Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Girl Rejects Gardasil, Loses Path to Citizenship
ABC News ^ | Sept. 11, 2009 | SUSAN DONALDSON JAMES

Posted on 09/14/2009 8:38:06 AM PDT by nickcarraway

Teen Asks Why She Should Take Vaccine If She is Not Having Sex, Worries About Dangers Born in Britain in 1992, Simone Davis got off to a rough start in life. Her biological mother abandoned her as a baby, and her father couldn't care for her.

At 3, Simone was adopted by her paternal grandmother, Jean Davis, who married an American in 2000 and moved them to Port St. Joe, Fla.

But because the adoption was not recognized in the United States, Davis embarked on a near-decade quest to get Simone U.S. citizenship.

Now 17 and an aspiring elementary school teacher and devout Christian, Simone has only one thing standing in the way of her goal -- the controversial vaccine Gardasil.

Immigration law mandates that Simone get the vaccine to protect against the sexually transmitted human papillomavirus, which has been linked to cervical cancer.

But Simone, who has taken a virginity pledge and is not sexually active, doesn't see why she should have to take the vaccine, especially since it's been under fire recently regarding its safety .

And none of her American classmates is mandated by law to be vaccinated.

"I am only 17 years old and planning to go to college and not have sex anytime soon," said Simone. "There is no chance of getting cervical cancer, so there's no point in getting the shot."

Since 2008, the government has required that female immigrants between the ages of 11 through 26 applying for permanent resident or refugee status receive Gardasil, which was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2006.

Simone and her adoptive mother she still calls "Nanny" sought a waiver for moral and religious reasons and were recently rejected by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.

(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Extended News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: aliens; freedom; gardasil; immigrantlist; immigration
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-130 next last
To: Hodar

I am in favoring of ignoring unconstitutional laws at every opportunity;nor do I think the Constitution requires a group of senile,robed lawyers to interpret.The Second Amendment is quite clear,for instance.But those who wish to impose their restrictions upon free people always insist the words of the Constitution need interpretation by their expert.


51 posted on 09/14/2009 10:12:07 AM PDT by hoosierham (Waddaya mean Freedom isn't free ?;will you take a credit card?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

This was a payback to the makers of Gardasil. To have at least a captive market for it. It’s expensive and there are three shots over a period of time. Plus there have been thousands of reported VAERS reactions from those who have taken it.


52 posted on 09/14/2009 10:12:44 AM PDT by Secret Agent Man (I'd like to tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hodar
How did your exercise of your rights impact others around you?

You're right: Liberty is not the only concern. But it is the first concern, and must not be ignored. If liberty is to be preserved, the case for abridging it must be overwhelming. And profits for Merck don't make such a case.

Yes, I believe that's all this is about - money. As was posted earlier, Gov. Perry tried to force this vaccine on young Texan girls, and got slapped down for it. It seems Americans by and large don't want this forced on their daughters.

"But hold on a sec, we can force it on immigrants, can't we? That'll work! And maybe we'll get some good results from these tests, and slowly get the public accustomed to the vaccine, and then later mandate it for everybody."

I'm not opposed to mandating vaccinations. I'm not opposed to every abridgment of liberty. In fact, I took a lot of heat on this thread for advocating the abridgment of liberty in dire circumstances.

But these are not dire circumstance we're talking about, are they? There's no plague of venereal diseases decimating our population, is there? If so, we'd better come up with something just a bit more impressive than one vaccine, for one disease, and applicable only to immigrant girls who want to become citizens - wouldn't you say?
53 posted on 09/14/2009 10:14:50 AM PDT by LearsFool ("Thou shouldst not have been old, till thou hadst been wise.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Hodar
So, we are either a country of laws, or we are not. Wanna be a citizen?

We're not a country of laws, we're a country of influence. It's all in who you're knowin and who you're blowin.

54 posted on 09/14/2009 10:26:10 AM PDT by ichabod1 (I am rolling over in my grave and I am not even dead yet (GOP Poet))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: mvpel
New Hampshire does not require insurance to drive and has one of the lowest auto insurance rate structures in the country.
New Hampshire does not criminalize the refusal of adults to use seat belts, and has one of the lowest fatality rates per vehicle mile.

Impressive .... do you have a lot of illegals there? In Texas, the illegals would steal a car, total your car and head back across the border - leaving you stuck with a totalled car and increasing insurance rates.

I like the seatbelt laws too, no need for a Nanny state - I wonder how long NH can keep up the good work?

But, as you point out, NH has laws - you either enforce the laws, or you repeal laws. You do not selectively enforce only the laws you like.

55 posted on 09/14/2009 10:29:15 AM PDT by Hodar (Who needs laws .... when this "feels" so right?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Hodar

THe possiblility of death by cervical cancer at some date uncertain is better than dying immediately and unnecessarily by vaccination shock.


56 posted on 09/14/2009 10:32:41 AM PDT by ichabod1 (I am rolling over in my grave and I am not even dead yet (GOP Poet))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Hodar
You seem to think that if you don't like a law, you can ignore the law. Then you will scream about illegal aliens and Obama and his birth certificate.

As Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine said, an unjust law is not a law. Protecting our borders is just law. Requiring proof that one is a natural-born citizen to serve as President is just law. Paying off political contributors by requiring that citizens or residents use their product is not just law. Nor (for another example) is abortion on demand. There is no divorcing law from morality; law has no purpose other than to serve morality.

Unjust laws are inconsistent with law itself, and render a legal system self-contradictory. Not only are people who defy unjust laws not doing wrong, they are improving the system by targeting its faulty parts for elimination.

Here is Aquinas:

"Laws are unjust in two ways: First, they may be such because they oppose human good. . . This can occur because of their end, when a ruler imposes burdens with an eye, not to the common good, but to his own enrichment or glory; because of their author, when someone imposes laws beyond the scope of his authority; or because of their form, when burdens are inequitably distributed, even if they are ordered to the common good. Such decrees are not so much laws as acts of violence, because, as Augustine says, 'An unjust law does not seem to be a law at all.' Such laws do not bind the conscience, except perhaps to avoid scandal or disturbance. . .

"[L]aws may be unjust because they are opposed to the divine good, as when the laws of tyrants lead men to idolatry or to something else contrary to divine law. Such laws must never be observed, because 'one must obey God rather than men.' (Acts 5:29)." (Summa 96:6)

57 posted on 09/14/2009 10:42:47 AM PDT by SamuraiScot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: LearsFool
If so, we'd better come up with something just a bit more impressive than one vaccine, for one disease, and applicable only to immigrant girls who want to become citizens - wouldn't you say?

But the journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step. My daughters are all married, and by virtue of our faith, and their mother's influence were not promiscous. However, I would not have hesitated in pushing my daughters to get this shot. Preventing a bad thing seems like common sense, it's just a smart thing to do. Wear sunscreen, use your seatbelts, don't drink to excess, don't smoke, if you choose to be sexually promiscous - use condoms.

Some people 'parasite' off of other people; such as in vaccinations. If everone around me get a flu shot, then I'm protected by association - I can be lazy and enjoy the benefits of immunity by depending upon those around me to all get their shots. But, if you get enough 'parasites' (ahem, illegal aliens - Mexicans) you wind up with a disease that has not appeared in decades taking lives that should not have been affected.

Legal immigrants are required to have medical screening to ensure that they do not bring any contagious diseases into the United States. Illegal aliens are not screened and many are carrying horrific third world diseases that do not belong in the USA. Many of these diseases are highly contagious and will infect citizens that come in contact with an infected illegal alien. This has already happened in restaurants, schools, and police forces. Link

As we get more an more illegals, we are finding our population placed at risk by people who not only are in violation of our laws by the mere fact of being here, they have not had vaccinations that are mandated to protect US citizens.

A vaccine is not a garrantee that you won't get the illness; it is simply a game of statistics. You are 80-90% immune per infectous incident. The more infections around you, the higher the odds that SOME infection will make it past your immunity and get you sick. With a classroom full of un-vaccinated children, the vaccinated children will likely get sick too.

You have to start somewhere.

58 posted on 09/14/2009 10:45:56 AM PDT by Hodar (Who needs laws .... when this "feels" so right?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: ichabod1

Do you have any sources of HPV vaccination causing deaths?

Please bear in mind, some people are allergic to aspirin, some are allergic to milk and others are allergic to grain. About the only thing I know of that people are universally NOT allergic to is water.


59 posted on 09/14/2009 10:48:27 AM PDT by Hodar (Who needs laws .... when this "feels" so right?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Little Pig
Not every foreign-born woman, since my 31-yo wife didn’t need it to get her greencard.

I think the subject is Citizenship.

60 posted on 09/14/2009 10:50:25 AM PDT by sr4402
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: sr4402

Yes, but your post said it was for “every foreign-born woman”, which it isn’t. Anyway, right in the article, it says “Since 2008, the government has required that female immigrants between the ages of 11 through 26 applying for permanent resident or refugee status receive Gardasil, which was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2006.” Therefore, it’s not even just citizenship, but covers permanent residency too.


61 posted on 09/14/2009 10:52:41 AM PDT by Little Pig (Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: SamuraiScot
First, they may be such because they oppose human good. . . This can occur because of their end, when a ruler imposes burdens with an eye, not to the common good, but to his own enrichment or glory; because of their author, when someone imposes laws beyond the scope of his authority; or because of their form, when burdens are inequitably distributed, even if they are ordered to the common good.

And preventing people from Cervical Cancer is somehow harmful? What 'good' does Cancer serve?

Would you be opposed to a mouthwash that prevents tooth decay as well? I don't feel that having my teeth rot out is in anyway contributing to the 'human good'. This is simply a byproduct of living in a country with the great capabilities of growth in medical science. BTW, the mouthwash is now available in England - and if there is a country on the face of the planet that needs this, it's England. But, next time I'm in London, I'm gonna get a shot of this.

Will this become mandated by law? No, because rottent teeth are typically not life threatening. However, Cervical Cancer is very much a life threatening illness. If we can prevent it, don't we have a duty to do so?

62 posted on 09/14/2009 10:55:12 AM PDT by Hodar (Who needs laws .... when this "feels" so right?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway; Pelham; gubamyster; stephenjohnbanker; All

“Immigration law mandates that Simone get the vaccine to protect against the sexually transmitted human papillomavirus, which has been linked to cervical cancer.”

But millions of illegal alien border jumping squaters can crawl over the southern border with every manner of disease and never be questioned, only offered Amnesty!????

What a load of crappola.


63 posted on 09/14/2009 10:57:50 AM PDT by AuntB (If the TALIBAN grew drugs & burned our land instead of armed Mexican Cartels would anyone notice?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: originalbuckeye; Hodar

“I am for enforcing the law, too. this is BAD LAW. I wonder if any other countries force their immigrants to have this unproven vaccine.”

WHERE is the law that says a young female immigrant is required to have this drug????


64 posted on 09/14/2009 11:00:32 AM PDT by AuntB (If the TALIBAN grew drugs & burned our land instead of armed Mexican Cartels would anyone notice?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Hodar; nickcarraway
Immigration law mandates that Simone get the vaccine to protect against the sexually transmitted human papillomavirus, which has been linked to cervical cancer.

So, we are either a country of laws, or we are not. Wanna be a citizen? Follow the law, if you don't want the shot, please pack your bags and don't let the door hit you on the way out.

I would venture to say that the sentence in the article is incorrect. I doubt that any legislation has been passed that mandated the vaccine, but rather unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats at the CDC have imposed a regulation that the unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats at the INS are enforcing. Find a statute passed by congress that mandates Gardasil, and I will reluctantly agree with your point and at the same time argue that the law should be challenged under Roe v Wade. Otherwise, I would argue that the unelected bureaucrats are grossly exceeding their authority in this case.

65 posted on 09/14/2009 11:00:32 AM PDT by VRWCmember
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Head

When Obama is eventually impeached for fraud/sedition or what have you, it might be prudent for the taxpayers to buy him a tiny little island off the coast of Indonesia.............


66 posted on 09/14/2009 11:02:32 AM PDT by stephenjohnbanker (Pray for, and support our troops(heroes) !! And vote out the RINO's!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: AuntB

“But millions of illegal alien border jumping squaters can crawl over the southern border with every manner of disease and never be questioned, only offered Amnesty!????”

Illegals are bringing back diseases we got rid of 50 years ago.


67 posted on 09/14/2009 11:04:34 AM PDT by stephenjohnbanker (Pray for, and support our troops(heroes) !! And vote out the RINO's!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
But Simone, who has taken a virginity pledge and is not sexually active

Maybe she's REALLY ugly.

68 posted on 09/14/2009 11:07:25 AM PDT by humblegunner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AuntB
WHERE is the law that says a young female immigrant is required to have this drug????

First off this is a vaccine, not a drug.

From the article "Immigration law mandates that Simone get the vaccine to protect against the sexually transmitted human papillomavirus, which has been linked to cervical cancer. "

69 posted on 09/14/2009 11:08:50 AM PDT by Hodar (Who needs laws .... when this "feels" so right?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Hodar
It is a biological control on preventing a plague from wreaking havoc on us.

HPV isn't exactly a plague wreaking havoc on us. There are other ways of avoiding HPV that have fewer side effects, and also do not expose you to risks of the other viruses and diseases that you become exposed to by engaging in the risk behaviors that exposed you to HPV in the first place.

But people who have swallowed the "one less" campaign, and think that taking Gardasil gives them a license to have promiscuous sex without consequences can then contract one of the forms of HPV that Gardasil does not prevent (or one of many other STDs that Gardasil does not prevent)

70 posted on 09/14/2009 11:09:07 AM PDT by VRWCmember
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: marron

Yes, call Glenn Beck.

I am sure he can fix it.

Seriously.


71 posted on 09/14/2009 11:12:16 AM PDT by Neets (Yea, Jeter is the second coming....of a Yankee career high hitter. Don't hate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Chances Are

I’m in the industry and would NEVER go for my kid getting this vaccine NOR the swine flu shot. Some healthy, young women are reporting heart related issues after taking it and as far as the H1N1 shot, were looking at neurological symptoms such as with the Gulf War Syndrome that the govt. still claims doesn’t exist. Nope, nuh-uh...


72 posted on 09/14/2009 11:13:40 AM PDT by nurees (Oh...there is a NEW Mexico (Homer Simpson))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

Why should she have to take a vaccine to be a citizen, for a disease that, even if she gets it, she can’t spread except by voluntary participation of others?

And why should she lose a chance at citizenship when Andrew Sullivan was caught smoking pot and had his case dropped so he wouldn’t lose his chance at citizenship?


73 posted on 09/14/2009 11:14:11 AM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: humblegunner

lol

Keep going and you just might do what many others have tried and failed to do lately; pull me straight up out of my mood funk.


74 posted on 09/14/2009 11:14:13 AM PDT by Neets (Yea, Jeter is the second coming....of a Yankee career high hitter. Don't hate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Hodar

I’m trying to figure out when the congress voted to add the HPV vaccination to the requirements for citizenship. Wouldn’t we have noticed an immigration law being passed?

Or is this just a directive from the Obama administration? Or the Bush administration before him?


75 posted on 09/14/2009 11:16:11 AM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

I’m trying to figure out when the congress voted to add the HPV vaccination to the requirements for citizenship. Wouldn’t we have noticed an immigration law being passed?

Or is this just a directive from the Obama administration? Or the Bush administration before him?”

Thank you Charles...THAT is my question. I want to see the statute.


76 posted on 09/14/2009 11:18:57 AM PDT by AuntB (If the TALIBAN grew drugs & burned our land instead of armed Mexican Cartels would anyone notice?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Hodar

We give vaccines to people to protect them.

But we REQUIRE vaccines, NOT to protect the person we force to take the vaccine, but in order to protect the rest of us from an epidemic.

So, since having widespread outbreaks of smallpox would be dangerous for everybody, we require everybody do get vaccinated.

But HPV will never be an epidemic, because it is not spread by casual contact. Anybody who wants to protect themselves can do so by not having sex, or by having their sex partner get tested before having sex.

And if you pick up the disease, you can’t spread it to another person unless THAT person chooses to have sex with you.

Even HIV, for which we allow people with the disease to freely roam our public schools (unlike smallpox, malaria, or TB — for which we always send the infected home), can be spread through several other methods of contact that are more casual than sex.

There is NO public policy reason to require the vaccination. Requiring the vaccine simply because people aren’t smart enough to take it voluntarily is wrong.


77 posted on 09/14/2009 11:22:37 AM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT; stephenjohnbanker; All

Another thing....AIDS patients have managed to get restrictions against them on immigration lifted!
But this girl has to have a guardisil shot????

“AIDS Action Council commends Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius on today’s publication in the Federal Register of a proposed rule to remove HIV infection as grounds for denying entry to the United States by visitors and immigrants. The draft rule also removes HIV testing from the scope of any required medical examinations for visa applicants and immigrants.”

http://stanford.wellsphere.com/hiv-aids-article/aids-action-council-welcomes-move-to-lift-hiv-travel-and-immigration-entry-bar/737836


78 posted on 09/14/2009 11:25:17 AM PDT by AuntB (If the TALIBAN grew drugs & burned our land instead of armed Mexican Cartels would anyone notice?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Hodar
From the article "Immigration law mandates ...

Based on the ability of reporters to get their facts straight and even understand the definition of law, I'd bet that the sentence from the article is incorrect. Bureacratic regulations are not law - even though the uninformed tend to simply accept them as such. If congress did in fact statutorily add this requirement to immigration law, it is almost certainly unconstitutional.

79 posted on 09/14/2009 11:26:46 AM PDT by VRWCmember
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Hodar
With a classroom full of un-vaccinated children, the vaccinated children will likely get sick too.

Not from HPV unless you are conducting orgies in that classroom.

80 posted on 09/14/2009 11:28:53 AM PDT by VRWCmember
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Hodar
There is no upside to Cervical Cancer, it really has no benefits that I am aware of.

But we are not talking about the choice between having CC, and not having CC. We are talking about the choice between getting a vaccination, or not.

If you don't get the vaccination, you have some small probability, say "X%" of getting cervical cancer. That probability is greatly affected by your lifestyle choice -- if you choose a celibate lifestyle, X is essentially 0% (rape is not going to change the equation enough to matter).

If you do get the vaccination, you still have a small probability of getting CC, (X-Y)%, where Y represents the protection given by the vaccine to a couple of the causes of CC.

But if you look at overall harm, your new equation is X-Y+Z %, where Z is the probability of harm caused by the vaccine.

Now, that harm is totally out of your control. But X wasn't. If you are celibate, X was 0%, while X-Y+Z is Z%, and since we KNOW that Z is non-zero, you are better off NOT taking the vaccine.

81 posted on 09/14/2009 11:29:38 AM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Hodar

You do understand the differences is transmissibility between Swine Flu and HPV, don’t you?


82 posted on 09/14/2009 11:29:51 AM PDT by VRWCmember
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

If there were an HIV vaccination, even though I’m married, a proud Grandpa of 7 (and likely greater) grandkids - I’d roll my sleeve up to get the HIV shot.

I’d rather have 30 seconds of a inconvenience, than risk getting something that will slowly kill me, and potentially kill my wife - or be spread accidentally to those around me.

Laws exist to protect the innocent and helpless. How many lives will the HVP vaccine save? There’s really no way of knowing, until a couple decades pass and the data rolls in. How many lives will this cost? So far, none.

Would I legally mandate a HIV vaccine? In a heartbeat.


83 posted on 09/14/2009 11:31:50 AM PDT by Hodar (Who needs laws .... when this "feels" so right?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Hodar
And preventing people from Cervical Cancer is somehow harmful?

False premise, which goes to the heart of the Gardasil problem. Gardasil doesn't prevent cancer per se. It treats a handful of strains of the many viruses that can act as precursors to cervical cancers.

To make an intelligent medical decision, you have to compare the risk of the treatment against the risk of getting the disease. Even for the sexually incontinent, cervical cancer is to a degree preventable and treatable. According this whistle-blowing researcher, unless Obama successfully destroys the U.S. medical industry's system of tests and treatments, the danger from getting HPV is outweighed by the risks of taking Gardasil.

The problem with political payoffs is that a politician's liking for a pharma company's contribution can exceed his concern for your daughter's welfare. This is why it's unwise to involve the government in our routine medical decisions.

84 posted on 09/14/2009 11:32:22 AM PDT by SamuraiScot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: VRWCmember

Yes, these two diseases have radically different transmission methods. One is fun, the other not so much.

Yet, would you prefer to catch either of these, or would you rather get a shot and not have to worry about them?


85 posted on 09/14/2009 11:33:35 AM PDT by Hodar (Who needs laws .... when this "feels" so right?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: troy McClure
Forcing one to use a drug is not freedom.

And it is the obvious and predictable corollary to asking the government to prohibit drugs.

For the public good, of course.

86 posted on 09/14/2009 11:33:36 AM PDT by Trailerpark Badass (Happiness is a choice!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: AuntB; CharlesWayneCT; Hodar
I’m trying to figure out when the congress voted to add the HPV vaccination to the requirements for citizenship. Wouldn’t we have noticed an immigration law being passed?

Or is this just a directive from the Obama administration? Or the Bush administration before him?”

Thank you Charles...THAT is my question. I want to see the statute.

Don't you understand? The reporter who wrote this story said that immigration law requires it, so that gives it the full force of federal law and anyone who believes in the rule of law should just simply roll over and accept it.

87 posted on 09/14/2009 11:33:39 AM PDT by VRWCmember
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Hodar
Yet, would you prefer to catch either of these, or would you rather get a shot and not have to worry about them?

Another false premise (in a list that keeps getting longer) in your argument. Getting the shot does not mean you don't have to worry about getting the disease. Which is why the fine print in the Gardasil ads ALWAYS warns that you still need to get REGULAR screening - the same level of prevention that you would use without taking the "vaccine".

88 posted on 09/14/2009 11:36:08 AM PDT by VRWCmember
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: AuntB

“Another thing....AIDS patients have managed to get restrictions against them on immigration lifted!
But this girl has to have a guardisil shot????”

The insanity continues.


89 posted on 09/14/2009 11:36:43 AM PDT by stephenjohnbanker (Pray for, and support our troops(heroes) !! And vote out the RINO's!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: VRWCmember
The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services added the Gardasil vaccination requirement in July, and it went into effect on August 1. Under a 1996 immigration law, any vaccination recommended by the U.S. government for its citizens becomes a requirement for anyone seeking permanent residency in the U.S. The Centers for Disease Control recommended Gardasil for girls ages 11 through 26 shortly after it was approved in 2006.
link

Google is your friend. 2006 would put it in the Bush years.

90 posted on 09/14/2009 11:37:36 AM PDT by Hodar (Who needs laws .... when this "feels" so right?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: AuntB

She needs to declare herself a Mexican illegal. Not only will she get in, so will her whole family. And they’ll get paid to come.


91 posted on 09/14/2009 11:38:07 AM PDT by Pelham (Obammunism, for that smooth-talking happy -face communist blend.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: AuntB

I can’t show you a statute, but a quick google search pulls up this:

http://www.hhs.gov/nvpo/law.htm
“Immigration immunization laws

Under new immigration laws passed in 1996 and in effect as of July 1, 1997, all individuals seeking permanent entry into the U.S. must prove that they have been inoculated against all vaccine-preventable diseases. This includes infants and children being brought into the country for international adoption.(12)”

http://travel.state.gov/visa/immigrants/info/info_1331.html
“United States immigration law requires immigrant visa applicants to obtain certain vaccinations (listed below) prior to the issuance of an immigrant visa. Panel physicians who conduct medical examinations of immigrant visa applicants are required to verify that immigrant visa applicants have met the vaccination requirements, or that it is medically inappropriate for the visa applicant to receive one or more of the listed vaccinations:

— Acellular pertussis
— Hepatitis A
— Hepatitis B
— Human papillomavirus (HPV)
— Influenza
— Influenza type b (Hib)
— Measles
— Meningococcal
— Mumps
— Pneumococcal
— Pertussis
— Polio
— Rotovirus
— Tetanus and diphtheria toxoids
— Varicella
— Zoster”

My guess is that it may have happened in a process similar to this one:
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dq/laws_regs/fed_reg/vaccine/vaccine_factsheet.htm


92 posted on 09/14/2009 11:38:42 AM PDT by cyphergirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: SamuraiScot
Nice post, BTW

You said "Gardasil doesn't prevent cancer per se. It treats a handful of strains of the many viruses that can act as precursors to cervical cancers.

If you immunize against a handful of strains of virus's that are precurosrs to cervical cancer, have you not prevented some mystery number of cancers?

Now, I'm not saying that a girl who is given this vaccine is 100% protected, no one is ever 100% protected from a vaccine - however her odds are generally in the 80-90% range of immunity. Certainly, this is better than nothing.

93 posted on 09/14/2009 11:42:03 AM PDT by Hodar (Who needs laws .... when this "feels" so right?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Hodar
Now, I'm not saying that a girl who is given this vaccine is 100% protected, no one is ever 100% protected from a vaccine - however her odds are generally in the 80-90% range of immunity. Certainly, this is better than nothing.

You make a somewhat compelling case for wanting to take the vaccine, if safe.

You have failed to make the case that it should be mandated by law.

94 posted on 09/14/2009 11:45:29 AM PDT by Trailerpark Badass (Happiness is a choice!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: Hodar

OK, but what if the HIV vaccination had a 5% chance of killing you?

What if it had a 1% chance of killing you? 0.1%? 0.01%?

At what percent do you decide that the risk of the vaccine is less than the risk of HIV?

If a vaccine was completely safe, the only question would be whether it was worth spending money for it. And I’d probably take every vaccine there was.

But NO vaccine is 100% safe. And some are more risky than others.


95 posted on 09/14/2009 11:45:45 AM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Hodar
If there were an HIV vaccination, even though I’m married, a proud Grandpa of 7 (and likely greater) grandkids - I’d roll my sleeve up to get the HIV shot.

And a law that says you can't get the vaccination because you're so old that you would be doing the system a favor by getting sick and dying is just as wrong as a law that says you MUST get the vaccination regardless of the likelihood that you will be at risk of exposure.

96 posted on 09/14/2009 11:45:47 AM PDT by VRWCmember
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Hodar
Now, I'm not saying that a girl who is given this vaccine is 100% protected, no one is ever 100% protected from a vaccine - however her odds are generally in the 80-90% range of immunity. Certainly, this is better than nothing.

Actually it is around the 70% range since the four strains it prevents are associated with 70% of the cases of cervical cancer. The actual percentage risk improvement could be much lower since by avoiding risk behaviors one can lower one's risk exposure drastically.

97 posted on 09/14/2009 11:48:42 AM PDT by VRWCmember
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: Hodar

Actually, it was put in by rule in August of 2008. Still the Bush years, but not 2006.

This is a great example of unintendend consequences. They pushed the “recommendation” for Gardasil on the premise that many health insurance plans are required by law to cover vaccines, but only those which are “recommended”.

Now we find that, by adding it to the “recommended” list, it also forces the vaccine on those wishing to immigrate.

I bet that in 1996, those voting for this law had no idea there would be a vaccine that wasn’t necessary for the public good, but which would be “recommended”. Vaccines were for childhood diseases, not to make it easier to have sex without consequences.


98 posted on 09/14/2009 11:50:42 AM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: Hodar
Google is your friend. 2006 would put it in the Bush years.

1996 puts it in the clinton years.

99 posted on 09/14/2009 11:51:51 AM PDT by VRWCmember
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: VRWCmember

Two points of contention. Point one is that I’m 48; so I have a few more miles left on the ol’ chassis.

Requiring you to get a vaccination not only saves your life (or reduces the odds of you getting ill); but also saves the lives of anyone around you, whom you may infect.

If I have HIV, and I have a car accident, I place at risk not only the passengers in my car, but the car I hit (depending upon how bloody things get). I also place at risk all emergency response personnel, doctors and nurses, ambulance workers - thus one shot could potentially save scores of lives, as each of these could potentially infect others. Just like the manditory diseases we already are required by law to vaccinate against.


100 posted on 09/14/2009 12:13:30 PM PDT by Hodar (Who needs laws .... when this "feels" so right?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-130 next last

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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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