State vaccine mandate takes good intentions too far

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/columnists/sfl-mayocol13feb13,0,7811719.column

There's a difference between a recommendation and a mandate. When it comes to vaccinating 11-year-old girls against a sexually transmitted virus that can cause cervical cancer, the distinction is huge. By all means, the state should do everything in its power to educate parents and children about newly developed vaccines that might prevent 70 percent of cervical cancer cases. And we can only hope the state funds efforts to make Gardasil, the first such vaccine approved last June, readily available to all who want it. But Florida legislators who want to compel vaccinations are taking good intentions too far. The proposed bills would bar unvaccinated girls from schools unless their parents or guardians sign opt-out forms. ...

It's funny, because I'm sympathetic to nearly all of Fasano's sentiments and disagree with many of Griffin's concerns, especially her misguided notion that the vaccine will encourage promiscuity. As if teens won't have sex anyway. But I'm taking her side for now. I'm just not comfortable with government requiring a vaccine for a disease that's not a contagious threat in the school setting, the usual threshold for a required immunization. And skeptics have every right to be concerned about the vaccine's long-term efficacy and side effects. "There are just so many things we don't know," said Griffin, noting the problems that Merck, Gardasil's manufacturer, had with the arthritis drug Vioxx.

Gardasil is given in three injections over six months and is approved for girls and women ages 9 to 26. Early inoculation is urged because the drug is most effective before girls are sexually active. It blocks four types of human papillomavirus, including those that cause 90 percent of genital warts and 70 percent of cervical cancer. According to the Merck Web site, Gardasil "can cause pain, swelling, itching, fever, nausea and dizziness." ...

Let's make one thing clear. As the father of a toddler, nobody's going to have to tell me twice to get my daughter vaccinated. My wife and I have already agreed she'll get the shots when the time comes. But the state should stay out of it. Unless we're dealing with an infectious threat such as polio or measles, it's not government's place to meddle in a family medical decision. If you didn't think it was right for the state to force a feeding tube into Terri Schiavo, then it's not right for the state to force girls to get shots or come up with signed releases before allowing them to go to school.

very positive of manditory, is that it would require financial backing for those who would not get the vacine if they had to pay for it themselves. I agree with your view, but I also would like to see this vacine available to everyone and not to just the wealthy.

"Unless we're dealing with an infectious threat such as polio or measles, it's not government's place to meddle in a family medical decision."

How the HELL does he think girls get HPV? It's CONTAGIOUS!

The dumb bastard would still rather his daughters die of something that's preventable to try to scare them out of fucking!

Sorry, buster, I know you don't like the mean old department of health telling you what to do with the children YOU THINK YOU OWN. However, there comes a time when their right to be protected against a deadly contagious disease supersedes your desire to keep them perpetually virginal.

Will the state's rights still take precedence over the kid's and the parents'?

If some parents would rather wait until GARDASIL is proven safe before rushing to inject their little girls with three shots of it, would you like to have them killed in order to award their girls to the state?

http://www.statesman.com/search/content/region/legislature/stories/02/07/7mccown_edit_rs.html

>>
Under the state constitution, the governor administers the law; the governor doesn't make the law. This principle is textbook civics. Making law is for the Legislature.

With this principle so clear, how can the governor possibly claim the authority to require vaccinations? Well, when the Legislature passes a law, it cannot think of every detail, particularly in our increasingly complex world. To deal with the details, the Legislature often authorizes a state agency to adopt rules. So, in his executive order, the governor hasn't actually required vaccinations; rather, he has ordered a state agency to write a rule requiring vaccinations.

Rules, however, must be consistent with state law and must implement, not expand, the law. To ensure that rules comply with the law, the Legislature requires a state agency to go through a careful process of evaluating its legal authority before adopting a rule. In addition, to ensure that a rule is wise, the Legislature requires a state agency to give the public notice of any proposed rule, give the public a chance to comment, consider the public's comments and provide a written justification for the final rule.
>>

Now are we going to stand up for democratic principles or not?

This is DU -- the DEMOCRATIC Underground. DEMOCRATIC.

http://www.gosanangelo.com/news/2007/feb/11/perry-move-draws-outrage
>>
“There’s some question about the governor’s authority to issue an executive order that changes law and appropriates funds,” Duncan said last week. “That is constitutionally a legislative function.”
>>

WoW! We have to depend upon Republicans to stick up for our democratic principles.