An Ol’ Broad’s Ramblings

February 7, 2007


Filed under: Healthcare, Personal opinion — olbroad @ 8:07

Doctors say Perry’s vaccine mandate for girls is premature

Gov. Rick Perry’s order requiring schoolgirls to get inoculated against a sexually transmitted virus linked to cervical cancer may be unpopular with social conservatives, but another important group also is lining up against it: doctors.

My granddaughters live in Texas, and his “order” disturbs me in several ways. Perry obviously isn’t a doctor…he’s a politician. It was a sad day when we started allowing politicians to dictate how we raise our children.

“We support physicians being able to provide the vaccine, but we don’t support a state mandate at this time,” said Dr. Bill Hinchey, a San Antonio pathologist and president-elect of the TMA, which represents 41,000 physicians. “There are issues, such as liability and cost, that need to be vetted first.”

It’s great the vaccine is available, I’m all for that! However, forcing parents to vaccinate their 10 year old daughters against something caused by sexually transmitted diseases goes way too far.

As a young sprout, I remember lining up in a local elementary school to get a sugar cube. That cube was laced with the polio vaccine. At that time, they were getting polio under control, but I remember kids, and grown ups, in wheel chairs due to polio. I also remember the leg braces. Polio is something that affected the entire population, rich, poor, male, and female. It didn’t matter, everyone was at risk.

No 10 year olds should be having sex. If they are, there is something seriously wrong with our society, the family, and all those who condone such behavior. I don’t want to hear the argument, “They do it anyway, we should protect them!” Yeah, we should protect our children… from a society that thinks it’s just fine to promote risky actions that will affect them for the rest of their lives.



  1. From what I understand, the vaccine is most effective when administered at a young age. It is completely ineffective if administered after age 18. Something about development. So, if you want to protect the girls, you have to vaccinate them young. It is not encouraging sex. You can still teach abstinence. But, if they are exposed to an STD when they are old enough and ready to have sex, it is too late for the vaccine. Isn’t it better we protect them from dying from a very painful form of cancer while we can?

    Comment by rosettaresearch — February 7, 2007 @ 12:57

  2. There was a lady on the news about an hour ago that said the cut off age was 26. If they want to put it in the “package” of shots that girls get, make it when they are 15 or 16….after they figure out what the long term effects might be.

    I wonder if I would have taken the vaccine if it had been available waaaaay back when.

    Comment by olbroad — February 7, 2007 @ 1:22

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at

%d bloggers like this: