Skip to comments.Girl Rejects Gardasil, Loses Path to Citizenship
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 ...
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.
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.
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.
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.
THe possiblility of death by cervical cancer at some date uncertain is better than dying immediately and unnecessarily by vaccination shock.
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)
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.
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.
I think the subject is Citizenship.
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.
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?
“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.
“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????
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.
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.............
“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.
Maybe she's REALLY ugly.
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. "
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)
Yes, call Glenn Beck.
I am sure he can fix it.
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...
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?
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.
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?
Im trying to figure out when the congress voted to add the HPV vaccination to the requirements for citizenship. Wouldnt 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.
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.
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 todays 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.”
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.
Not from HPV unless you are conducting orgies in that classroom.
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.
You do understand the differences is transmissibility between Swine Flu and HPV, don’t you?
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.
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.
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?
And it is the obvious and predictable corollary to asking the government to prohibit drugs.
For the public good, of course.
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.
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".
“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.
Google is your friend. 2006 would put it in the Bush years.
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.
I can’t show you a statute, but a quick google search pulls up this:
“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)”
“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 type b (Hib)
— Tetanus and diphtheria toxoids
My guess is that it may have happened in a process similar to this one:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
1996 puts it in the clinton years.
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.