HPV Vaccination Legislation

Several states have been considering legislation that would make a new vaccination (Gardasil) against the Human Papillomavirus (HPV) mandatory for young girls. The HPV virus is spread by sexual contact and it causes cervical cancer. For now, the vaccine is not effective for boys. People are saying that the usual “safe sex” methods are not effective enough against the virus. There are three major concerns among people who are against the legislation.

THE VACCINATION MAY HAVE UNFORESEEN SIDE EFFECTS

The vaccination has gone through clinical trials (11,000 have received it), but the vaccine has only been around for a few years. There is no way of knowing for sure whether or not there will be any long term side effects (such an infertility or worse).

GIVING GIRLS THE VACCINE MAY CAUSE THEM TO BE MORE PROMISCUOUS—BUT WHAT ABOUT RAPE CASES?

Some have pointed out that a girl could contact the virus if she were raped. If the vaccination were known to be safe and effective, then this would be beneficial for them. But in order for the vaccination to work, it must be given before the sexual contact with the infected person. I am concerned about taking away from children reasons not to become sexually promiscuous. So what to do? My answer is this: Why can’t parents give their daughters the vaccination without telling them what it is or what it’s for? I am not saying that that is what they should do (they should consider the possibility of side effects of the treatment). Children receive vaccinations for all kinds of diseases and they are not always told what the disease is like and how it is spread, so why do you have to tell them in this case?

If someone contracts a disease as a result of rape, then the rapist should have to pay for (by forced labor if necessary) any resulting medical bills. (This is assuming that we allow the rapist to live, which is another question.)

IT IS AN INFRINGEMENT

It is an infringement to take medical decisions for children out of the hands of parents or to force or coerce them into giving their children a treatment that they don’t want or are unsure of. Parents should be allowed to do what they think is best for their children’s health. Medicating children is not the proper role of the government. In some states, the pending legislation will give parents the option of “opting out” of this “mandatory” vaccination. I still think that it is not right even to force parents to sign an affidavit to protect their children from something that they don’t want them to be exposed to. Circumcision may also help prevent cervical cancer. Should we force parents to sign an affidavit if they don’t have their boys circumcised? I guess that would be too much mixing religion and politics, since this is in the Bible.

In some states, the bill only applies to girls entering the 6th grade of a public school. I think that it is good that homeschoolers and parents who send their children to private schools don’t have to worry about this in these states. Maybe this intrusive legislation will be the straw that breaks the camel’s back for some parents so that they take their kids out of public schools and as a result some will not be exposed to the filthy sexual suggestions that are given to them in health classes. The very existence of public schools is an intrusion, especially if parents who don’t even send their children to public schools (or who don’t want to) are forced to fund them.

I don’t think, however, that taxpayers should have to foot the bill for these treatments, educating people about them, or the expensive research needed to develop them. The government should not force a taxpayer to pay for the consequences of someone else’s sin.

Even some people who are against the legislation say that they are in favor of “educating people” about the vaccine. But I don’t believe that “educating people” is the proper role of the government. People should do their own research (talk with their pediatricians and get a second opinion) and the government should stop trying to persuade people to do things when there is nothing sinful about not doing them.

This is not about punishing people for promiscuity (though that is not a bad idea), but it is about personal responsibility, parental primacy, and religious liberty.

“If thou wilt diligently hearken to the voice of the LORD thy God, and wilt do that which is right in his sight, and wilt give ear to his commandments, and keep all his statues, I will put none of these diseases upon thee, which I have brought upon the Egyptians: for I am the LORD that healeth thee.”

Exodus 15:26