Vaccine post on BB

Pros:
It may prevent cervical cancer
"It can't hurt" in most cases to be on the safe side

Cons:
The vaccine may not yet be water-tight; there might still be some risk in using the inoculation
Some believe it invades parental/familial privacy rights

Arguments that hold no water:
Girls who get the vaccine are going to be more promiscuous. Just because cervical cancer can have correlation to sexual activity does not automatically imply that this will occur.
I don't think it violates personal privacy rights. You have the right to refuse the vaccination - always have, always will.

Valid arguments:
Cervical cancer is one of the few that is actually linked to active human behavior. It has been proven that women who have few or only one sexual partner have lower rates of STDs, which can lead to cervical cancer, I believe. (I know I've researched the topic before but at the moment I don't have statistics; I can come back to that) I think that while it does not necessarily follow that girls who get the vaccine WILL become more promiscuous, it is a valid concern from the perspective of conservative/religious parents who don't want their children to have "one more reason to think that casual sex is okay" because they think they have one more medical barrier protecting them. While I don't necessarily agree with that, I respect it.

There are also people who apart from religious/conservative beliefs, are very against vaccinations from a health standpoint. These people already fight inoculations for newborns and the injections for their kids before the new school year, every year. While I don't necessarily agree 100%, I do agree that many times a lot of vaccines are unnecessary given today's medical standards (in Texas, at least). But I feel they have a right to believe what they do.

So should we sign it into effect or not? I guess I'm still rather torn on this issue. I believe that as some have said in this forum, to make this a government-mandated vaccine would make it easier for lower-income families to have access to something that could benefit their children.

I think I liked how the proposal was structured in the February bill - that families could opt OUT of the vaccine - and think it was a fair compromise the Legislature should have kept. Sure, it causes a bit extra trouble for those families who believe they are against it, but it benefits those who would not otherwise care enough about their children to go out and sign for their various vaccinations. People who are against vaccination will already have to sign papers for their children anyway. And those who are against it for religious reasons should not mind making a stand for their beliefs. Those who need it should find it readily available. There's nothing inherently sexually promiscuous about the vaccine itself, I believe. It's not even as "bad" as handing out condoms in a high school sex ed class. It does not suggest sexual relations at all. It aims to protect, not to enable.

Personally, I'm for the healthy living route - I believe that if a person maintains good health habits, eats good food and regular disciplines, MANY forms of diseases can be avoided and minimized. While I don't know how accurately this applies to cervical cancer in particular, I do know that this plan works for many who are looking to beat other forms of cancer. I think that as Americans, we have justified so many forms of bad living - sex, drugs, gluttony, even just bad Internet addictions - that many of our "solutions" these days are just cop-outs for us to continue our lifestyles without being held back too much. I don't mean to preach, but it's a side thought from the issue. Maybe next we should debate burger sizes? :D

I do somewhat question Perry's motives in doing so, because obviously this is a smart political move - it breaks away from the more conservative image he has projected thus far, and gives him the same sort of position a conservative Democrat or a more liberal Republican would have. Some have suggested that he's looking to advance in the political fields to a national level. (I read this in some op-eds in the spring semester, I believe) This reminds me of how Giuliani, now that he's actually serious about running for presidential candidate, has loosened his stance on abortion/pro-choice rights.

However, motives in politics "don't matter" as much as the results do at times. Perry's ulterior gain doesn't bother me as long as the decision is well thought-out.

What's the current stance on funding, should it become a government-issue vaccine? Will health insurances automatically absorb the total cost? How will it work out for families who don't have insurance? I think these are my biggest financial questions. I can understand poorer families saying, "We've raised our kids to practice safe sex" or "We don't have the money for this vaccine, so we're just gonna skip it." I think the question deserves to be a moral/ethical one, and not one that would have to be dictated by finances.