Governor Mandating HPV Vaccine

[Lil Red]

[url="http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-vaccine3feb03,0,6757487.story?coll=la-home-headlines"]LA Times story here[/url]

what do you all think? i think it's ridiculous. it's being marketed as a vaccine against cervical cancer, when it is a vaccine against an STD that causes cervical cancer. it is being marketed to GIRLS and women ages 9-26. do girls aged 9 need a vaccine against an STD? i'm also worried about the long-term effects on a girl that is given a vaccine that young. have the studies been done?

here's what some Catholic bloggers have to say:
[url="http://catholic-mom.blogspot.com/2007/01/vaccine-marketing.html"]Catholic Matriarch[/url]
[url="http://thecrescat.blogspot.com/2007/01/does-any-one-else-find-this-disturbing.html"]The Crescat[/url]
[url="http://kansascitycatholic.blogspot.com/2007/02/new-front-in-war-against-innocence.html"]KCC[/url]
[url="http://catholicfire.blogspot.com/2007/01/people-magazine-on-sex-dont-stop-get.html"]Catholic Fire[/url]
[url="http://totallycatholicyouth.blogspot.com/2006/12/hpv-and-cancer.html"]TCYM[/url]
[url="http://www.americanpapist.com/2007/02/full-coverage-hpv-vaccine-mandated-in.html"]American Papist[/url]

[Lil Red]

no one?

[corban711]

i didn't read the article yet...but my first thought on something like this would basically be saying..."go ahead. have sex...because now you won't get the most common STD in the world...so you can have sex without consequences". i should read it in case i end up sounding dumb...how terrible

[Lil Red]

from the [url="http://cathmedweek.blogspot.com/2007/01/hpv-vaccine.html"]Catholic Medical Weekly blog[/url]:
[quote]Why isn’t it a swell idea?

First. The vaccine does not remove the need for Pap smears nor will it do anything for a lady already infected.

Second, it doesn’t do anything about other sexually transmitted diseases, although it’s easy to imagine a 12 year old (remember, that’s the target audience) who thinks it does. For that matter, I can easily imagine a 20 year old who might think it does, but that’s neither here nor there.

Thirdly, there are concerns that the FDA has "fast-tracked" licensure of Gardasil, without adequate study of its safety in little girls.[5]

Fourth, and most importantly, no one knows what effect universal vaccination of 9 year olds might have on adolescent tendency to have sex. However, the data of the past forty years of social experimentation suggest that it would tend to increase sexual activity. That’s been the outcome of all the other experiments on early immersion of young children into the fetid world of “sex ed” and teenage contraception, and there’s no reason this should have a different effect.

Regarding the morality of the vaccine itself, its manufacture does not involve aborted babies[6]. So the moral problems attached to, say varicella or rubella vaccines do not apply here.

HPV is a sexually transmitted disease. You don’t get it if the person next to you coughs, and you don’t get it from a water fountain or a toilet seat. Requiring HPV immunizations for young girls (and that is what ACIP “recommendations” amount to: requirements) is, in my view, no different from requiring that all school age girls be put on contraception....[/quote]

Julie at [url="http://happycatholic.blogspot.com/2007/02/i-never-thought-id-be-conscientious.html"]Happy Catholic[/url] also has some things to say

[littleflower+JMJ]

no one is saying much because they probably already said it here [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=64000"]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=64000[/url]

but i agree soo much with you Lit.Red. This stuff IS awful, unsafe and will do NO good.

It is NOT preventing anything and young girls should not be treated in such a way.

Its ridiculous and wrong. I don't like it at all.

thanks for showing us the other side of the coin, maybe it will change some opinions of some who think it is okay.

[Azriel]

I heard that parents can opt out of it, is this true?

[littleflower+JMJ]

They can as long as they fill out "the paper work" and have a reason for it that is either against their philosophy or religion.

I think by making it "mandated" their will be plenty of hoops to jump through for concerned parents. And that would be sad if there is.

How about all those young girls who have no one to speak up for them?

[Lil Red]

i have put together a document about what you should know about HPV and Gardasil. If anyone is interested, let me know and I'll email it to you.

[quote name='Lil Red' post='1186483' date='Feb 6 2007, 01:53 PM']i have put together a document about what you should know about HPV and Gardasil. If anyone is interested, let me know and I'll email it to you.[/quote]actually, let me see if i can attach it.

[XIX]

Okay, I think I must obviously be missing something here...I really really hope the overwhelming Catholic opinion is not as it appears: that we shouldn't fight STDs because people can avoid them by not having sex. And by fighting STDs, we would encourage more people to have sex...

In other words, Catholics seem to think that STD's are good things because they keep people from having sex. I'd be very heartbroken if this is the case; I don't want to see Catholics trade in chastity for prudishness. And using STDs as a fear tactic is disgustingly prudish.

It seems to me that Catholics are falling for their own default view that any method of fighting STD that doesn't involve chastity is a bad thing. It's as if they have come up with an abstinence party line that they can't stray from. And now, people automatically frown upon this vaccine, because it's going to encourage young people to have sex! Well you know what? If they were only abstaining because they wanted to avoid STDs, then they weren't truly chaste to begin with.

I, for one, hope STDs get wiped out. Then people who push for abstinence will have to focus on the real reasons for being chaste: i.e., the ones that are focused on in Thology of the Body and Humane Vitae. The focus on the STD risk is kind of a distraction.

I don't necesarily agree with the government mandating this, but I don't strongly oppose it, either. I don't want Catholics to be painted as a bunch of DON'T HAVE SEX fearmongers.

I'm pretty heartbroken if this is truly the view that most Catholics have on sex.

[Lil Red]

[quote name='XIX' post='1186486' date='Feb 6 2007, 01:59 PM']I don't necesarily agree with the government mandating this, but I don't strongly oppose it, either. I don't want Catholics to be painted as a bunch of DON'T HAVE SEX fearmongers.

I'm pretty heartbroken if this is truly the view that most Catholics have on sex. [/quote]my concern is truly on the science and politics behind this - really not on the religious aspect. if you look at the document i provided, it goes into greater detail.

[jmjtina]

Birth control has been linked to cervical cancer.

Are they going to ban or mandate something against that as well? Vaccine should be voluntary.

Where are those Pro-Choice people when you need them? Invading a girls body like that!!!!!!

By the government!!!!!!

and for the record, no one here on PM has ever indicated that we should use scare tactics. That's just plain bogus. And again for the record, since when do we care that we are called prudes? We're also called old fashioned, out of the times, un-modern.....need I go on?! Anyone with a brain who picks up Theology of the Body knows we are all about LOVE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Edited February 7, 2007 by jmjtina

[MissScripture]

[quote name='XIX' post='1186486' date='Feb 6 2007, 03:59 PM']
Okay, I think I must obviously be missing something here...I really really hope the overwhelming Catholic opinion is not as it appears: that we shouldn't fight STDs because people can avoid them by not having sex. And by fighting STDs, we would encourage more people to have sex...

In other words, Catholics seem to think that STD's are good things because they keep people from having sex. I'd be very heartbroken if this is the case; I don't want to see Catholics trade in chastity for prudishness. And using STDs as a fear tactic is disgustingly prudish.

It seems to me that Catholics are falling for their own default view that any method of fighting STD that doesn't involve chastity is a bad thing. It's as if they have come up with an abstinence party line that they can't stray from. And now, people automatically frown upon this vaccine, because it's going to encourage young people to have sex! Well you know what? If they were only abstaining because they wanted to avoid STDs, then they weren't truly chaste to begin with.

I, for one, hope STDs get wiped out. Then people who push for abstinence will have to focus on the real reasons for being chaste: i.e., the ones that are focused on in Thology of the Body and Humane Vitae. The focus on the STD risk is kind of a distraction.

I don't necesarily agree with the government mandating this, but I don't strongly oppose it, either. I don't want Catholics to be painted as a bunch of DON'T HAVE SEX fearmongers.

I'm pretty heartbroken if this is truly the view that most Catholics have on sex.
[/quote]
I think the problem most people seem to be having is the marketing tactics used on this vaccine (they tend to stretch the truth a bit). Moreover, they have not done thorough studies (if any) of long term effects of this vaccine, and when you're injecting nine year old girls...you might want to know how this will affect them in the future. And now it is being forced upon people. There is the safety of the children to consider.

[Lil Red]

what Miss Scripture said

[kateri05]

its not a scare tactic to say, hey, my kid isn't sexually active at age 9, or 12 or 14 or whatever; therefore she doesn't need a vaccine against an STD (same reason a baby, who isn't sexually active or doing heroin, doesnt need a Hep A vaccine! ), esp one that hasn't had long term studies in SAFETY.

people who plan to have lots of sex before they're married, heck ANY sex, go ahead and get it. but catholics raising catholic families are certainly allowed to oppose it without it being considered scare tactics.

for that matter its a lot like AIDs; if i don't do intravenous drugs and i only have sex with my spouse then, um hey, i won't get AIDS (and i suppose get a blood transfusion in a third world country?). thats not saying tough luck for those who have it and that we shouldn't help them, but i'm not automatically at risk becuase i'm not doing the behaviors that can cause it.

[Birgitta Noel]

EXCELLENT job on the doc LR!