Texas now requires STD vaccine for young girls
 

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcont....449bc88c.html

In summary, this vaccine would treat human papilomavirus, which can cause cervical cancer.

I'm disturbed by this on a number of levels:

1) why an executive order, and not the normal process?
2) why make a vaccine for a "lifestyle disease" mandatory?
3) why is it so hard for parents to opt out?

When it comes to communicable diseases like measels, mumps, etc, I am totally on the vaccination bandwagon. I think the growing number of parents refusing to vaccinate their children are crazy. This vaccination, however, is totally different. My daughter will not be in danger of getting HPV just because she sits next to someone in Algebra who has it. That it is being covered by insurance and offered free to those with low income is great. But don't force it on me and my family.

That said, boys get HPV too. If one of the goals of this order is to eradicate the virus, then boys should be required to receive the vaccination as well.

I agree. Here are some stats I read.
Some types of HPV can cause cervical cancer, although the majority of HPV infections do not progress to cervical cancer. About 14,000 women are diagnosed with cervical cancer each year in the United States, and 3,900 die from it. Most women who develop invasive cervical cancer have not had regular Pap screenings, which can detect pre-cancerous cells. Other strains of HPV are associated with vulvar cancer, anal cancer (in both men and women), and cancer of the penis (a rare cancer).

I wonder how much of a pain the state will make it to opt out. That they would make this mandatory is ridiculous. If it's preventing cancer I'm concerned with in my daughter, I'll make sure she has regular Pap screenings.

Is there a reason not to be vaccinated apart from objecting to a government imposed requirement?

side effects and reactions to an untested vaccine.

it's one thing to go beta with software. It's quite another to go beta with your body.

if you were offered a HIV vaccine tomorrow, would you take it?

I agree with MW. But Creekster, you are right, I am more opposed to the underlying assumption that girls are going to be promiscuous and therefore need to be protected. Because HPV is not a public health issue, this is parental territory.

It is a public health issue, given the usual usage of the word (perhaps OhioBlue will dispute this <rimshot>).

OK. I guess public health issue is not the correct terminology. I mean, it's not like TB or chicken pox or any of the other things they vaccinate for. Kids aren't going to get it at school unless they are dropping their pants under the bleachers.

I couldn't disagree more. If there were a safe vaccine for HPV, and you refused to allow your daughter to be vaccinated because you didn't like the implication that your daughter might be having sex, then you are an irresponsible parent. No one wants to think their little Suzy is going to have sex, but teenage girls have sex. And at an alarming rate. If you leave it up to the parents, many will opt not to have their children vaccinated, because they don't like the implication. Sometimes children need to saved from the foolishness of their parents.

A chastity belt would be more effective.