Joshua Rosenau spends his days defending the teaching of evolution at 
The bill's sponsor was philosophical:
“So that's not going to happen this year, it looks like. I think as far as legislation goes, no, as far as education and activity, yes. I mean if anything that's the bottom line that has been. We're very proud of the inroads we've made in educating some of my colleagues and the public on this and we will be continuing to do so,” Garcia explained.HPV causes cancer and genital warts. A childhood vaccine could save lives, and making it mandatory is the best way to eliminate the virus and ultimately the diseases it causes. Alas, Kansan girls will have to deal with cervical cancer all on their own.
Comments
But Kansas girls can still get the vaccine even if it's not mandated by the state. Right?
Posted by: emawkc | February 22, 2007 2:34 PM
The "concern" about the safety of this HPV vaccine is a ruse. What the right wing nuts are concerned about is (at least they say so) that if their daughters are protected against cervical cancer, they have wild, animalistic sex anytime they want to. How could anybody be so stupid? They're going to have sex anyhow, no matter how many fingers wag in their faces, and no matter how much "abstinence-only" "sex education" they receive. Shouldn't they be able to avoid a lifetime of worry about cervical cancer?
First of all, we know that cervical cancer is NOT safe, and the only side effects reported with the vaccine are "fainting," common among girls getting shots, and slight soreness at the injection site.
Second, we know that up to 75% of sexually active adults have HPV. So whenever these girls DO have sex, whether they're single or married, there's a good chance they will contract HPV, too.
Third, the real reason (read Michelle Goldberg's book, "Kingdom Coming") is that right-wing Christians are not concerned with protecting their daughters against pregnancy and disease. They are determined to take the "correct" moral stand and make their children do the same. Terrible that their children's health and well-being are endangered by their stiff-necked moralism.
Posted by: Mousie Cat | February 22, 2007 2:50 PM
Emaw: Yes, they can get it, but vaccines work better when they are used widely. That prevents diseases from spreading, and gives the possibility of eradication. The concept is called "herd immunity" by epidemiologists. That protects the immunized and unimmunized populations.
Posted by: Josh | February 22, 2007 3:07 PM
Thanks Josh. In light of "herd immunity" if you mandate the vaccine for girls, shouldn't it also be mandated for boys as well?
Posted by: emawkc | February 22, 2007 3:46 PM
Another good benefit of mandating vaccination is to get it covered by insurance, and available to people who couldn't otherwise afford it, through public health programs. And before somebody whines about the tax load, prevention is always cheaper than treatment.
Posted by: les | February 22, 2007 5:33 PM
Bolded for 'accidental' omission by this blogger:
This vaccine costs $360. Insurance does not cover the costs. The state will not cover the costs if they mandate it.
I think it is intellectually dishonest to couch this issue as a 'right wingers want girls to die of cervical cancer'.
I don't think the government has a right to mandate a mass innoculation for something that:
1) Just approved recently- and the FDA has had a poor track record in properly researching new drugs.
2) Costs are prohibitive, especially if you consider families with multiple girls.
3) Would be the only government mandated vaccine that isn't highly contagious by general contact or the air- you actually have to have sexual contact to get HPV.
4) A good portion of the populaiton (of which I am not a part) objects to on religious grounds.
It just seems like this blogger is not being honest to his readers in not giving the full story.
Posted by: I am Jack's syphilitic member | February 23, 2007 3:23 PM
Emaw, the vaccine is not yet approved for boys. If it were, I would endorse it there as well.
Syphilis: I think you're a bit quick on the trigger in pointing out dishonesty. Les points out that required immunizations would be covered by insurance, and there are government programs to help provide required immunizations to low-income families.
Furthermore, increasing demand will lead to lower costs, and would give the state a wedge to use in negotiating prices.
The idea that $360 should be allowed to stand between a child and the possibility of dying from cancer seems silly to me. The law would have allowed a moral exception for people who think protecting their child from cancer would be immoral.
FYI, tetanus is not transmissible by general contact or the air.
Posted by: Josh | February 23, 2007 4:39 PM
I'm just curious, what will happen when (if?) a vaccine for HIV is found? I can't imagine that it does not become mandatory, since AIDS is an 'epidemic.' Will the people who oppose the HPV vaccine also oppose an HIV vaccine?
Posted by: Ico Lycan | February 28, 2007 12:15 PM
Given that most of them will not just think that such a vaccine would give children license for wild sex, but that HIV is God's punishment for the gays, I have a hard time imagining them backing a vaccine. Pro-life my ass.
Posted by: Josh | February 28, 2007 3:31 PM