Another Perspective On Teenaged Girls and Monopolies
Why does the American Family Mean so Little to Government?
By haystack Posted in Featured Stories | Policy — Comments (30) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Regardless of the stink anyone here may be about to make, I completely, emphatically, and unequivocally disagree with the notion of Government at any level intervening in the health matters of minors. I couldn't disagree MORE fervently when said health matters are in the arena of reproductive health of teenage girls, many of whom are not even actively engaged in reproductive behavior.
I especially resist and reject any Government intervention into the privacy of families and their teenage members where the ages of these young women, by statute, precludes them from being ALLOWED to engage in reproductive behavior.
More below the fold...
As much as I care about the rumors and innuendo regarding some Governor's wife and whether she has financial interests in a pharmaceutical company, and as intriguing as it may be to levy charges about a Democrat conspiracy and hidden agenda to grow Government and give Hilary a slam dunk in two years by setting Merck up to take a "price control" mandate in exchange for continued monopoly on a new drug, none of these things matter to me.
I am a divorced father of 4 grown children, 3 of whom are women. Having been divorced, I was in the every other weekend camp for a number of years. I welcome an invitation to discuss family law with anyone here, including you lawyers, but not in this thread, and not today.
As a divorced father, I was a victim of many things loopholed in to family laws. With the defeat of parental notification, and the striking down of restrictions on crossing state borders for minors to get abortions, ALL non-custodial parents are confronted with being prevented from knowing of the sexual health and general welfare of their children.
Government FURTHER taking over the health and welfare of our children only extends the list of things for which parental control has no bearing. And, it makes non-custodial parents THAT MUCH FARTHER removed from the health and welfare of their children.
No one wins here, except the creators of more layers of government and bureaucracy and intervention where the unqualified and undistinguished DO NOT BELONG.
What needs saying in this context is that the audacity of the Government to assign itself any right of proprietorship on health, specifically sexual health, of our daughters (and ostensibly our sons), is outrageous, unacceptable, and should not be allowed to stand.
What needs saying is this foolishness over the years of feminism thumping their collective bra-less chests about freedom and inequality and the right to kill unborn children if they so choose, gave rise in large part to our minor and under-aged daughters going their own way on reproductive health and birth control issues. I maintain, and am prepared to defend, that this is continuing to chip away and will ultimately destroy what ever may still be left to the meaning of "family" and the very fabric of American society.
Parents, with the power given them by their Creator, procreate and nurture and rear their young in the ways they see fit, and in accordance with their belief systems and the standards of living they determine appropriate for heir subsequent generations. Parents decide what is necessary and what is best for their children - not Government.
This program of vaccinating teenage girls, even BEFORE they are legally old enough to engage in sexual activity smacks in the face of all these things. Were my children young enough for this program, I would either have to LIE to them about this shot I had to take them to the Doctor's to get, or would have to talk to them about sex at a level of detail I otherwise would like the option of CHOOSING to hold off on until a time of I might consider more appropriate. This goes for our SONS as well, given that some states are looking to make boys go through this.
Forget about the lack of empirical data to support the claims of no long-term side effect. Forget about the as yet un-vetted data suggesting increases in pelvic infections. Forget about this being mandatory, that it lines the pockets of ONE company in sole possession of the patent, and forget about the idea that in some states, at least, it might be taxpayer funded. Forget all that.
I see families having their control further de-legitimized and usurped by this nanny state mentality. I see Government, already bloated, further assigning itself the responsibility of raising my children and making reproductive health decisions FOR them. I see our newfound enlightenment about sexuality as being accepted as normal at increasingly younger ages, and parental ability to monitor and control these things as less valued or respected in the eyes of a Government that can't get out of its own way.
I am nowhere near as concerned with the potential monopoly the Merck pharma capitalists and their buddies on Capitol Hill are building as I am with the monopoly big brother is amassing with the minds and bodies of my family and my children.
They want me out of everyone ELSE'S bedroom...why the hell do they need to be in my children's?
« Republican Moderates May Walk Away From Veto Threat — Comments (17) | Democrats Demand Defeat To Achieve Victory — Comments (1) »
Another Perspective On Teenaged Girls and Monopolies 30 Comments (0 topical, 30 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
can't govern its way out of a wet paper bag on human behavior issues without the participation of the families involved.
Don't be so quick to take that shot casual...did the government ever FORCE pre-emptive penicillin on us to fight Syphillis?
Please...choice is choice. This thing MAY prevent 4 strains of the hpv that MAY cause cancer in SOME women...
We can do a lot better than untested medicine with hopes and wishful thinking...and we can do it thru private counsel with family doctors on an individual basis-not by mandate from a government that will screw it up and invoke rules and standards for the sake of quieting the activist few...and not thru taxpayer funded initiative.
What we do in life echoes in eternity.
-Maximus Decimus Meridius
Having to get plenty of vaccines to participate in school sports. Some were even required to attend school. No biggie. The government isn't trying to take control of anyones body in this case, they're trying eliminate a threatening disease.
Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so. - Douglas Adams
The government forcing people to do things they may not want to do is never a "biggie" with liberals, so long as they agree with the goal and wouldn't have a problem complying with the directive, themselves.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Conservatives getting all up-in-arms about anything percieved 'sexual' - no surprise. We can have guns in every hand and violence on TV, the media, our schools, but mention sex, and look out!
I agree there are some people who are hung up about sexuality, although that is true also for some lefty feminists. But there objections are usually of the "we don't want that around here" variety. Whereas the left with all their pecadillos, are never willing to just leave you alone, no mater where you are. The left is by its very nature coercive.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
Looks like somebody already got all ultra-violent on your account. Big loss.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
[...yadda yadda yadda. Although I should probably preserve it as unintended performance art, or something. - Moe Lane.]
There are liberals who post here and have posted here for a very long time. Of course, they tend to actually address substance instead of just throwing out random non-responsive stupidity about conservatives having some kind of vendetta against sex.
As for your "one comment," I see two just in this thread...
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
The HPV vaccine might not be a bad thing; also, it's a fair topic among many to discuss with your young teen daughter.
However, my own daughter was very offended because HPV was presented to her (at school, I think) as an STD. She was livid about that one, and actually, I think the virus could be spread in other ways. I don't think all the modes of transmissions have been nailed, yet -- which is another point for the vaccine.
The vaccinc is not a BAD thing -- but I do think Governor Perry in Texas should never have made a family matter mandatory.
that you could possibly catch at school while interacting with other children over the course of the school day.
AT what point during the school day, are kids going to be engaging in sexual activity? What class would that be, so I can be sure to opt my child out of it?
I can understand completely requiring kids to have shots against meningitis, or whooping cough, or similar.
Not really sure that a vaccine against an STD that causes cancers is something my kid could catch while attending school at the age of 11 or 12.
I think the government seeking to prevent deseases that can't be controlled at school by requiring kids to get them is different from requiring vaccines for things where kids just aren't at risk.
Should they make the vaccine? I think so, sounds like it may have a worthwhile goal-after all, while a woman may choose to have only one partner, there is no guarantee the partner she eventually chooses will have made that same choice.
Should it be required? I don't think so, at least not when it hasn't even been on the market for several years first-a lot of drugs do just fine in trials, but then problems develop when the drug goes mainstream into the population. I would rather have the option to wait several years to see how it goes before injecting it into my children.
Should states cover it through their vaccination programs? Up to the individual state, but I see no reason other than maybe it being cost prohibitive to say no.
Should states promote the vaccine and encourage parents and young adult women to get it? Sure, I have no problem with this.
But just because the state requires a vaccine for whooping cough, that doesn't mean they should require it for HPV.
And I think all parents should have the right to opt out of having their kids vaccinated-especially if a vaccine has been on the market less than 5 years.
*also I will note here, given that this vaccine wasn't tested on anyone younger than 18, I can't help but wonder if giving this drug to prepubescent girls may somehow harm or affect their fertility. Maybe it won't, but I am very leery of how this drug was tested, and whether it is safe for the group of girls they now want to give it to.
Let me go out on a limb - you think evolution is a liberal lie?
Did you ever read or think scientifically?
Are cons actually pushing the issue of choice on something that has something to do with sex / reproduction? Wow. Next they will.. oh never mind.
(though it does apply because HPV is an STD)
reproduction/choice are beside the point.
This is an UNTESTED drug with no long-term history as of yet.
This drug is not meant to protect against a major epidemic like those vaccinations you are required to have.
HPV is Not a typically life-threatening disease.
Some things maybe your enlightened mind may wish to consider before getting all stupid on us again...
Only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you:
Jesus Christ and the American G. I.
One died for your soul; the other for your freedom.
To be clear, what's new here isn't required immunization for students. What's new is immunization for something relating to sex, and that's troubling to lots of people.
Let me play devil's advocate for a moment regarding the big-government arguement against this thing, and in a larger sense the sentiments in favor of notification laws for minors seeking medical attention.
Isn't the argument for no shots and notification requirements actually an argument for MORE government, rather than less? Minimal government interferance would be to not regulate the areas in question more than any other area of medicine. Following the thought to its logical conclusion might reasonably have doctors preserving minor patients' autonomy and rights to self-determination, completely regardless of parental concerns. Other patients don't have to get permission, or tell anyone else what kind of treatment the doctor is giving them.
What, in think, you're arguing for is actually MORE government interferance, by asking the law to require doctors to take certain actions (notification, no shots) because of concerns outside the specifics of treating the patient.
Now, don't get me wrong, those concerns are certainly important and I'd hate to see them go unaddressed. That's what parents do, and that's what they should do. Being honest, though, I think you're asking for the government to help you do that, by taking a more active hand, rather than simply leaving well enough alone.
The proper use for an STD vaccine is to have it out there and make sure the doctors know about it so that they can suggest it to the parents at a reasonable age of the child.
Also, just the fact that it's out there will have a large percentage of the parents knowing it is (especially after all this controversy) so that they can discuss it with their children when they feel the time is right.
Mandatory vaccines for STDs (with the exception of those transferable by blood and thus transfusions) is stupid and nannyish...
Only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you:
Jesus Christ and the American G. I.
One died for your soul; the other for your freedom.
Conservatives support freedom as long as that freedom doesn't interfere with another's freedom. You have free speech, but that doesn't give you a right to blast your stereo outside at 2am in the morning, because that interferes with your neighbor's freedom to sleep. Mandated immunization for school children follows the same rule. Your freedom not to immunize your child is trumped by my freedom to keep my child protected from highly communicable diseases. However, this rule doesn't apply here. This is not a highly communicable disease. It can be stopped easily by avoiding certain actions. Even if you get infected, it only increases your risk of cancer. It does not mean you will automatically get cancer. That is a big difference between this and measles, polio, or chickenpox. Even if parents choose not to, children can be immunized once they turn of age. It all points to government deferring to parents for this decision.
and it \that I don't think the vaccine should be on the market, or that the vaccine shouldn't be encouraged.
I just have huge issues with a vaccine being required for school attendance that my kid isn't even at risk of catching while at school.
Also, I am extremely leery of any drug being required by the government, when that drug hasn't been tested in the age group they are requiring it for, and when the drug hasn't been on the mass market for a number of years.
Wouldn't it just be easier to just give the kid an active chickenpox virus?
Only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you:
Jesus Christ and the American G. I.
One died for your soul; the other for your freedom.
some states don't actually require it for school attendance either.
The problem with CP is that it is highly contagious, and it can keep a child out of school from 10-20 days (which means a parent stays home from work that long-which is one reason I think a lot of working parents opt to get it, even when it isn't required).
My kids got it, because one of my kids has asthma, and CP can have some serious complications for asthmatics. Otherwise I probably would have waited for them to get it "live" at least until they hit 13 or so, when CP becomes a lot more uncomfortable.
I'd forgotten that.
Still, I'm just going to keep my ears open for when the first kid in my neighborhood gets it so mine will be able to get it from him/her...
Only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you:
Jesus Christ and the American G. I.
One died for your soul; the other for your freedom.
Last I checked, that was how most parents still do it. Though this epidemic of "my baby!" syndrome that has led to the overuse of antibiotics and the tendency to prevent all contact with any illness might have changed that already.
Me, I'm going to expose my children to as many illnesses that are typically annoying (like the flu, no vaccines in my house for that) as often as possible. I want them to have the same strength immune system I have. And if worse comes to worst, such is life.
Only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you:
Jesus Christ and the American G. I.
One died for your soul; the other for your freedom.
I was one of the lucky few who managed to obtain a really, really, really bad case of chicken pox. I didn't die (obviously) but there are many children who die of Chicken Pox complications each year. Even though it is a regular childhood illness for most, you would feel really bad if you deliberately exposed your child to CP and his/her case turned out to be one of those blessed exceptions.
I did get my kids vaccinated for CP, though it wasn't required and I debated it. The effects of the vaccine are not guaranteed for life, so they may yet contract the disease when they are older, but I weighed my odds and kicked that can.
As for this vac, my plan is to wait until my daughter is old enough to get some of that real serious mommy talk (like right before she is allowed to see a male - I figure about when she turns 35!), tell her all about STDs, mental issues, and all those other things that will make her roll her eyes at me and then let her decide about this shot.
And if the illustrious State of MO tries to make me give it to her, we will get to do that civil disobedience thingy that the radical nutty profs all enjoy so much. :)
I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.
"The effects of the vaccine are not guaranteed for life, so they may yet contract the disease when they are older"
The Occasional bad case of ChickenPox (I won't call it CP. That's a terrible condition), is Occasionally deadly.
The vast majority of Adult cases of ChickenPox are deadly. The older you are when you get it, the worse it is.
I'll take my chances and trust in my family's history of overstrength immune systems.
Only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you:
Jesus Christ and the American G. I.
One died for your soul; the other for your freedom.
And it's AWESOME.
It may or may not prevent your child from getting Chicken Pox, but it makes their bout with it on par with a mild cold.
Both my boys (6 & 9) got it in last 2 months. In both cases they got, maybe, 6 - 18 small bumps. Very little itchyness. And the disease had run it's course in about 3 - 4 days.
It was unbelievable how mild it was. Particulary for my wife and I, both who vividly remember a 10 - 14 day battle against hundreds of horrifically itchy bumps (and no Benadryl!!), body aches and headaches.
Get you kids this vaccine! It's worth it.
A side note. It was actually difficult to be home with them because they didn't "feel" sick. They had lots of energy and no way to vent it.
1. I think that Governor Perry is in terrible error in mandating a vaccine for a disease that cannot be communicated through casual contact (traditionally defined,) and there have been more than a few unanticipated side-effects from drugs that have gone to market - particularly from Merck.
2. I think that parents should get their children the vaccine anyway because A) some children will "mess up" and it's not worth getting cancer over and B) what happens if your virginal princess gets engaged to a guy who, well...hasn't been quite as angelic as your baby girl? Do you want to wait until the question is popped to start the 6-month vaccine regimine as part of the wedding/honeymoon planning so that your daughter doesn't get cervical cancer and genital warts-causing HPV on her wedding night?
Man: "Will you marry me?"
Woman: "YES! I'll call my doctor to start the HPV vaccine regimine as soon as I get home so we can get married in 6 months. I'm so excited!" :-)
At an age that you think would be appropriate for that child.
These days, that age may be as young as 10.
In most cases, I am sure it would closer to 14 or 15...
But it depends on the child.
Only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you:
Jesus Christ and the American G. I.
One died for your soul; the other for your freedom.
pushed this because they stand to make the most out of this while parents stand to lose the most which is parenting. I cannot believe how much we as parents continue to lose each day via politicians and laws. I have to opt out my children from learning about gays in school that is beyond the pale however I have to do it. I can think of a multitude of different drugs that were the be all end all and in the end they hurt people and yet here we are again with no substantial proof that one it truly works and 2 that later in life it won't hurt these 11 year old girls. I cannot believe that liberals are not out in front of the evil drug company pushing drugs on children to make billions in profit or is Hugo Hillary going to take those profits for something else?
Peace through superior fire power:)
HPV is not a purely sexually transmitted disease. While risky sexual behavior does increase one's risk of infection, and in the case of Types 16 and 18, the primary means of infection, it is not the only way to spread the disease (unlike, say, syphilis or HIV/AIDS).
Genital HPV infections may be distributed widely over genital skin and mucosal surfaces, and transmission can occur even when there are no overt symptoms.
That means that Genital HPV could be transmitted via a shared straw, or by a child wiping their nose and touching someone else.
Yeah, I'm not crazy about this either (especially since this a vaccine that could be delayed until adulthood without serious risk), but come on, it's not like their handing out condoms and keys to motel rooms. I think maybe you're overreacting just a little bit here, haystack.
Were caused by shared straws or wiped noses? Seriously.
That's like saying that HIV can be transmitted by kissing (theoretically it can, but no documented cases of it).
Firthermore, HIV is spread by Many different methods, not, as you said, by only sexual activity. Not even primarily (in the US at least) by sexual activity. Not anymore.
HPV is not trnsmittable by shared needles or blood transfusions or any other contact with infected blood (having an open cut while giving first aid to an infected person). It's not transmittable by being born to someone with it. Shall I go on?
An HIV vaccine would make sense to be required (once it had been tested over more than 20 years in all age groups).
An HPV vaccine may as well be a Herpes vaccine...
Only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you:
Jesus Christ and the American G. I.
One died for your soul; the other for your freedom.
Trying to eliminate a deadly form of cancer and stamp out a disease. Sadistic jerks.
Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so. - Douglas Adams