When there's a cure/vaccine for lung cancer will there be a decision not to implement it because it will just encourage smoking? What about the liver and drinking? Probably not, because with these people it's all about creating a fear of sex. They fear that their women won't be virgins, that their women will enjoy sex. They'd rather use as many tools as possible to make women fear sex. The far right has already proven that a woman's life is of little value when up against their (the fear mongers) fear of her having sex.

if HPV wasn't sexually transmitted. If we found a vaccine that protected against a virus that could cause lung cancer, we wouldn't oppose it because it might undercut anti-smoking efforts. We would just make sure that people understood that the vaccine did not protect against all causes of lung cancer or all lung diseases, and that they should still practice healthy habits. But we would be really excited that we could reduce the incidence of cancer. It's exactly the same with the HPV vaccine. It doesn't protect against all causes of cervical cancer, and it doesn't protect against all STDs. Fine. Make sure that your kid knows that the vaccine is not a license to have consequence-free sex. If the only thing you think will stop your kid from having sex is the fear of nasty diseases, there are still plenty of them to worry about.

If everyone who DOESN'T accept their no sex message gets aids and dies, so much the better from their point of view.

either

So why are they using their own daughters as examples of natural selection?

As a pro-choice liberal woman who has experienced HPV as an adult (like many of my peers who found themselves single after a period of monogamy) I really question the jumping on the bandwagon on this one. It's almost like the left is oh so happy to fight the right, without seeing another aspect of this issue.

First, cervical cancer is a much more serious problem in the developing world. I don't see that the manufacturer is rushing to provide the vaccine elsewhere. This is about big bucks, folks, more than anything. If you get the authorites to require it it means lots of money for the vaccine industry which was very generous in donating money to politicians to protect them from liability issues.

Also, this vaccine only protects against certain strains, and there is already some evidence reported in the major press that it encourages other strains (nature abhors a vacuum). We don't know how long it will last. Already, we have found the chickenpox vaccine wears off, and one of the results of that one is a marked increase in shingles in older people--but wait, there's a vaccine coming for that too.

Parents, like myself, are now be forced into vaccinating our children in order to attend public school. The original thinking for mandatory vaccination was to protect other children who attend school. But now, kids must be vaccinated against Hep. B, a disease not spread casually. How can forcing a young girl to be vaccinated be justified on the basis of school attendance? When was the last time a 4th grader got Hep. B or HPV by attending school? (As an aside, my kids are vaccinated for most, but not everything required, and I spaced them out.) Are we on the left going to jump on the bandwagon if a mandatory HIV vaccine is found, and force all kids age 9 to take that one?

Isn't anyone in the liberal press concerned about the government forcing mandatory things on us and our children? Vaccines are not harmless. There have been articles, books (read the one about the old polio vaccine and the link to brain cancer), etc. written by credible people. I know a woman who is paralyzed from the chest down b/c of flu shot. She was a normal, healthy woman who probably didn't need one in the first place. Vaccinations for polio, smallpox, measles, diptheria and tetanus, very serious for many and easily spread are one thing, but forcing vaccinations for Hep. B, HPV, flu, chickenpox, etc. is another thing.

Life has risks. The chickenpox vaccine was touted and now the flu shot for infants b/c some kids die for these diseases, usually those who have other medical conditions. Many many more kids die in car accidents--perhaps kids shouldn't be allowed in cars anymore, or ride bikes, or skateboards.

I don't agree with the right on the reason not to mandate this vaccination, but this is not a vaccine that should be required for anyone!! Individuals, including parents, should be permitted to make a choice and not penalized by exclusion from school, benefits, etc. for this.

As reported in the Reuters article Salon linked in the earlier story, this stuff is $120 per dose, and I understand each person will need three doses. Why is it so expensive? I'd really like to know the story on that.

Because at that price, a lot of people who could benefit from the vaccine won't be able to afford it without government subsidy, and if there is a goverment subsidy, then that is money that won't go to pay for something else. I'm all for everyone getting this vaccine, but I simply can't understand the price.

Why are people even talking about making this mandatory? It's not like measles or rubella that are easily transmitted by being in the same room with an infected person. Just have it as an option. Most insurance companies seem eager to cover it because it's cheaper than treating cancer later on. All the talk has been about girls getting it but shouldn't boys get it too since HPV can lead to penile cancer, and to help stop the spreading? If it's given to a kid at the recommended age of 9 don't even tell them what it's for, just say it's a shot so they won't get sick, simple. When we got vaccinated as kids how many of us knew what polio or diptheria was?