Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

California Catholic leaders decry child STD vaccinations
cna ^ | October 11, 2011 | Benjamin Mann

Posted on 10/11/2011 2:01:34 PM PDT by NYer

Archbishop Jose H. Gomez

Los Angeles, Calif., Oct 11, 2011 / 11:36 am (CNA).-

Los Angeles Archbishop Jose H. Gomez joined the California Catholic Conference in criticizing a new law that allows 12-year-olds to receive vaccinations against sexual diseases without their parent’s permission.

“Parents bear the first responsibility for their children’s physical and spiritual well-being. This new law, however, bypasses parental involvement, wisdom and guidance,” said Archbishop Gomez in his Oct. 10 response to Governor Jerry Brown's decision to sign the vaccination proposal into law.

The new law, which Brown authorized on Oct. 9, allows children as young as 12 to receive vaccinations and other medications to prevent sexually-transmitted diseases, including the Human Papilloma virus (HPV).

Archbishop Gomez called the governor's move a “serious erosion of parental rights in California,” saying children are “not mature enough to think through the consequences of complicated medical decisions.”

“As a result of this law, children will now face these decisions without parental guidance — and likely under pressure from adults and corporate interests that have financial and other motives to promote these medications,” he noted.

“Rather than excluding parents, our government should be working to support and assist them in making the best decisions possible for their children, especially when serious medical and moral issues are at stake.”

Edward Dolejsi, executive director of the bishops' public policy work at the California Catholic Conference, said he was “puzzled and disappointed” by Governor Brown's decision to remove parental oversight from childrens' STD vaccination choices.

Dolejsi explained that he was puzzled in light of the governor's cautious approach to other matters involving children and parents.

“On the same day he signed AB 499, the Governor signed a 'first-in-the-nation' law to prevent children under 18 years of age from using tanning beds,” the conference director pointed out.

“Just a month earlier, on September 7, 2011, he vetoed a bill to mandate helmets on underage youth, expressing his concern about the 'seemingly inexorable transfer of authority from parents to the state,' saying 'I believe parents have the ability and responsibility to make good choices for their children.'”

“In this case, it appears that by signing AB 499, the Governor abandoned the principle of parental responsibility he so eloquently stated earlier,” Dolejsi observed.

William B. May, chairman of Catholics for the Common Good, told CNA in September that the HPV vaccination of teenagers would likely end up squandering resources, as well as undermining families.

As May explained, 73 percent of teenagers who sign up to receive the Gardasil vaccine never complete the series of three shots, which must be received over the course of three months at a cost of $120 each.

TOPICS: Catholic; Current Events; Moral Issues; Religion & Politics
KEYWORDS: ca; std; vaccinations

1 posted on 10/11/2011 2:01:42 PM PDT by NYer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: netmilsmom; thefrankbaum; Tax-chick; GregB; saradippity; Berlin_Freeper; Litany; SumProVita; ...


2 posted on 10/11/2011 2:02:34 PM PDT by NYer ("Be kind to every person you meet. For every person is fighting a great battle." St. Ephraim)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

California has vaccinations against other viral diseases too. I think many are mandatory for getting a kid into school.

3 posted on 10/11/2011 2:13:36 PM PDT by DBrow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

OK I get the whole “I don’t want the government to force vaccinations.” But if a girl wants to protect herself from getting a disease you want to stop her?

4 posted on 10/11/2011 2:13:52 PM PDT by ari-freedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer
A majority of states have enacted into law some kind of exemption from mandatory childhood vaccinations, based either upon personal or religious belief or for medical reasons. In California, state law provides for mandatory vaccinations for diphtheria, hepatitis, influenza, measles, mumps, pertussis, poliomyelitis, rubella and tetanus, and any other diseases designated by the Department of Health Services in consultation with the Center for Disease Control and the American Academy of Pediatrics. This requirement is waived if the person "files with the governing authority a letter or affidavit stating that the immunization is contrary to his or her beliefs." If the exemption is exercised, the student may be temporarily excluded from school if "there is good cause to believe that the person has been exposed" to one of the enumerated diseases "until the local health officer is satisfied that the person is no longer at risk of developing the disease." (California Health and Safety Code Section 120365). This is the "personal beliefs" exemption in California law.

I don't hear a huge outcry about these other vaccinations. The HPV virus has to be given before any exposure to the virus, so a 24 yo would be getting it, possibly, too late. If it is true that HPV is the major cause of cervical cancer, then let's eliminate it like we mostly did with polio. We'd help 12,000 American women be healthier (rough number of CC diagnoses per year).

5 posted on 10/11/2011 2:21:12 PM PDT by DBrow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer
saying children are “not mature enough to think through the consequences of complicated medical decisions.”

It bothers me that the church is wading into this issue. It's not like a 12-year-old is going to shoot up the vaccine themselves -- they are going to speak with a medical professional who has far more training and ability to understand and communicate the consequences of "complicated medical decisions" than a typical parent.

And what is so "complicated" about getting a vaccine? That you have to get 3 shots? The doctor knows that, and can communicate that to the child.

I understood when people were against government mandating a vaccine like this as a condition of school. But in this case, it's giving a child the right to make a medical decision on their own, without their parents. It is a different situation.

At some point, these kids are going to have sex. The vaccine is proven to save the lives of women who are sexually active. There is no way short of life-long abstinence to ensure you won't get a sexually tranmitted disease -- too many spouses cheat to be certain.

The vaccine is not a moral decision, it is not a religious decision. There is no known doctrine, even within the Catholic church, against getting a vaccine to protect you from disease. This isn't like giving out birth control, which IS against doctrine.

6 posted on 10/11/2011 2:35:18 PM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

I also don’t get this quote: “As a result of this law, children will now face these decisions without parental guidance”.

That is true only if the child CHOOSES to do so. The law is public knowledge, so parents will be able to discuss it with their children, and help their children make a choice. The only time the child will face this alone is if they decide they don’t like their parent’s choice.

OK, I wouldn’t like it if my child was allowed to get medication without me being informed. We have fought for parental notification for abortion, and maybe getting a vaccine is like that. But I don’t see it as a religious issue.

I wonder if we would be expected to oppose a law which allowed a child to get life-saving treatment without parental notification.

7 posted on 10/11/2011 2:39:52 PM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ari-freedom

There are some serious risks with Gardasil. Life threatening, possibly. I have five kids, three of whom are daughters. The sort of shenanigans California has endured in the decades since I left there guarantee that I will never return. It’s simple, really. I trust my children. I trust my wife. I most certainly trust Our Lord. But I do not now, and never will, freely trust a government to decide for me, what is best for my children. Ever. Also, think upon the source of HPV, the cause. We teach our girls to be chaste. How would you square that with okaying a vaccine to this end?

8 posted on 10/11/2011 2:59:17 PM PDT by sayuncledave (et Verbum caro factum est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

But why shouldn’t parents be involved in the decision to get the vaccine? Parents are involved in getting any other vaccine or medical treatments. Yet anything related the sex, we are adopting liberals views that somehow parents are the enemy, to be kept in the dark if their daughters are getting Gardisal (sp?) or birth control or abortion.

On the one hand, a girl can’t get an over the counter medication such as Tylenol in school without parental consent, but she can get an abortion without parental consent? And now can get these shots without parental consent?

My question is: why is anything that relates to sex somehow treated differently, in a world in which parental consent is required for all other medical decisions???

9 posted on 10/11/2011 3:10:23 PM PDT by Dilbert San Diego
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: sayuncledave

You’re not allowed to make sense when it comes to Gardisil.

10 posted on 10/11/2011 3:31:10 PM PDT by netmilsmom (Happiness is a choice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: DBrow

Simple questions

1. Does this vaccine protect against all cancer causing forms of HPV? No.

2. Does this vaccine protect against all cervical cancers? No.

3. Have any multiple generational studies been done on this vaccine? No.

With the denial of the connection between abortion/birth control and breast cancer, I give pause to the “safe” chemicals used on the budding reproductive system of my daughters.

I chose to skip the Rotavirus vaccine that they were giving babies back in 2000, eventhough my older daughter had contracted it. I felt that this had not been tested enough. Good thing. It caused intussusception in infants and was recalled.

11 posted on 10/11/2011 3:41:01 PM PDT by netmilsmom (Happiness is a choice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: netmilsmom

So you’ll be filling out the personal exemption form, your choice.

12 posted on 10/11/2011 3:52:18 PM PDT by DBrow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Perhaps if these Catholic leaders weren’t so busy CODDLING ILLEGALS (like a certain governor, by the way), they may just have some clout when government does something they, legitimately, have a gripe against.

In other words, if they would have led their followers to vote Republican (i.e., heartless), they might not be finding themselves being steamrolled by the Democrats.

13 posted on 10/11/2011 4:04:06 PM PDT by BobL (I want a Conservative for 2012, not Perry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ari-freedom

This isn’t about “stopping a girl” as much as it is about parental rights. The parents are responsible for their daughter’s health and healthcare decisions should not be made without the consent of parents.

14 posted on 10/11/2011 4:19:10 PM PDT by christianhomeschoolmommaof3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson