[bhamblin]

BREITBART.COM - Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls

Yes, there is an opt-out...but most people will hear "mandatory" and acquiesce without question. I'd love to say this was the governor of Texas trying to address a health concern, but the lobbyist fingers are waaaay too deep in this for me to say that with a straight face.

[houstonmacbro]

As a Texan I should feel good about this. Why does this MANDATE and ORDER strike fear in me though?

[bhamblin]

Originally Posted by houstonmacbro 

As a Texan I should feel good about this. Why does this MANDATE and ORDER strike fear in me though?

It's quite disturbing to me. Government intrusion upon citizens' lives in the name of "protection" is nothing new, but I am wholeheartedly opposed to forced vaccination of any kind, especially when it is dripping with being motivated by special interests.

Combine this with Congress trying to institute psychological testing of all children without parents' consent, and it goes from a nanny state to outright control.

[houstonmacbro]

Yeah, AND if this right wing, God-led country --where morals are so prevalent ... ha-- is so sure our children are not having sex, then WHY are we forcing them to have a vaccine against it.

seems like a bunch of double-speak to me.

also, as an african american who has read about and never forgotten some of the things government has done to black folks in the name of testing and science, i am vehemently opposed to forced vaccinations such as this. polio and whooping cough are one thing, stds are quite another.

and have these drugs been tested long-term? it sounds rushed to me.

[houstonmacbro]

Oh yeah, and for the record I voted against Governor Perry. He is icky.

[lpkmckenna]

A vaccine against cervical cancer? Who could be against that? (Oh yeah: nut-bars.)

[bhamblin]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

A vaccine against cervical cancer? Who could be against that? (Oh yeah: nut-bars.)

I'm not against the vaccine; I'm against government making it a requirement to receive it.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

A vaccine against cervical cancer? Who could be against that? (Oh yeah: nut-bars.)

I'm not against puppies, either, but I am against the state forcing puppies on people who don't want them for some reason.

[Nicko]

Originally Posted by bhamblin 

I'm not against the vaccine; I'm against government making it a requirement to receive it.

Why don't you just come out and admit you're pro-cancer?

Seriously though, apart from some kind of vague notion of 'freedom' being trampled in initiatives such as this, where does the paranoia end? Something like 70% of the population carry the virus that causes this cancer, the only way to stop it is to have everyone vaccinated.

[RAILhead]

Just for the record, you can get cervical cancer in more ways than just sexual intercourse.

That said, I'm not thrilled about this. What is people of a certain faith are against medications, etc.? This won't last too long...

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Aren't vaccinations mandatory as it is? We have mandatory vaccinations in Canada. I don't know what for exactly...measles maybe? I dunno, there's a couple needles you have to get during the school years.

greg

[vmarks]

This is not some "vague notion of freedom" - our bodies belong to us, not the government. Therefore, we have the final say in what will or will not be done to them.

Children's bodies are in their parent's care and custodianship, not the state's. Suggesting otherwise is probably the best illustration of the words "Nanny State" one can come up with.

[Face Ache]

Texas allows parents to opt out of inoculations by filing an affidavit stating that he or she objected to the vaccine for religious or philosophical reasons.

Same as for all other standard vaccines.

Scare-mongering, much?

[bhamblin]

Originally Posted by Face Ache 

Same as for all other standard vaccines.

Scare-mongering, much?

No, I clearly mentioned that part; however, many people believe government mandates to mean they have no choice and will go along without question. Yes, it's up to them to research their alternatives, but then again the government should make it equally as clear that there is a choice when announcing such measures.

[Face Ache]

Originally Posted by bhamblin 

No, I clearly mentioned that part; however, many people believe government mandates to mean they have no choice and will go along without question. Yes, it's up to them to research their alternatives, but then again the government should make it equally as clear that there is a choice when announcing such measures.

Yeah I meant the article was scare-mongering, not you.

The people who opt out of vaccines tend to be ferals and hippies. If you leave it up to the masses to educate themselves, we'll have polio and smallpox outbreaks again. Better to make it easier to just play along, eh?

[bhamblin]

Originally Posted by Face Ache 

Yeah I meant the article was scare-mongering, not you.

The people who opt out of vaccines tend to be ferals and hippies. If you leave it up to the masses to educate themselves, we'll have polio and smallpox outbreaks again. Better to make it easier to just play along, eh?

Ah, gotcha.

[Kevin]

What if I WANT to get this? SEXISM!@

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Again, I ask...aren't there already mandatory vaccinations in the States? You know, measles and maybe TB and polio and the like? I'm confused as to why a mandatory vaccination against a deadly disease is such a big deal.

greg

[lpkmckenna]

When dealing with infectious diseases, discussion of freedom takes a back seat. It's not irrelevant, but it's no longer the most important issue.

No one can claim the right to spread inflection. Many vaccinations are mandatory. If opt-out is present, there are typically public repercussions. Your kid can opt-out of a measles vaccine, but he won't be attending public school as a consequence.

I think this vaccine could be applied in the same way, but it doesn't need to happen immediately. After 10 years of medical stats, the benefits will be clearer and legislators can push for mandatory vaccination.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Again, I ask...aren't there already mandatory vaccinations in the States? You know, measles and maybe TB and polio and the like? I'm confused as to why a mandatory vaccination against a deadly disease is such a big deal.

greg

My understanding is that vaccinations are not truly compulsory in the US, but they are required for entrance into schools, making them de facto compulsory for most everyone. But that's a state issue, and it may vary from state to state.

[mitchell_pgh]

I'm just amazed at some of the comments on this thread. These vaccines are exactly why the government is good. Without it, most poor families couldn't afford the shot.

I'm guessing that everyone in the state of Texas will end up paying somewhere around 25¢ to ensure that this specific type of cancer is eradicated.

Don't worry ultra-conservatives and ultra-liberals... there are still plenty of STDs out there to scare your children into not having sex and you can always opt out.

[vmarks]

No one is opposed to this in order to have something to scare children with.

It's the matter that the government is positioning this as mandatory, when there is an opt-out. This ought to be opt-in.

Is it the proper role of government to enforce mandatory vaccines?
Congress placed price controls on child vaccines in 1993. These don't apply to new vaccines, so MFRs are motivated to introduce new vaccines mandatory vaccines that aren't covered by the price controls.

There's a limit on how much parents can receive as an award if their child is harmed or dies due to a mandatory vaccine. That amount is $250,000 USD.

Congress enacted the 'National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986' (PL 99-660). This law created a Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) which is administered jointly by the U.S. Federal Claims Court, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and the Department of Justice (DOJ).

So if you believe your child has been harmed by a vaccine, first you have to apply for compensation to the government (oh yes, the same government that pressured / forced you into getting the vaccine) and if that claim is rejected, file lawsuit against the MFR.

The maximum compensation is $250k.

Hep B vaccination is required for all children. Children who don't have it will be refused entry into the public school system. But wait - Hep B doesn't occur in children - it occurs in prostitutes and intravenous drug users. Why vaccinate children?

Because the government has a hard time getting prostitutes and drug users to show up for shots. Something about them being wary of government.

Let government work on the education of risks and benefits of vaccination. Stop government from pressuring people into it.

The health choices for children belong with their parents. Period.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

What's the maximum amount someone can sue their parents for not making them get vaccinated again?

greg

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

What's the maximum amount someone can sue their parents for not making them get vaccinated again?

Bravo, Shorty. [golf clap]

[:dragonflypro:]

Wait, what?

So, government compulsory vaccinations is OK but those that want to ban an abortion are protected under the notion of 'my body, my choice?'

Sorry, this doesn't add up. Either they can tell you what to do or they can't.

And this goes for both side of the aisle…

Toby

[Zeeb]

One question, I believe my doctor said that men can also spread the virus that causes cervical cancer. It's just that it has no ill-effects for a guy--we're just carriers. Wouldn't both men and women have to have the vaccine then to eradicate the virus?

[cjrivera]

Originally Posted by Zeeb 

One question, I believe my doctor said that men can also spread the virus that causes cervical cancer. It's just that it has no ill-effects for a guy--we're just carriers. Wouldn't both men and women have to have the vaccine then to eradicate the virus?

Because it would be hard to justify a vaccine (to parents and costs of testing in males) to prevent a disease (cervical cancer) that males will never get. (Although males can get genital warts, but the vaccine is aimed at the endpoint of lowering cervical CA rates).

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by RAILhead 

Just for the record, you can get cervical cancer in more ways than just sexual intercourse.

For that matter, it's worth noting that men can also get HPV, the virus that this medicine actually protects against. Why are only women being mandated to get this untried vaccine?

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by :dragonflypro: 

Wait, what?

So, government compulsory vaccinations is OK but those that want to ban an abortion are protected under the notion of 'my body, my choice?'

Sorry, this doesn't add up. Either they can tell you what to do or they can't.

Terminating pregnancy does not affect anybody else. Spreading infectious diseases does.

[:dragonflypro:]

Originally Posted by TETENAL 

Terminating pregnancy does not affect anybody else. Spreading infectious diseases does.

The question has nothing to do with whom else is involved. It is about being told what you can and can't do.

And as to abortion no affecting anyone else, I am pretty sure it is safe to say that is debatable.

T

[Zeeb]

Originally Posted by Millennium 

For that matter, it's worth noting that men can also get HPV, the virus that this medicine actually protects against. Why are only women being mandated to get this untried vaccine?

Did you notice the two posts before yours?

[finboy]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

This is not some "vague notion of freedom" - our bodies belong to us, not the government. Therefore, we have the final say in what will or will not be done to them.

Children's bodies are in their parent's care and custodianship, not the state's. Suggesting otherwise is probably the best illustration of the words "Nanny State" one can come up with.

Folks are up in arms about this here in Texas, but I'm not sure much will be done. Perry is pretty much stain-free on most things.

[torsoboy]

Originally Posted by :dragonflypro: 

Wait, what?

So, government compulsory vaccinations is OK but those that want to ban an abortion are protected under the notion of 'my body, my choice?'

Sorry, this doesn't add up. Either they can tell you what to do or they can't.

And this goes for both side of the aisle…

Toby

On my side of the aisle I think the mandatory vaccination is fine, and I think they should ban abortion unless the mothers health is in serious risk. Though I don't consider a growing baby any part of a "my body, my choice" argument... it isn't just your body once you started growing that baby. That would be like saying a baby carrot is a part of the dirt until it is a big carrot.

[- - e r i k - -]

Hey! Infectious diseases have the right to spread. Who are you to oppress viruses freedoms?