Blogging from the sandbox on beautiful South Padre Island, Texas
Saturday, February 03, 2007
Progressive Texas
Well knock me over with a feather....
HOUSTON, Feb. 2 — Texas on Friday became the first state to require all 11- and 12-year-old girls entering the sixth grade to be vaccinated against a sexually transmitted virus that causes cervical cancer.
Sandy, Don't be to surprized the Governor has ties to the company that produces the vaccine. And we all through it was just for the good of the children.
Well I would hope the motive would be to save a whole generation of women from cervical cancer. I am pretty sure that is what the Democrats would claim and I see no other reason for supporting this vaccination if you don't personally stand to benefit from selling lots of the stuff.
The ties that Perry has to the pharmaceutical comapny are strong. A former staff member is a lobbiest for the company, and a current staff mamber has family ties to the company. If this goes through, he will be as guilty as Harry Reid and his land deal with ill gotten gain.
Both sides do it.......
My problem with the vaccine is that it prevents a disease that is contracted through a "Sexually Transmitted Disease" (STD) known as the "Human Papillomavirus" (HPV). This vaccine is being targeted at eleven year old girls. Do we want to teach our children that it is OK to have sex at that early age? Why don't we make it available to all young women after the age of eighteen?
I know many kid's have sex before the age of eighteen, but it is not the government's responsibility to protect them if they choose to do so. Parent's get too much of a pass these days in not taking responsibility for raising their children properly. No excuses, it is true....
"Why don't we make it available to all young women after the age of eighteen?"
Because it is most effective if given before puberty. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/30/AR2005103000747.html)
I find it hard to believe that any parent who loves his/her daughter would withhold this from her -- but then there is a lot about this world (and social conservatives in particular) that doesn't make sense to me.
Anyway, do you really think not having this vaccination is going to keep teenagers from having sex? If so, you are far more naive than I am.
Well, first off Nick (You were anon before, right?), if by "weird conservative agenda" you mean socialy and moraly responsible, then guilty as charged. BTW Nick who was the conservative who brought up this subject?
Sandy, I did read info from the manufacturers web site and you are correct. The vaccine is "most" effective if given between the ages of 11 & 12. It also states that it has had great success with women up to 26 years of age who were sexually active and were infected with HPV.
One thing to remember is that this form of cancer is caused by personal choice. Have sex and risk getting it. Where does it become the governments responsibility to intervene?
I don't think that not having it will decrease the number of kids having sex, but having it will certainly embolden more children to take risks.
I realize that we (unfortunately) live in a consequence free society and nobody wants to hear about personal responsibility. We let daycare, school, tv, video games & hollywood raise our kids today. We BOLDLY state that this so both of us can work to give our kids the best. Do you (not everyone, but those to whom it applies) really think that the expensive home, plasma tv or shiny new Lexus in the driveway is better for your kids than time spent with you? This is a big part of what is wrong with society today!
No, Senor Leahy, "narrow minded and intolerant" are more what I had in mind about you than "socially and morally responsible." Judging by your postings you are also an intellectual lightweight and a poser who will drone on at any perceived opportunity about your overlysimplistic world view. You have mean spiritedly and personally attacked Lucinda's parents for their heart felt beliefs. You have attempted to bolster your crediblity by telling everyone that your dad fought in the war even though your are only 40 and have not fought in one yourself.
"Who are these swine? These flag-sucking half-wits who get fleeced and fooled by stupid little rich kids like George Bush?" Hunter S. Thompson
Nick, you'd be better off "Up in Michigan," than here, as to attempt to reduce this discussion to your meaningless ennui. This is not a place to demean, particularly with such malice toward anyone.
Very nice Monsieur Adams. You have shown your liberal colors. What a hypocrite to stata that I have been mean spirited in the past when I did apologize. My comments were meant to be direct, not mean, though they were received as such. You ARE mean spirited and make no apologies.
Let me set your half truths straight. I stated that my father (b.1926) lived throught WWII in Scotland and I had two uncles who served in the war obviously (maybe not) older.
As to myself, given my age my first opportunity to serve in war was on the civillian side as I indirectly worked for the Department of Defense. Don't ask or I will have to...;-) There has been no call for anyone not already enlisted, should the call come, I will gladly serve.
Now, "flag-sucking half-wits", I suppose I would prefer to be called that vs. a flag burning liberal.
Let's now take a look at your role model. Hunter S. Thompson, the father of "Gonzo Journalism". What is it? According to "Wickipedia", it is "A style of reporting which blurs distinctions between author and subject, fiction and nonfiction." I believe he also made a movie called F**K (explitive deleted) before he shot himself in the head in 2005.
Hey let's get back to the topic, can we? MLeahy do you have a daughter? Would you take any reasonable measures to protect her from a preventable disease? Would you expect any parent who loves his daughter to do the same? Can we all agree that cervical cancer is a horror and if there is a simple step we can take to prevent it we should?
I did not attack you. I asked you a straightforward question as I am trying to find common ground. We already agree that material things are no substitute for quality family time. Surely there is something else we can agree on?
It is such a pity that we cannot engage in dialogue without getting mean, petty and peevish. How can there be any hope for consensus if we can't even talk?
Hmmm ... hey I did read something in the paper by a doctor who asked why boys aren't getting the HPV innoculations, too, since they can spread it around just as well. Interesting, no?
Latest news is that Governor Perry rescinded the Executive Order (first time we can remember such a thing) because of an Attorney General Opnion that only Legislature has the authority to invent and make laws. This is getting good!
I would like to see a program that helps make the $360 shots available for everyone in the right age groups, and secondly to help low-income folks with the financial incentives to get the shots. Note there is a federal vaccination program but I don't know if they cover the HPV shots here.
I just have a problem making it an unfunded mandate - you can't stay in school unless you get the HPV shots or fill out some incredibly complex forms, notorizations, and affidavits.
OK Sandy, thank you for mentioning in your last statement that family values outweigh material possessions. I was referring to Nick, not you as attacking me, only that my comments recieve "Attack" status.
When politics are left out, I am willing to leave them out as well.
Sam, good find on the article, I did not know that the vaccine was equaly effective for the carrier. I suppose that the reasoning for offering it to just girls, is the fact that they get cervical cancer and boys (obviously) do not. Don't hate me for the statement, just a thought.
Is the $360 cost of the shot for the series of three that are required, or for each of the three? I had no idea that it was so expensive. If only one million shots were given the first year, that is $360 Million!!!! Where is that coming from? Based on the population of the state that is about $18/yr for each man,woman & child. That is not taking into account those making under $30,000/yr with kids that don't really pay much of anything in taxes.
It would be nice if the insurance companies would offer standard copay coverage for this vaccination rather than make it mandatory. I just think that we need less government in our lives, not more. I do think that there is some kind of government regulation regarding insurance companies subsidising vaccinations. Not sure, will check on it....
20 Comments:
I am just checking the blogger account.
Now if we could just teach them how to prevent getting pregnant!!!
Sandy, Don't be to surprized the Governor has ties to the company that produces the vaccine. And we all through it was just for the good of the children.
I should have known.
I want so badly not to be skeptical of Republican motives...
Today's paper had an article saying that many conservatives have lobbied Gov. Perry to withdraw the order, and send the matter to Legislature.
Sandy,
It's not just the Republican's they all have their motives.
Well I would hope the motive would be to save a whole generation of women from cervical cancer. I am pretty sure that is what the Democrats would claim and I see no other reason for supporting this vaccination if you don't personally stand to benefit from selling lots of the stuff.
The ties that Perry has to the pharmaceutical comapny are strong. A former staff member is a lobbiest for the company, and a current staff mamber has family ties to the company. If this goes through, he will be as guilty as Harry Reid and his land deal with ill gotten gain.
Both sides do it.......
My problem with the vaccine is that it prevents a disease that is contracted through a "Sexually Transmitted Disease" (STD) known as the "Human Papillomavirus" (HPV). This vaccine is being targeted at eleven year old girls. Do we want to teach our children that it is OK to have sex at that early age? Why don't we make it available to all young women after the age of eighteen?
I know many kid's have sex before the age of eighteen, but it is not the government's responsibility to protect them if they choose to do so. Parent's get too much of a pass these days in not taking responsibility for raising their children properly. No excuses, it is true....
Regards, MLeahy
"Why don't we make it available to all young women after the age of eighteen?"
Because it is most effective if given before puberty. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/30/AR2005103000747.html)
I find it hard to believe that any parent who loves his/her daughter would withhold this from her -- but then there is a lot about this world (and social conservatives in particular) that doesn't make sense to me.
Anyway, do you really think not having this vaccination is going to keep teenagers from having sex? If so, you are far more naive than I am.
It is hard to believe that anyone would be so dimwittedly doctrinaire as to make a cancer vaccine part of their weird conservative agenda.
Well, first off Nick (You were anon before, right?), if by "weird conservative agenda" you mean socialy and moraly responsible, then guilty as charged. BTW Nick who was the conservative who brought up this subject?
Sandy, I did read info from the manufacturers web site and you are correct. The vaccine is "most" effective if given between the ages of 11 & 12. It also states that it has had great success with women up to 26 years of age who were sexually active and were infected with HPV.
One thing to remember is that this form of cancer is caused by personal choice. Have sex and risk getting it. Where does it become the governments responsibility to intervene?
I don't think that not having it will decrease the number of kids having sex, but having it will certainly embolden more children to take risks.
I realize that we (unfortunately) live in a consequence free society and nobody wants to hear about personal responsibility. We let daycare, school, tv, video games & hollywood raise our kids today. We BOLDLY state that this so both of us can work to give our kids the best. Do you (not everyone, but those to whom it applies) really think that the expensive home, plasma tv or shiny new Lexus in the driveway is better for your kids than time spent with you? This is a big part of what is wrong with society today!
Thanks for reading, MLeahy
No, Senor Leahy, "narrow minded and intolerant" are more what I had in mind about you than "socially and morally responsible." Judging by your postings you are also an intellectual lightweight and a poser who will drone on at any perceived opportunity about your overlysimplistic world view. You have mean spiritedly and personally attacked Lucinda's parents for their heart felt beliefs. You have attempted to bolster your crediblity by telling everyone that your dad fought in the war even though your are only 40 and have not fought in one yourself.
"Who are these swine? These flag-sucking half-wits who get fleeced and fooled by stupid little rich kids like George Bush?"
Hunter S. Thompson
Nick, you'd be better off "Up in Michigan," than here, as to attempt to reduce this discussion to your meaningless ennui. This is not a place to demean, particularly with such malice toward anyone.
Very nice Monsieur Adams. You have shown your liberal colors. What a hypocrite to stata that I have been mean spirited in the past when I did apologize. My comments were meant to be direct, not mean, though they were received as such. You ARE mean spirited and make no apologies.
Let me set your half truths straight. I stated that my father (b.1926) lived throught WWII in Scotland and I had two uncles who served in the war obviously (maybe not) older.
As to myself, given my age my first opportunity to serve in war was on the civillian side as I indirectly worked for the Department of Defense. Don't ask or I will have to...;-) There has been no call for anyone not already enlisted, should the call come, I will gladly serve.
Now, "flag-sucking half-wits", I suppose I would prefer to be called that vs. a flag burning liberal.
Let's now take a look at your role model. Hunter S. Thompson, the father of "Gonzo Journalism". What is it? According to "Wickipedia", it is "A style of reporting which blurs distinctions between author and subject, fiction and nonfiction." I believe he also made a movie called F**K (explitive deleted) before he shot himself in the head in 2005.
It is good to see where your morals lie.......
Regards, MLeahy
Hey let's get back to the topic, can we?
MLeahy do you have a daughter?
Would you take any reasonable measures to protect her from a preventable disease? Would you expect any parent who loves his daughter to do the same? Can we all agree that cervical cancer is a horror and if there is a simple step we can take to prevent it we should?
It is nice to see that attacks are as one sided as the opinions.
Thanks, MLeahy
I did not attack you.
I asked you a straightforward question as I am trying to find common ground. We already agree that material things are no substitute for quality family time. Surely there is something else we can agree on?
It is such a pity that we cannot engage in dialogue without getting mean, petty and peevish. How can there be any hope for consensus if we can't even talk?
Hmmm ... hey I did read something in the paper by a doctor who asked why boys aren't getting the HPV innoculations, too, since they can spread it around just as well. Interesting, no?
Latest news is that Governor Perry rescinded the Executive Order (first time we can remember such a thing) because of an Attorney General Opnion that only Legislature has the authority to invent and make laws. This is getting good!
I would like to see a program that helps make the $360 shots available for everyone in the right age groups, and secondly to help low-income folks with the financial incentives to get the shots. Note there is a federal vaccination program but I don't know if they cover the HPV shots here.
I just have a problem making it an unfunded mandate - you can't stay in school unless you get the HPV shots or fill out some incredibly complex forms, notorizations, and affidavits.
/sammie
OK Sandy, thank you for mentioning in your last statement that family values outweigh material possessions. I was referring to Nick, not you as attacking me, only that my comments recieve "Attack" status.
When politics are left out, I am willing to leave them out as well.
Sam, good find on the article, I did not know that the vaccine was equaly effective for the carrier. I suppose that the reasoning for offering it to just girls, is the fact that they get cervical cancer and boys (obviously) do not. Don't hate me for the statement, just a thought.
Is the $360 cost of the shot for the series of three that are required, or for each of the three? I had no idea that it was so expensive. If only one million shots were given the first year, that is $360 Million!!!! Where is that coming from? Based on the population of the state that is about $18/yr for each man,woman & child. That is not taking into account those making under $30,000/yr with kids that don't really pay much of anything in taxes.
It would be nice if the insurance companies would offer standard copay coverage for this vaccination rather than make it mandatory. I just think that we need less government in our lives, not more. I do think that there is some kind of government regulation regarding insurance companies subsidising vaccinations. Not sure, will check on it....
Regards, MLeahy
BTW, sorry I left out your original question. Sandy, like you I do not have a daughter.
Regards, MLeahy
Post a Comment
<< Home