Once again, warping the truth for maximum impact of point of view. In fact, there is an 'out clause':

"or that the child's parent or guardian had been informed about the connection between HPV and cervical cancer and still declined to have their child vaccinated."

details, details, details...

In your modest proposal, those women that choose the traditional route -- not going to college but rather staying at home and raising a family could quite possibly be left in the dark. Considering that if their spouse slept around, or they are raped that they could contract HPV through no fault of their own... but this only happens to women in college, eh?

You're apparently happy leaving the poor and those not on the higher ed track vulnerable to die an early and gruesome death.

Funny thing about vaccinations: They work if you get them BEFORE you get exposed to the real deal. Ergo, the sixth grade proposal, prior to the onset of most sexual activity.

But then again, that's also a minor detail.

Posted by dw on January 9, 2007 at 5:50 PM

DW,

You just don't get it do you?

"Once again, warping the truth for maximum impact of point of view. In fact, there is an 'out clause'..." How many times have mandatory vaccines been crammed down the throats of parents without advising them about such an "out clause"? Besides this is just a bill that has been introduced, there is no guarantee there will be an out clause. For the most part parents don't educate themselves on these matters they believe their legislators have their best interests at heart.

"You're apparently happy leaving the poor and those not on the higher ed track vulnerable to die an early and gruesome death". I didn't see anywhere in her post that reflected that statement.

"Funny thing about vaccinations: They work if you get them BEFORE you get exposed to the real deal". There is no such vaccination that is 100% effective. Also there is no one willing to step up and take responsibility for the failure or the possibility of side affects of "mandatory vaccines", which is in truth left up to the parents who are being compelled by law to take the risk.

I could go on but it's quite obvious to me that you're the type of person that likes to hear part of what is said and not take it for what it's worth, inspiring people to educate themselves as opposed to letting the government dictate mandatory vaccines.

Posted by RWC on January 10, 2007 at 8:37 AM

dw- This is a blog -not a detailed analysis.

Im not quite sure if you just consistently miss the point, or just enjoy covering it with your own soap box.

I will repeat there are many very important issues that surround this bill. I simply chose to look at the two that concern me as a mother.

Jakobsson states that &it is incumbent upon the state to ensure those who are most at risk have access to the vaccine.

First, I disagree with her on the role of the state in the lives of citizens. That said, if you take her at her word, then the course should be to make sure it is available within the state's Medicaid system. However, those most at risk are not sixth graders. Instead she crosses the line of access into compulsory by making it mandatory.

As a mother of nine children, six of which are girls ranging in age from 10-26, I am very aware that this is the first generation to have this drug. My concern is that this vaccine will be injected into young developing bodies. The true risks and benefits are not yet known, because that information will not come until these young girls grow into adult child bearing women. Then they will provide the statistics.

It is one thing to take personal responsibility for your behavior, and the health care of your child. It is quite another for the state to make those decisions for you.

Posted by Rhonda on January 10, 2007 at 8:52 AM

I "get" many of your points quite well; I share many of your concerns on this issue. But what I do take issue with is your continued use of straw men arguements -- misrepresentation of the facts in an attempt to strengthen your arguement.

Your straw man fallacy of logic breaks down thus:

It is untruthful to represent that Ms. Jakobsson's bill calls for mandatory vaccination. HB0115 does mandate that the patient and parents be INFORMED of the availability of the vaccine, and SUPPLY PROOF OF either being vaccinated or CHOOSING NOT TO BE VACCINATED.

Further, it is unjust to portray another's hard work as something it is not, and it is un-American not to stand up and point this out wherever one finds it -- Democracy works best with a well informed public, not a mis-informed one.

"This is a blog -not a detailed analysis" is a poor excuse for a factual misrepresentation of this magnitude. If you go to the General Assembly's website (long link at the bottom), the synopsis takes all of a minute to read, and the opt-out clause is clearly spelled out.

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?DocTypeID=HB&DocNum=115&GAID=9&SessionID=51&LegID=26713

Posted by dw on January 11, 2007 at 12:37 AM

DW - Thank you for providing the link. You're correct, it took only a minute for me to read and I received useful and factual information. Rhonda it is disappointing that you would choose to take issue with people being informed of their options - and even more frightening that you would use your "soap box" to misinform your audience. Jakobson's bill DOES NOT require all girls be vaccinated, it just requires doctors to let families know of the option - plain and simple.

Posted by ThinkMore on January 11, 2007 at 10:29 PM

Yes, thank you for providing the link--I should have done that myself. I think I understand why you think I have been misleading. We are both looking at this issue, each believing something different to be the most important aspect or point. I failed to mention the point that you believe negates my concerns.

I can see where by the language of the bill, you dont believe it is mandatory, because it allows for parents to sign off on it, stating that they are informed of the risks. And in fact Jakobsson should be commended for that. That is the first time, at least that I know of, where parents are allowed the opt-out by informed decision, rather than solely on religious grounds.

The reason I did not mention it, was not as you assume, for maximum impact, nor to mislead. My original post was to blog my response to Jakobssons press release, which I quoted and referenced.

While I did not give her due commendation for the nod to parental control, (something we see far too little of) it is because I hold very, very little stock in it.

You contend I am misleading because it has an opt-out. However, if this were to pass, it would be listed with the mandatory school shots line up.

Requires that, beginning with the 2008-2009 school year, the parent or legal guardian of a female child entering the sixth grade for the first time must submit a statement signed by a physician to the effect that the parent or guardian received information on the connection between HPV and cervical cancer and verifying that the child received the HPV vaccine or that the parent or guardian, having received the information, elected not to have the child receive the HPV vaccine and that the child did not receive the HPV vaccine.

When I read this, I still see a state that has stepped into my doctors office, and a company with a new drug that has the state pushing it, and compelling doctors to do PR work. I do not read this as a mandate to simply be informed. It states that a child must bring in a statement that verifies the child has received the vaccine and the information, or has elected not to have it.

Other than the reason allowed for opting out, what is the difference between this and the rest of the vaccines required for school?

The current language of this bill seems parent friendly, but where you may see a well intentioned gift, I see a Trojan horse.

Once inside the halls and committee meetings of the state capital, the trappings of parental consent can easily be stripped from the language. Even if it remains intact, after a few years go by, it will become routine and like the others, will be combined with other shots.

Posted by Rhonda on January 12, 2007 at 9:22 AM

Oh great, this all boils down to one of those folks who thinks vaccinations are dangerous and "we don't know the effects"..Well we DO know the effects of cervical cancer, polio, pneumonia, measles, rubella, and other such illnesses. I knew a young family once who said they weren't going to allow their child to receive any vaccinations due to concerns about autism and other such nonsense. The risk of an adverse reaction to getting a vaccine versus the risk of NOT getting a vaccine is a legitimate argument, but then again you probably have a greater chance of getting hit by lightning. Basically you're asserting this argument as a thin veil of your conservative religious beliefs rooted in personal conviction rather than any real factual basis based upon public good or utility.

Posted by mattvarbl on January 25, 2007 at 4:29 PM