Vaccines for STDs are unnecessary, since STDs can be prevented through abstinence: which should be the policy prescription for conservatives.
This just shows Perry is and was a RINO.
Cheers!
Even with such provisions, however, conservative groups say mandates take away parents' rights to be the primary medical decision maker for their children.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8N1PVG80&show_article=1
Disease isn't a morality issue, it's a public safety issue. If the vaccine was 100% safe, which apparently it wasn't, is should have been made 100% mandatory. If they come out with an AIDS vaccine that's 100% safe, it should be 100% mandatory. Or a malaria vaccine, or any other major lethal illness. I've travelled all over the world, and my shot record is the size of a small phone book. I'd would look like the DC Metro phone book if there were more shots available.
I understand that this particular vaccine had some apparent side effects. That's reason to say no. Objecting to disease prevention on moral grounds, however, is utterly immoral, to the point of being clearly barbaric.
Getting a shot doesn't tell people to go be promiscuous. They'll do what humans have always done. Obeyed what they're taught until biology pushes some of them further. Kids make mistakes, and the classic consequence is hard enough as it is. The mistakes these days can becomes lives of misery and eventual death. If you enjoy the idea of STDs as some kind of divine punishment, then the fact that you feel your rights are violated by when the state tries to protect your children is evidence you put your own emotional satisfaction over the physical well being of others. Any way you slice that, no matter the motivation, it's truly monstrous.
I'm largely a libertarian, but in health issues, when you're talking about stopping the spread of disease, I'm fully with the state. Even a highly limited government should recognize disease control as one of it's few legitimate functions. If that's a RINO position, then so be it.