However, the vaccination is not to protect the girl from a generally communicable disease, but to protect the girl from a sexually transmitted disease. This is from a vaccine that has been available for less than a year, and with considerable financing from the drug manufacturer, has successfully been placed on bills to mandate vaccination in 23 states and the District of Columbia.
I am highly opposed to this for several reasons:
- Our school vaccinations are currently meant to protect from the spread of diseases that are spread via air, touch and/or casual contact. This vaccination is to protect from a disease that is spread only via intimate sexual contact.
- At $402 per person (Three injections at $134 each), the government should not be paying to protect people from sexually transmitted diseases (yes, I am opposed to school supplied condoms as well).
- As this vaccine protects from only a subset of the diseases, it will project an aura of “safety” that makes teenage sexual activity less risky, possibly leading to infection with other diseases.
- What message of morality does this send? Is this the government advocating teenage (and even pre-teen) sexual activity? Why else should girls aged 11-13 be vaccinated?
- If this is an attempt to “eliminate” the Human Papillomavirus, than why aren't boys and girls of all ages being immunized?
Have there been any studies done on long-term effects? Or are we going to find out several years down the road that we have convicted our daughters to something much more serious or risky.
- As this program is being pushed heavily by the vaccine manufacturer, and several other pharmaceutical companies are near to having their own vaccines, is this simply an attempt to “corner the market” and reap maximum profit?
What I would recommend, is that our legislature leave this subject alone. If a parent wants their child to start sexual activity at a young age, than let that parent pay the price, not the taxpayer. If a parent thinks their child might be sexually active, then the parent should take responsibility for protecting their own child by obtaining the vaccination.
The only legislation which might be considered appropriate, after the amendment discussed previously about smoking in a private vehicle with a child present should be considered child abuse, is that any the parents of any child infected via sexual activity with the HPV virus, should be charged with criminal child neglect. Other than that, the government has NO business excusing activity in our children which many parents still consider immoral.
- Our school vaccinations are currently meant to protect from the spread of diseases that are spread via air, touch and/or casual contact. This vaccination is to protect from a disease that is spread only via intimate sexual contact.
- At $402 per person (Three injections at $134 each), the government should not be paying to protect people from sexually transmitted diseases (yes, I am opposed to school supplied condoms as well).
- As this vaccine protects from only a subset of the diseases, it will project an aura of “safety” that makes teenage sexual activity less risky, possibly leading to infection with other diseases.
- What message of morality does this send? Is this the government advocating teenage (and even pre-teen) sexual activity? Why else should girls aged 11-13 be vaccinated?
- If this is an attempt to “eliminate” the Human Papillomavirus, than why aren't boys and girls of all ages being immunized?
Have there been any studies done on long-term effects? Or are we going to find out several years down the road that we have convicted our daughters to something much more serious or risky.
- As this program is being pushed heavily by the vaccine manufacturer, and several other pharmaceutical companies are near to having their own vaccines, is this simply an attempt to “corner the market” and reap maximum profit?
What I would recommend, is that our legislature leave this subject alone. If a parent wants their child to start sexual activity at a young age, than let that parent pay the price, not the taxpayer. If a parent thinks their child might be sexually active, then the parent should take responsibility for protecting their own child by obtaining the vaccination.
The only legislation which might be considered appropriate, after the amendment discussed previously about smoking in a private vehicle with a child present should be considered child abuse, is that any the parents of any child infected via sexual activity with the HPV virus, should be charged with criminal child neglect. Other than that, the government has NO business excusing activity in our children which many parents still consider immoral.
No comments:
Post a Comment