recently texas governer rick perry has passed a mandate that all 6th grade girls MUST be vaccinated for HPV (to "prevent cervical cancer") in order to attend school. do you think he has a right to step in?
2007-03-10 16:24:06 · 9 answers · asked by stevethebeeve 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
I think that his mandate is stupid and doesn't consider what the parents want for their daughters. Perry's mandate makes it seems as though the parents' influence on their child's sexuality is non-existent and that 6th grade girls are all going to be sexually active and catch something. Whatever happened to the parents deciding to teach their kids about sexuality and the consequences that comes with having (or not having) sex? Or when the parents feel that the girl is beginning to show an interest in guys, then THEY DECIDE give her the HPV shot?! Perry needs to butt out!!!
2007-03-10 16:40:41 · answer #1 · answered by rrichards2k3 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Don't take the vaccine. It contains a live cancer virus, & mercury, and if you follow the money trail, Perry accepted money from Merck to mandate this. You can REFUSE the vaccine, it is not a LAW! If you can't get into school without it, ask for a waiver form, then, get a lawyer. This vaccine only protects you from 4 of the 130 strains of HPV. And it is only good for 5 years, it causes auto immune diseases, & you don't know what can happen to you further down the road. It is a sexually transmitted disease, & you can prevent it by getting regular exams. DON't take it, refuse it! They are only doing this for profit, not for the sake of your health.
2007-03-10 16:36:32 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
What next? Are we going to make HIV tests mandatory for 1st grade students? Or 9th grade students because it's good for them? I have heard people saying that the reason some members of government are mandating this vaccine is because if it is mandated insurance companies are obligated to pay for it...I don't want to vaccinate my daughters...the vaccine is too new, there are no long term studies, it only prevents on kind of cancer some of the time...
If you want the vaccine, or your child to have it...fine. But until it has had further testing my daughters aren't going to get it even if it means I have to fight.
The government is getting too involved in our personal lives and they need to back off.
2007-03-10 16:39:15 · answer #3 · answered by Barbiq 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
no longer something that has no longer been shown sensible could be needed. a woman could have the the main suitable option to pick what is going to be achieved to her physique. The vaccine does no longer even keep away from all varieties of cervical maximum cancers, so what's the element in making it needed, it particularly is going to easily make people think of that it is okay to bypass their pelvic examination, because of the fact "whats up, i've got been given the shot, i'm secure" which might advise extra women could omit their window of having their maximum cancers detected till now and having a raffle to handle it. what's next needed being pregnant tests till you could now have a lager? Recording our ovulation cycles like they do in china? P.s. smoking additionally motives maximum cancers... whilst is there going to be a regulation against that? Oh and so does eating!
2016-11-24 19:47:49 · answer #4 · answered by villalobas 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Is that not on appeal?
I think it went to vote, and is pretty much going to be overturned.
I think I read families are sueing the Governor already, for inacting such legislation.
Personally, I wouldnt allow my daughter to take the shot just because governemnt said so.
Especially when there has not been any long term studies --and I wouldnt want even 1% side effects to occur, on somethign that was made mandatory
Its goign to be shot down,and will probably die out faster than it spread to the different states for consideration
2007-03-10 16:34:50 · answer #5 · answered by writersbIock2006 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I think he sounds pretty smart for a Texan.
There is a phenomenon known as herd immunity. The idea is that vaccines are more effective when everyone is immunized.
The idea is based on Darwin's theory of Natural Selection and so I suspect Republicans don't believe it is true.
Immunizing small percentages of the population will possibly render the vaccine ineffective.
2007-03-10 16:28:16 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
I think that even tho it's a no brainer good idea, still, it's not government's place to make us do something because "it's good for us". Government's only place is to regulate "traffic" between people, like as a referee or traffic signal. There is no "traffic" in whether or not we take a certain medical precaution or not.
2007-03-10 16:28:12 · answer #7 · answered by All hat 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
on the surface... it seems ok...
I don't like 2 things though...
1. Perry got like 5,000 from the company that makes the drug in his campaign fund right before he passed the order...
2. long term tests haven't been done on the drug...
those two issues are very lose threads that make me a little weary...
2007-03-10 16:30:54 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Now that REEKS of too much government in our lives. It is none of the government's business. Just like smoking bans, trans-fat bans.
The government needs to keep their noses out of our lives
2007-03-10 16:28:27 · answer #9 · answered by Kye H 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋