finanacially unstable" would be painting a rosy picture of it, and she was using an IUD. I think that qualifies as an accident. Also, I heard someone say they don't want the federal government making decisions about their health care. Well, the federal government has already decided that you won't get polio, mumps, rubella, or diptheria which we all get vaccinated against mandatorily. Long live my right to contract polio!

P. Bunyan:

Ryan,

First, I'm glad that you didn't choose to kill you son.

Second, do you consider winning the lottery to be an accident? Having intercourse while using a form of contraception that is not 100% effective is not an accident, just bad luck. Just as winning the lottery is good luck, not an accident.

If you were walking around the bed masturbating while your girlfriend was laying nacked on the bed and you slipped on a banana peel and fell onto the bed in such a way that your penis penetrated her vagina and at that very moment you climaxed and ejaculated, then I would call that an accidental pregnancy.

One of my highschool teahers who was a civil war buff once told a story about a soldier who was shot through the penis and the bullet passed through and into the uterus of a woman who then became pregnant. I didn't believe the story, but if it actually did happen that would have been an accidental pregnancy.


Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Advertisments

Categories

Archives

Technorati



Add to Technorati Favorites

Credits

Publisher: Kevin Aylward

Editors: Lee Ward, Larkin, Paul S Hooson, and Steve Crickmore

All original content copyright © 2007 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark. Wizbang Blue™ is a trademark of Wizbang®, LLC.

Powered by Movable Type 3.35

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.