To prohibit Federal funding or other assistance for mandatory human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination programs.
So the women who would benefit from the vaccine most will not be able to afford it.HSLDA had this to say about their support of the bill
Those who are most likely to get HPV are those who have sex at an early age, have many sex partners, or have a sex partner who has had many partners.
In other words people HSLDA and the religious right believe deserve to get HPV, the clear message is if you just behave the way we want you to you will not need Gardasil, so why should our tax money be used to provide a vaccine to help those sinners who will not live the way we want them too. If a good Christian woman who waited until marriage to have sex, and has never had sex with anyone other then her husband contacts HPV because her husband had another sexual partner prior to his marriage that's too bad, but it servers her right for marrying a sinner instead of a good Christian man. If a woman believes she is in a monogamous marriage and her husband betrays her and she contracts HPV, then it serves her right for marrying a Godless Sinner. Apparently women are not only suppose to PAY for their own sins but the sins of their spouses too, according to Rep. Gingrey and HSLD. Heaven forbid they should receive a vaccine that could protect them.
However, the only FDA approved HPV vaccine, Gardasil, is not a cure for HPV or cervical cancer. Instead the vaccine seeks to prevent the four specific types of HPV (6, 11, 16, and 18) which are responsible for 70% of cervical cancers and 90% of genital warts. There is currently no cure for these sexually transmitted viruses. Even the FDA and the CDE admit the only “cure”(actually abstinence before marriage and a monogamous relationship during marriage isn't a "cure" anymore then Gardasil is; it's a preventive measure just like Gardasil, and I sincerely doubt the FDA & the CDE called it a "cure") is abstinence before marriage and a monogamous relationship during marriage.
Since there isn't a cure preventing the contraction of HPV ( a non-curable STD) should be of paramount importance to everyone. Instead Rep John Gingrey and HSLDA seem to be intent on women risking their health rather then allowing them to receive a vaccine that can prevent the four specific types of HPV that are responsible for 70% of cervical cancers and 90% of genital warts. This bill has nothing to do with protecting parental rights and everything to do with forcing the religious rights agenda on everyone while victimizing low income women who will be unable to afford the vaccine without federal funding or some sort of assistance with the vaccination program.
All women should be able to decide for themselves if they want to be vaccinated against HPV.
If your familiarity of this issue matched your apparent hatred of religious types and eagerness to mischaracterize and smear people, you'd sound halfway knowledgeable. Just, wow. Unreal.
ReplyDeleteProhibits federal funds or other assistance from being made available to any state or political subdivision to establish or implement any requirement that individuals receive vaccination for human papillomavirus (HPV).
ReplyDeleteI'd support this as I do not believe in mandatory immunizations. Medical decisions should be made on an individual basis, and diseases that are most often the result of purposefully risky behavior should not be a required immunization the same as those diseases that are the result of inadvertent exposure.
So I don't understand how this means that the reason for this bill is a hatred of women any more than the Subway contest was based on a hatred of homeschoolers.
The whole reasoning behind making it mandatory is so that insurance companies will cover it and federal funding or some sort of assistance will be provided for those who are unable to afford it.
ReplyDeleteDenying funds means that many people who might want the vaccine will not be able to afford it. This bill does nothing to allow individuals to choose for themselves and as far as I know all states allow religious and medical exemptions for the "required" mandatory immunizations.
You said
"Medical decisions should be made on an individual basis, and diseases that are most often the result of purposefully risky behavior should not be a required immunization"
Would you consider waiting until you were married to have sex and only sleeping with your husband purposefully risky behavior?
Didn't think so........but many women who do exactly this wind up with HPV because of their husbands past, which they may not know about or because he cheats on them and puts them at risk without their knowledge.
Saying only women who engage in purposefully risky behavior will contact HPV is patently unfair and each individual woman should be able to decide for herself IF she want to be immunized or risk her health.
I would wholeheartedly support a bill that provided an opt out for religious/moral/medical reasons. I do not support a bill to deny funding. No one deserves to have cervical cancer.
I posted a reply and it got lost. Doggone it.
ReplyDeleteIf you take a look at the CDC website, you will see that the vaccine does not protect against every strain of HPV that can cause cervical cancer. They still recommend abstinence and condom use, and they note that condoms only lower one's chances of contracting HPV and other STDs, contrary to the public's perception of a condom's efficacy in preventing the spread of deadly STDs and unwanted pregnancies.
From the CDC website: "Women can also lower their chances of getting HPV by being in a mutually faithful relationship with someone who has had no or few sex partners, or by limiting their number of sex partners."
Does the CDC hate women as well? Are they 'preaching' morality when they make such statements, or are they just letting you know the facts?
Also from the CDC: "*Children age 18 and younger may be eligible to get vaccines, including the HPV vaccine, for free through the Vaccines for Children (VFC) program if they are: Medicaid eligible; uninsured; or American Indian or Alaska Native. Doctors can charge a fee to give each shot. However VFC vaccines cannot be denied to an eligible child if the family cannot afford the fee.
* State and private programs offering free or low-cost vaccines may also be available for eligible persons. Contact your State Health Department to see if your state has such a program."
No one is being prevented from being immunized against HPV.
BTW- I was a virgin- a real virgin- when I got married, and I have HPV. Notice my lack of bitterness and hysteria. When you engage in certain behaviors, you take risks. No one 'deserves' to have something bad happen, but we all take reasonable precautions, such as not taking a long walk alone in a bad neighborhood at night. But sometimes bad things happen right in people's living rooms or while they are sitting on the front porch reading the newspaper, not taking any risks at all.
I don't want to live in gov't sanctioned bubble wrap, and I don't want another mandatory vaccine shoved down my throat. Give me the medical lit and let me make up my own mind, or decide what is best for my kids, thank you very much.
sunniemom I agree that each individual should be able to decide for themselves and in the case of minors their parents should be able to decide about getting the vaccine. If this was truly Rep. Gingrey & HSLDA's aim why not sponsor a bill that allowed for an opt out for anyone who objected on religious/moral/medical grounds? Why sponsor a bill that denies funding.
ReplyDeleteYou said:
"Also from the CDC: "*Children age 18 and younger may be eligible to get vaccines, including the HPV vaccine, for free through the Vaccines for Children (VFC) program if they are: Medicaid eligible; uninsured; or American Indian or Alaska Native."
Great the POOR can get the vaccine at least for now, but what about those of us who depend on our insurance. If it's mandatory insurance carriers will cover it, but as controversial as it is they probably will not cover it otherwise. This will leave many women who might wish to get the vaccine unable to do so, as they will make too much money to be covered under Medicaid, but not a enough to pay for something out of pocket that there insurance will not cover.
The CDC isn't trying to discourage people from receiving the HPV vaccine, in fact they encourage it as one of the ways to prevent the spread of HPV.
Everyone should educate themselves on the pros and cons of the vaccine and decide for themselves if they should get it.
Denying funding is just plain wrong.
Columbia University public health researcher James Colgrove says every state except West Virginia and Mississippi allows parents to opt out of getting their children vaccinated on religious grounds.
So unless you live in West Virginia or Mississippi what is the problem with having it mandated so insurance companies will cover it, you can choose to opt out on religious grounds?
As for the title the religious right have been going around saying Obama hates babies merely because he is pro-choice. Using their logic Rep Gingrey and HSLDA hate women since they want to prevent them from getting a vaccine that could prevent them from contracting a strain of HPV that would lead to cervical cancer.
Sorry I forgot the link
ReplyDeletehttp://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2007-02-07-vaccines_x.htm
I have no problem with the HPV vaccine, only with the government *REQUIRING* it. I do not believe vaccines should be required for diseases that are not spread through casual contact. There is a legitimate public health interest in requiring say the measles shot because someone could catch the disease simply by sitting next to a carrier on a bus or in a classroom. Not so with HPV. Individuals who are not sexually active are not at risk for contracting the disease, pure and simple.
ReplyDeleteIf the concern is that health insurers aren't covering the cost of the HPV vaccine, that could be remedied without mandating the shot.
I think the reason for mandating it is so more women will be able to afford it.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.ncsl.org/programs/health/HPVvaccine.htm
if states make the vaccine mandatory, they must also address funding issues, including for Medicaid and SCHIP coverage and youth who are uninsured, and whether to require coverage by insurance plans. This has caused some to push for further discussion and debate about whether or not to require the vaccine.
In a perfect world it would not be necessary for it to be mandatory in order to require coverage by insurance companies, SCHIP and Medicaid.
I do think this vaccine especially should be an individuals choice. And it does appear that the states that are mandating it are making it easy for parents to opt out.
Sadly
HPV infects approximately 20 million people in the United States with 6.2 million new cases each year. There is no treatment for HPV, only treatment for related health problems. There are more than 30 strains of HPV that affect at least half of sexually active people in their lifetime.
Cervical cancer is the second leading cancer killer of women worldwide. In the United States, nearly 10,000 women are diagnosed with cervical cancer each year and 3,700 women die.
I think 3,700 women dying of cervical cancer is a huge concern. Having a vaccine available that could prevent cervical cancer should be a cause for rejoicing.
It's also my understanding that the vaccine works best if it's received before a young woman becomes sexually active.
"the religious right have been going around saying Obama hates babies merely because he is pro-choice. Using their logic Rep Gingrey and HSLDA hate women since they want to prevent them from getting a vaccine that could prevent them from contracting a strain of HPV that would lead to cervical cancer."
ReplyDeleteSupporting a bill that is against mandating a vaccine that prevents a few strains of HPV is not equal to supporting the active, purposeful killing of unborn children.
While it may be true that mandating the vaccine will give more women access to it, it will put an undue burden on those who do not wish their teenage girls to receive it. I know for a fact that some docs will pressure and threaten to report anyone to CPS who does not wish to comply with the standard guidelines for immunization for their children. Been there, done that, changed docs.
I received some great advice from my children's first pediatrician- she said not to try anything new until it had been on the market for at least 10 years, because that is about how long it takes for unforeseen side effects to create a pattern in the general population for the medical community to recognize. She said this around the time Nutrasweet came out. My firstborn came into the world in 1988, and sure enough, about 8 years later, there were reports coming about of all the adverse side effects caused by aspartame. So if a parent wished to wait until they had more information about the risks of this shot, they could be coerced into allowing it if the shot was mandated, regardless of whether or not states are 'making it easy' to opt out. If they can make it easy, they can make it difficult.
The vaccine prevents a few strains of HPV that can contribute to cervical cancer, but there are other strains that also have the same effect that women will not be protected against. Isn't it more prudent to let women know that they need to exercise more caution and self control in their sexual lives than to let them believe if they use a condom and get a shot they are home free?
In any case, you don't free some citizens by handcuffing others. It has nothing to do with hating women. Ted Bundy hated women. Ed Kemper hates women. Don't Subway this issue, Alasandra. I can see you are passionate about it, but it does nothing for your argument to assign such motives to those of us who would support this bill.