Skip to comments.Amendment Keeps Taxpayers from Funding Mandatory HPV Vaccines
Posted on 07/22/2007 11:12:08 AM PDT by monomaniac
Amendment Keeps Taxpayers from Funding Mandatory HPV Vaccines
The U.S. House passed an amendment Wednesday that will keep the government from funding mandatory vaccination against the human papillomavirus (HPV).
Republican Reps. Phil Gingrey of Georgia and Jim Jordan of Ohio introduced the amendment following efforts across the country to require young girls to receive the vaccine to attend school.
Merck & Co.s Gardasil vaccine protects against the four most common strains of HPV, a sexually transmitted infection. Focus on the Family Action supports widespread availability of the vaccine, but holds that parents should make the decision of whether their daughters are vaccinated.
Linda Klepacki, sexual health analyst for Focus Action, said: We applaud the passing of this amendment preserving parental choice.
My feelings are mixed on this. It is a Cancer vaccine. Vaccinations are required for numerous conditions already. I guess I should just duck at this point...
Cancer isn't likely to spread from one to another sitting in a classroom. You want it, no one is stopping you from getting it. You want to impose it on me or mine, bring your armies. Blackbird.
While I believe in the ideal of parental choice, I am also pragmatic about the taxpayer cost of cancer treatments.
I say fight the disease and take the funding from the waste, fraud and abuse in all other areas of government (including welfare, politician’s salaries, and the military) and ESPECIALLY from pet projects like the UN.
Before you folks start getting your panties in a bind, welfare, politician’s salaries, and the military each need certain amounts of spending, but they don’t need wasteful excesses.
Your children wont have sex right? Good luck with that.
You don’t think it’s worth the cost. That’s understandable.
This virus is already very widespread in the adult population. The only hope of controlling the virus is to vaccinate the young before they become sexually active.
The "cancer" angle was a way to avoid the STD stigma--
No vaccines are cures to my knowledge. They are preventative measures.
“Why would anyone want to NOT be vaccinated against cancer? Since all medicine is given to us my the highest use it!”
Maybe because they are trying to make it mandatory.
It’s not your business, nor the government’s as to whether or not my daughter(s) have a vaccine for HPV.
It’s MY business.
Perpetual virgins will not get the virus. But a lot of wives will get it from their husbands.
I guess I wasn’t clear when I said:
“I say fight the disease” meaning vaccinate. The cost will be lower than letting girls get cancer and then fighting it.
So you don’t vaccinate your daughter?
What I do with my family and their health is frankly none of your business.
Can’t argue with that. ;
Just out of curiosity...if there were such a thing as an HIV vaccine (AIDS) would you want your adolescent children to get it?
You posted it I responded. I asked nothing beyond what you openly offered.
evidently you didn’t understand my first post.
It’s not your nor the government’s business.
End of discussion.