would that make it better. Since the vaccine seems totally harmless and since males can get HPV diseases it seems that it does arguably provide some benefit and is therefore ethical. It may not be an efficient use of resources but whats a little money next to the principle of equality.

They can keep that shit for themselves. There's no way they can make this a "mandatory" vaccination. It MIGHT be a good idea for a percentage of the population, but there's no way in hell I'm dragging my mid-pubescent child into some doctor's office based on the evidence thus far.

Maybe this isn't a fair assessment and I'm being a bit cynical but this all sounds off - if this gov. had a different record on issues such as stem cell and and a woman's right to choose I might think otherwise...frankly this all seems a little suspect.

Let's give the man some credit. If you agree that this vaccination is a good thing, and that mandatory HPV vaccinations are a good thing, don't conclude by looking your gift horse in the mouth. Yes, I would just as soon think he did it for the wrong reasons too. But he did it. Why not use the moment to trumpet that this vaccine is so sensible even blood red republican governors in TEXAS have embraced it.

I don't see any reason to not have a child get it but that's me (and I definitely think the argument about it encouraging sexual activity is ridiculous). Parents have the right to opt out of this by signing an affidavit if the reports I've read are accurate but that still imparts some legal control over your health and decisions on how to manage your body to the government. You essentially have to file paperwork to tell the government not to inject something into your body. Will doctors properly inform everyone that it's not technically mandatory? I can promise you not all will and in many instances it will be in such fine print it will go unnoticed.

The mandatory language should be dropped from all of this and people should not have to notify the government of choices they are making about their health. It's one thing for the government to strongly advocate preventative or good health practices. It's another to insert itself into choices I thought many of us were fighting to leave between a doctor, patient and parent or guardian.

Money. Merck's PAC gave him $6000.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/2/2/165516/7340

I wonder how they're going to pay for the uninsured sixth graders.

The shots require three visits and cost six or seven hundred dollars.

Celibate nuns have gotten cervical cancer from HPV. The HPV virus has dozens of different strains, some of which cause cancer, some of which cause regular old warts. It is entirely possible to get HPV from casual (not sexual) contact, and if you're unlucky, you can catch one of the cancer-causing strains this way. Yes, the most common way to get cervical cancer is through sexual contact with the right strain of HPV, but it's not the only way. This make the religious fundies' argument against the vaccine even more pathetic and hateful of women. Most Americans (men and women) will contract the HPV virus during their lifetime. Several thousand American women die every year because of it - all preventable with a vaccine. In another example, kissing a baby when you have a cold sore can give them Type I herpes, which can be unwittingly passed to the genitalia by the child. It would be nice to have a vaccine for that, too, but sadly, none have worked yet. When someday an HIV vaccine is invented, will the religious right attempt to deny that to their children, too, even though there are many ways to contract HIV?

I can't wait for the day when a child who has been denied a vaccine and contracts a preventable disease sues their parents. And this goes for all the anti-vaccination nuts out there, too. Medical researchers like myself devote our entire lives and careers to creating life-saving vaccines. To deny them to innocent children is cruelty.

Why do people have this misconception about this vaccine? It ain't cheap, but it's not six or seven hundred dollars.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/30/health/30vaccine.html?ex=1309320000&en=73611cb06d9b311d&ei=5090

State Medicaid and other state programs would likely negotiate a lower price for their bulk purchases.

That's the price that was quoted to me by my doctor when we were discussing whether my over-26-year-old self should get it.

On the one hand, it is likely higher because of where I live. On the other, though I'd have to pay for the shots themselves, the three doctor's visits would be covered by my insurance.

They can keep that shit for themselves. There's no way they can make this a "mandatory" vaccination. It MIGHT be a good idea for a percentage of the population, but there's no way in hell I'm dragging my mid-pubescent child into some doctor's office based on the evidence thus far.

MANDATORY innoculations..? Against what..? I wouldn't trust the government any further than I can spit under any circumstances. A vaccine..? Isn't that what Thalidomide was..?

Corporations are in it for the money. Who's making money off of Texas' "mandatory" innoculations..? Names, dates and figures, please.

Um... many vaccines are already mandatory for children entering school. Why the paranoia over this one?

The abstinence people are being idiots. What if their perfectly pure, sweet virgin daughter were raped and infected? Infection with a venereal disease is one of the common ways child sexual abuse is discovered by police.

I'm a little surprised, honestly, at the bent of the reporting on the HPV vaccine, especially here in Salon. Let's take it a piece at a time.

Of course I'm pleased that there's a vaccine that is shown to reduce the risk of cervical cancer. Who wouldn't be? But what do the longitudinal studies show? What are the side effects? What are the long-term risks? What are the possible neurolgical health risks? Do these vaccines contain thimerosal? Have any of these potential problems been considered? Given the fact that Salon has been in forefront of reporting on issues of this type (http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2005/06/16/thimerosal/index.html), I'm somewhat surprised not to see these types of issues mentioned. This vaccine was only approved by the FDA last year; do we know enough to start injecting it into girls as young as 11?

In addition, the reports we hear down here in Austin are that Merck has been lobbying the members of of the Texas legislature heavily to pass the "mandatory vaccination" bill. I can't help but be nervous when I hear that the folks who are going to make the most money out of the deal are the ones pushing the bill the hardest. They're doing this out of the goodness of their hearts? Um, yeah, right.

And then I can't help but be amused (in a sick and twisted way) by the fact there it is here in Texas--the reddest of Red states, a state where suggesting that we give up capital punishment, or have gun control, or introduce state income tax would be an invitation to political suicide--it is in Texas of all places that this sort of classic "nanny State" procedure is occurring. California or Massachusetts, maybe, but Texas? Did I fall through the rabbit hole?

But finally, the thing that I find the most bizarre is that the argument against the vaccine is not on libertarian grounds, or health grounds, but on right wing-nut, anti-abstinence sex-ed grounds. Folks are up in arms not because the state is forcing a new drug onto their kids, or because their kids are being used as guinea pigs for a multi-billion dollar drug company that may (or may not) have state legislators in its pocket, but on the dubious theory that an 11 year-old getting a shot may thereby be encouraged to jump in the backseat with Johnny?

Now folks, I don't know whether or not this drug is, in the long run, the Right Thing for my 11 year-old daughter--the daughter who already may have suffered neurological damage from the other vaccinations forced on her. I need to do more research, and I sure don't appreciate having my hand forced by Gov. Perry, no matter what his intentions. But I do wish we were spending more time debating the medical facts, and less time worrying about what the abstinence-only folks thought, you know?