Third Party & Independents Archives

Still a Woman's Right to Her Body?

An aggressive nationwide movement to force schoolgirls into the clinic for vaccination against a virus that causes cervical cancer has come to a halt - at least for now - in Texas.

Republican Governor Rick Perry had signed an execute order requiring that sixth-grade girls be vaccinated against some strains of human papillomavirus (HPV), a sexually transmitted virus that causes most cases of cervical cancer. According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, about one in four U.S. women ages 14 to 59 is infected with it.

But the Texas House voted 118-23 last Wednesday to approve a bill that would keep the vaccine off the list of required shots for school participation and instead make them voluntary. The measure now goes to the state Senate where a majority of members are co-sponsoring an identical bill.

If the governor decides to continue angering his conservative base and veto the bill that would oppose his plan and make the vaccines optional, the 118 votes against him would be more than enough to override it.

In New Mexico, Democratic governor and presidential hopeful Bill Richardson is expected to sign a bill this week that would make it mandatory for girls in that state to be vaccinated long before nearing high school, and talk of similar laws is brewing in other states.

In plain language, these laws state: HPV is a sexually transmitted virus, and even though not every child is sexually active we want to vaccinate them anyway because we have no faith in them or their parents.

But aren't we supposed to discourage underage girls from a premature sexual lifestyle? How do we explain to them that they must receive a vaccination against a virus that they can only get from having sex, but at the same time tell them about the importance of abstinence?

Or have we just thrown in the towel and accepted that in today's time most young school girls are sexually active? It's nothing short of shameful that there exists a lobby taking the defeatist road and failing to acknowledge the fact that requiring schoolgirls who do abstain from sex before losing interest in their Barbie doll collections are being insulted and treated as untrustworthy.

We don't distribute clean needles at homeroom because, let’s face it - there's a drug problem in our schools and a lack of clean needles exposes our youth to HIV. But we do shoot them up with vaccines because underage sex is sadly a more acceptable practice than drug use. We wouldn't dare consider a "safe needle program" in middle schools, but vaccines that protect the sexually active is deemed okay because it's inevitable.

Ironically, it's the liberals and champions of abortion and "Women's Rights" that are most supportive of legislation that would require young girls to receive a vaccination with inherent medical risks (albeit smaller than the benefits) unless they or their parents take proactive steps to waive it.

Are we no longer screaming that government has "no right to our bodies" because it's a "woman’s choice?" If not, tell that to the thousands of schoolgirls who will be marched into clinics next year with their sleeves rolled up without choice if they want to continue their studies.

Vaccinations should always be optional, especially those that only benefit the sexually active. Forcing everyone to be vaccinated sends the wrong message, just as handing out clean needles would be too.

Posted by Scottie at March 17, 2007 3:39 PM
Comments
Comment #212529
Scottie wrote:Vaccinations should always be optional, especially those that only benefit the sexually active. Forcing everyone to be vaccinated sends the wrong message, just as handing out clean needles would be too.

Vaccinations should be optional when rejecting them does not pose a threat to others that can’t avoid the danger. It’s hard to live in any society without affecting it. Society has a right to impose laws to protect others from those that endanger their health. That’s the basis of a quarantine. Polio, Small Pox, etc.

However, it is ridiculous to force this HPV vaccine on anyone. It’s available for those that want it, but forcing it onto women is wrong, because the government has no business forcing anyone to do anything that doesn’t harm anyone one else by not doing so. That is, for those women that don’t want the vaccine, how did they violate any one else’s rights by refusing the vaccine.

I live in Texas.
Rick Perry don’t get it.
He hasn’t a clue about individual rights.
It’s disturbing that someone without a clue can climb to the office of governor.

But, then why should anyone be surprised?
Look at Congress
It’s as bad (or worse).

Posted by: d.a.n at March 17, 2007 5:36 PM
Comment #212539

Gotta agree with d.a.n on this one. Make it available, subsidize it to make it cheap, and most will over time opt in as a precautionary measure.

Yes, some teen girls will contract the cancerous contagion, but, then it would be the parent’s and girl’s responsibility, not the States. Methinks Tx. Gov. Perry is in the hip pocket of the pharmaceutical companies like Tx. Gov. GW Bush was with the OIL companies.

We will be making an appointment on Monday for our 16 year old daughter, though we know she is not yet ready to be exposed. It is a wise precaution to take before she is exposed, and does her no good afterward.

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 17, 2007 6:51 PM
Comment #212548

I think this is a tough one….
First, it’s kind of like apples and oranges. No way can a vaccination be compared to an abortion. Granted, there is a small number of women who consider an abortion as just another form or birth control, and I personally find that abhorrent. Also granted, the testing of this vaccine is not what some feel to be adequate to release for general use. As a totally personal comment, though, if it actually saves lives and prevents this certain form of cancer, then I’m for it. Obviously the need to do it at such a young age, is because it must be administered before any sexual activity begins. That leads us all back to another subject that will never allow minds to meet on……….

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at March 17, 2007 8:39 PM
Comment #212551

I can’t see why there is anymore hubbub about this than the other vaccines that are mandated by law such as those for mumps, measles etc… The fact that HPV is transmitted sexually should not be a factor; people don’t drink water with feces in it saying, “It doesn’t matter if it has cholera in it, antibiotics will cure me.” The same logic works for HPV, I can hardly imagine someone who would be willing to engage in a risky behavior like sex doing so merely because they have a vaccine against one of the numerous STDs that exist.

Posted by: Warren P at March 17, 2007 9:02 PM
Comment #212559

Being given a vaccine that may prevent cancer down the road will encourage girls to have sex?

Unbelievable.

Posted by: womanmarine at March 17, 2007 10:33 PM
Comment #212563

This one is a difficult one. I am on both sides of the road on this one. I don’t like government intrusion.
Now on the other side of the coin, this beautiful young lady who has never had sex before marrage and her soon to be spouse, who may or may not have had premarital sex, could be the person to infect her. We do not test for this prior to marrage so who is to say that even if you do abstain that you will not be exposed, then their is always rape, incest, ect.
Where do we draw the line, when I was a kid we didn’t get vaccines for Chicken Pox now my kids under 5 are being vaccinated for this disease that rearely kills. If you are unvaccinated for this then you will not be allowed to attend public school. We opened this pandoras box many years ago and now have to deal with the results of it.
Where do we draw the line, and everyone will draw the line differently then others. On the whole I agree with this vaccination for it will save all users of health care billions if not trillions of dollars. We can not know what others have done or will do all we can do is give them the best tools to survive.
Think this one through! I was initally very upset when I became aware of this manditory vaccination.
Two days later I was reading a story of how a whole wresteling team from the mid-west contracted Hepititus (sp) from an opposing team during a match. Can this disease be spread blood to blood? If the answer is yes then two virgens after marrage can infect the other. I know this is a remote possibility, but when speaking to a co-worker about this who has a teen-aged daughter really thought it through. His anger over the situation subsided and still disagrees with the idea but can understand the reasoning and even accept that this may be in the best interest of all young ladies out their.

Posted by: timesend at March 17, 2007 11:02 PM
Comment #212571

When does polio kick in? Much later than the Vaccination. HPV… if there’s a Vaccine that can help and prevent problems later in life, then lets get it done.

Then again, this may be a global warming issue all over again. Who knows. Better to be sorry than safe.

Posted by: bandman at March 18, 2007 1:35 AM
Comment #212574

I think the vaccine is probably a good thing.

I think Rick Perry is an arrogant ass.

What threw the kink in the works was his political ties to Merck. His order provided Merck with gauranteed profits on the backs of middle class Texans in the range of $300-500 per female child.

As to vaccines required for school children, they are for communicable diseases, not STD’s.

I think once it is demonstrated to be effective and safe, most parents will gladly vaccinate their daughters. No-one likes to be force fed a new tax.

Since Merck is so noble, perhaps they could kick in their profits.


Posted by: gergle at March 18, 2007 1:55 AM
Comment #212578

I never really understood why it should be girls who should bear the burden of being a virgin. Boys are far more aggressive in the pursuit of sex. There should be a law that requires hysterectomies on male teenagers until they are married. Since boys are fewer than girls, this method would actually be cheaper.

Posted by: Juan dela Cruz at March 18, 2007 4:52 AM
Comment #212652

Juan

I don’t know where to begin with you. Was this a joke? Do you know what a hysterectomy is?

Posted by: gergle at March 18, 2007 11:43 PM
Comment #212680

This one is a no brainer for me. HPV is a sexually transmitted disease which a woman can contract thro’ SI at any time in her life. She doesn’t have to be a teenager to be susceptible to it. However, the vaccine is most effective when administered to young women who have not yet become sexually active. Therefore that it the best time to administer it.

Of course such vaccination should be voluntary. However, I think that any parent who would refuse such a voluntary vaccination program needs to have their heads examined. Its probably safe to assume that most females are at some point in their lives going to become sexually active with males ( at least the heterosexual ones). That means that they are going to be exposed to the risk of HPV, and by extension to ovarian cancer. The time to administer this vaccine is when they are in their teen years. Like a said, a no brainer.

Posted by: Paul in Euroland at March 19, 2007 11:35 AM
Comment #212692
But we do shoot them up with vaccines because underage sex is sadly a more acceptable practice than drug use. We wouldn’t dare consider a “safe needle program” in middle schools, but vaccines that protect the sexually active is deemed okay because it’s inevitable.

Except if you’re for women lifetime sex abstinance, indeed it’s inevitable.
As you’re comparing sex with drug, I guess you’re equally against alcohol and cigarettes. Maybe we should not teach in school how bad these laters could be bad for their health too.

Better not speaking about reality (girls have sex?! shocking!!!) and safety (condoms breaks more often than abstinence oath) than stopping pure puritanism.

Are you, at least, for optional BUT free HPV vaccine? If not even, why? Does only wealthy girls have rights to their body?

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at March 19, 2007 1:06 PM
Comment #212696

Juan,

There should be a law that requires hysterectomies on male teenagers until they are married.

LOL.

Since boys are fewer than girls, this method would actually be cheaper.

This method would actually be totally free (as in beer). Indeed, boys with uterus are (way) fewer than girls.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at March 19, 2007 1:10 PM
Comment #212698

womanmarine,

Being given a vaccine that may prevent cancer down the road will encourage girls to have sex?

Didn’t you get the (religious?) right memo?
Girls don’t have sex only because their fear cancer and God. That’s a well known fact. You should know better your facts!
;-)

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at March 19, 2007 1:16 PM
Comment #212701

Oh, BTW:

How do we explain to them that they must receive a vaccination against a virus that they can only get from having sex, but at the same time tell them about the importance of abstinence?

Easy: tell them such virus don’t care how long you were abstinent (if ever) before having sex.

Easier: say them dad and mam had sex too, but were lucky so far mam didn’t get this virus.

Easiest: tell them you love them and whatever they’ll do regarding sex in the future, this virus should not pass (Gandalf loud voice not required).

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at March 19, 2007 1:26 PM
Comment #212730

Philippe:

Thank you!! You made me smile, and you say it so much better than I have.

The only girls who shouldn’t have the vaccination are those who will NEVER have sex. Tell that to your daughters.

Posted by: womanmarine at March 19, 2007 4:33 PM
Comment #212783

How is it somehow sexist to insist these women need a little injection of some kind from time to time? I say poke ‘em all.

(kidding)

I hate how we have bureaucratic nannies over our bodies but these very same people who try to keep us from smoking in our own livingrooms (and as of late even our cars) now are culminating from a party (my own unfortunately) that insists a woman has a right to choose what happens to her own body.

Why the ‘F’ don’t we all have these rights? We aren’t entitled or is it a socialist/communisto system and we are but the pawns in it’s bureaucratic making.

Yuppies must die—ALL OF THEM!!! (wow, that felt great.)

Posted by: Gleep the monkey at March 19, 2007 9:42 PM
Comment #212810

Gleep the monkey,

Yuppies must die—ALL OF THEM!!! (wow, that felt great.)

As everybody, they will.
Feel better now?

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at March 20, 2007 3:30 AM
Comment #212841

Philippe, the point is this should be a parents choice as well as that of the teen. This is an incursion on their rights as individuals for some nonsenses of state. I mean think about it how many STD infestations level out school populations? Decimate the prom, WTF is that? Answer: People who can’t leave people the hell alone—yuppies. It’s more of that Clintonesque commie state stuff with Bill Richardson at the center, no less. Clinton’s ex-energy secretary.

Why can’t my democrats leave people alone? The children of the upper class coming down off their socialist campus-commie ivory tower telling all of us unwashed masses how to live, forcing us into cues and lines and regulations and new state costs just because of an unjust idiotic fear of what?

Women have cervixes—we git’ it! Mein Fuhrer wants all people to live in little boxes based upon the yuppie state manifesto based on an unjustified fear. STD’s are not a problem in Highschool—they just aren’t.

The medical industry makes money hand over fist, we have to go by the ruleplay of a bunch of people with nothing better to do but make us all live in their “village”. A non-smoking cervical sex free socialist state run by the baby-boomer misfit yuppies. That’s my point—yuppies must die—all of them or find something else to do you collegiate campus commies! Very simple they need to MTOB and stay out of our vaginas and lungs and workplaces and jobs and bedrooms and livingrooms and anywhere else they unjustly set up bureaucratic camp to tax us further for nothing. These are our lives and Marxist fascism is not an option in America—we don’t want it.

Upperclass yuppie baby-boomer rulemachers, must die—all of them.

Posted by: Gleep the chimp at March 20, 2007 11:17 AM
Comment #212874
Philippe, the point is this should be a parents choice as well as that of the teen. This is an incursion on their rights as individuals for some nonsenses of state.

This vaccine not only protect quite 100% from get a cervus cancer in the long term, but it break HPV epidemiology. Condoms don’t protect from HPV enough, that’s proven. While it’s, agreed, up to your own rights as individuals to get the shot or not, it’s not your own rights to help spreading HPV because you don’t care about your sexual partner(s).

As always with indidual freedooms and rights, they stop where the other people’s ones start. You’re free to get a cervus cancer if you want, but you’re not free to consciously contaminate your sexual partners.

That’s funny you’ve nothing to oppose to the other mandatory vaccines. Why this one?
What? No way, they say “sex”, “genital”, “cervus” about its purpose description?!

Yes. They also say “cancer” and “protect” and “100%” and “HPV epidemiology”.
Strangly, you choose to focus on the first group of words, not the second one.
One may wonder why…

STD’s are not a problem in Highschool—they just aren’t.

I didn’t knew the US teens first sexual encouter average age was over 18. Care to provide a link backing your claim?

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at March 20, 2007 2:02 PM
Comment #212911

If this vaccine were proven to be 100% effective against HPV that fact would go along way towards an acceptance and use of the vaccine. It being new and introduced as manditory is bound to raise fears. Hell if a politician told me I had to eat a bologna sandwich I would be lookin’ at him a little sideways.

That’s not a sandwich made in Bologna. It’s made out of… oh, well. Maybe a bad example.

My point is this. If I choose not to eat the bologna sandwich and I starve to death then my life insurance carrier has no obligation towards me.
The same could be made obvious about this vaccine. It is available, it works, if you don’t use it no insurance company is liable for the cost of treating this cancer.
This would be effective in detering driving while intoxicated. If you break the law no insurance company is going to bail you out.
Choice is perserved. Individual responsibility for the choice is preserved.

Posted by: catastrophyinprogress at March 20, 2007 5:53 PM
Comment #212927

Except catastrophyinpro, with no insurance company to bail out the drunken driver, who is going to bail out his victim if he is a man of straw?

More to the point, as the issue raised is about vaccination of minors, surely responsible parents will make a careful judgment on how best to protect their daughters, of course in consultation. As the father of a teen daughter, this is something I have raised with my wife and we are agreed that it is a sensible precaution.

Posted by: Paul in Euroland at March 20, 2007 8:30 PM
Comment #212931
It is available, it works, if you don’t use it no insurance company is liable for the cost of treating this cancer.

Agreed, but unfortunatly it doesn’t stop there.
HPV is a STD. It can survive during months. Meanwhile you will pass it to your sexual partners, even if condoms are used. It’s not *only* a question of individual responsability. People are consciously taking risk for themselves but also for others. It’s like passive smoking, driving unsafely (drugs, alcohol, no seat belt, whatever).

I don’t care about these people. They choosed it. They must face alone the consequences.
I care about the people these people, by their egoist irresponsability, could be exposed to the same consequences AGAINST their individual choice and responsability.

By their opposition, they’re making herd immunity aim way more later for plain puritanism reason.
Public health is not limited to individuals. The whole population health matters too. In fact, in virology, it often matters more at first.

Again, why nobody today oppose smallpox, polio, typhus or rubella *mandatory* vaccine? Aren’t they all breaking individual rights too?
Why only this one?

Who can convince me it’s not because we’re talking about a Sexually Transmitted Decease. This opposition smell puritanist, like AIDS ignorance in 80’s smelled homophobic.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at March 20, 2007 8:38 PM
Comment #212971

Nobody to, at least, try to convince me it’s not all about the S*x word?

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at March 21, 2007 6:20 AM
Comment #213074

I guess not.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at March 21, 2007 6:25 PM
Comment #213111

Philippe, it’s someone elses body not the government’s body—my point. People have the right to have cervical cancer if they choose as well. STD’s are a rarity by statistics amongst those teen demographic and the question still resounds “IS IT SAFE ENTIRELY?”. The question isn’t sexuality or prudishness, it’s about a government coming down of a very expensive well-lobbied pedestal and mandating all have to have this shot at the tax-payers expense when there was no massive infestation or “plight” prior like a yellow fever epidemic.

Simple point.

Posted by: Gleep at March 21, 2007 8:23 PM
Comment #213162
People have the right to have cervical cancer if they choose as well.

But they don’t have right to help spreading the most deadly HPV strains.
And they don’t have right to expect the society will pay for trying to cure them from cervical cancer they got by conscious risky behavior.

What? The risky behavior here is having sex, not opposing vaccination?
Yeah, right. A nation who stop having sex will not last long. Problem solved. Alas, we do know how humankind is good at having no sex at all…

STD’s are a rarity by statistics amongst those teen demographic

About half of all new STDs/STIs in 2000 occurred among youth ages 15 to 24. Yes, that 50% “rarity”.
Check it in CDC’s STDs reports. I can’t believe it drop to zero in 7 years, even with religious right being in power at the White House.

But who care about STD. These teen girls should not have sex! (Gandalf loud void required, afterall). Right?

Keep closing your eyes on reality - 2006’s 30000 of american womem cervus cancer, 4000 dying from it - until they actually do that.

I guess not every 4000 lost lives are equal. 9/11 victims and soldiers ones matters way more, deserved strong patriotism reaction (and two wars, one unrelated), but your girls don’t deserve a vaccine shot to protect them from getting a cervus cancer in 30 years.

Weird culture of life.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at March 22, 2007 5:15 AM
Comment #213203

Philippe, point to the grandscale epidemic plague (questionable), it’s actual numbers and you’ll see the rarity of this viral strain. I think Europeans and Canadians see this differently from us in the US where fascisme has come and passed. No one has heard of this rarer strain before they MADE-UP this whole EMERGENCY TO TREAT. It’s bogus and rare and yet the tax-payer has to absob the cost on something that is largely useless to give out as a general treatment.

Maybe we could get it BUT HAVING SEX WITH A MINOR IN THE US IS ABSOLUTELY ILLEGAL (under 17 in most states). So that may not be the demographic eh?

Hyperbole danger Philippe, a hyperbole danger. In other words the panic begets a rediculous ansewer to those in the least of danger and those least likely to spread it or even have it.

Posted by: Gleep at March 22, 2007 11:47 AM
Comment #213225
the tax-payer has to absob the cost on something that is largely useless to give out as a general treatment.

Protect women from getting a future cervus cancer is largely useless?

Yeah, you’re right, prevention is so yesterday.
Just wait and see.

HAVING SEX WITH A MINOR IN THE US IS ABSOLUTELY ILLEGAL (under 17 in most states).

Even when all parties are minors?
Whatever. Making it illegal doesn’t protect from STDs. Being fully legal when major doesn’t either.

Virus don’t care one bit. Cancer too.
Only us, human, care about them. Or not.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at March 22, 2007 2:05 PM
Comment #213282

Philippe,

Women can also go to a doctor and have this done for themselves at 21 should they so choose. As far as I know it is something quite available by appointment—let’s not legislate where it is not needed.

If they have concerns individually they can go see someone.

Posted by: Gleep at March 22, 2007 9:06 PM
Comment #214134

Gleep, how many women at 21 will already had sexual relations?

This vaccine works if taken *before* first sexual relation. Are you willing to bet that NO women will have sexual relation before going to a doctor by themselves?

Again, you seem to focus only on individual rights and, eventually on the first STD letter, when I’m worried more about the two laters. Transmist a decease is not an individual right, sorry.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at March 28, 2007 10:34 AM
Comment #421906

This post looks very nice, I like to read it.

Posted by: propertylondon.net at November 24, 2017 4:19 AM
Post a comment