It's about health, not potential promiscuity.

As the only South Dakota blogger out with 5 daughters, I feel I need to weigh in on the whole discussion that's occurring with regards to the HPV vaccine, and Governor Rounds' proposal to make it available.

My family (including my three oldest girls) watched my mom, their grandmother, succumb slowly and painfully to cancer which spread throughout her body. If a similar fate from a different type of cancer was preventable through a simple shot, why wouldn't anyone advocate for it?

At the age most of my kids are going to be getting it, they're still playing with barbies, and negative influences such as most of the programming on MTV, and other assorted trashy television is verboten in my house. All they're going to know about this vaccination is that it's a shot, just like for teatnus or measles. They'll go "Ow, I don't want a shot," and that will be it. Just another mark on their vaccination record. One check box for DPT, one for HPV, and so on.

One shot is not going to alter their values. They're going to get their values from their family and church. I don't anticipate they'll be promiscuous, especially since my older ones know my uber-restrictive rules on dating (as in "you don't get to").

If we can virtually wipe out a form of cancer with one vaccination, we should be proud of that fact. And encourage researchers to keep working at it. Maybe they can get rid of a couple more in our lifetimes.

Adding hype about promiscuity over a shot is a disservice to the pro-life and abstinence community. Better to focus on cultural influences and the unborn than something that most 11 year olds won't even realize what they're getting.


Anonymous said…
I am saddened by your comments, PP. I thought that you were a true Republican. Your liberal ideas on this matter are deeply troubling. You, the Governor and all of the Liberal Sioux Falls Republicrats are quite simply on the wrong side of God on this issue. But you will be in my prayers tonight.

Pray for peace. Pray for abstinence. Pray.
Anonymous said…
Abstinence has nothing to do with this IMO. It's simply protecting a child's future health. Maybe the future child will be abstinent but be a victim of rape. Wouldn't you want her protected in such a case?

I prefer abstinence to in an ideal world. But if my daughter were still young enough for this vaccine, which she is not, I would make sure she had it. And I'm sure she will make sure any daughter of hers will get it. Getting this vaccine does not equate with encouraging promiscuity.
Anonymous said…
pp said "They're going to get their values from their family and church."

Now, after that statement, I really don't know what to think about you anymore! I really don't!

"Our concern is that this vaccine will be marketed to a segment of the population that should be getting a message about abstinence,” said Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council. He would not inoculate his own daughter, because she would be more inclined to have sex outside marriage. “It sends the wrong message.” Tony Perkins, President of the Family Research Council

“I personally object to vaccinating children against a disease that is 100 percent preventable with proper sexual behavior.” Leslie Unruh, Executive Director of the National Abstinence Clearinghouse

Comments from Christian websites: abstinence until marriage is the only acceptable behavior for Americans and the only way to prevent pregnancy, HIV, and other sexually transmitted diseases.

Well pp, are you having second thoughts?
Anonymous said…
Why would anyone give the government permission to pump potentially harmful chemicals into a young child's body? The only people who get this disease, for all practical purposes, are promiscuous women. This vaccine is VERY expensive. The next time this Gov and these libs claim we can't afford a small tax cut or can't afford a truly deserving program, shove this in their face!
Anonymous said… are right. Also, what if the young lady does practice abstinenece gets married and gets infected from her husband.

Leezee (or however she spells that name) needs to realize that life is involved her...and after all she is for life. To teach a girl that she could die if she has sex is unbelievable.
Anonymous said…
Selling out to drug makers again.

Troops acquired the Gulf War Syndrome because of bad vaccines. Then there was the cover up.

Check year 1991 -

And check out wikpedia -

Don't you know vaccines have side effects. It is less painful and costly to remain abstinent than to inject something into your body that might kill you anyway.
Anonymous said…
A fellow republican who agrees with PP on this one. This has more to do with the future. If you feel the need to teach abstinence to your children, then by all means do that. However, that will not protect them from the possibility that their spouse could infect them. The CDC estimates that by age 50, 80% of women have a strain of HPV. Now, if a simple vaccination series could decrease the risk of that virus potentially causing cancer, why would you not use it? Don't let your religious views interfere with your childs future. This doesn't have to be an issue of choosing between "god" and health. Your children wont be abstinent forever. Just think of the future scenarios, and I think that some of you will realize this isn't that big of a deal.

And as for those saying "oh why put an unknown chemical in your body"...ridiculous. If you honestly think the drug companies and the government are putting something "harmful" or dangerous in the immunization, then you need to be hanging out with those 9-11 conspiracy nuts.
Anonymous said…
This whole "promiscuous women" red herring is completely laughable.

The only way to get the virus is from sex with an infected male. But HE must have gotten it from somewhere else.

Which means that absolutely ANY female who has intercourse with a non-virgin male is potentially at risk....whether on your wedding night or on prom night. Promiscuity of the woman has nothing to do with it. NOTHING. (Why isn't anyone blaming this disease on promiscuous men?)

And a simple shot can wipe out the problem.

To me, that's a no-brainer.
Anonymous said…
You know, a person can preach and preach about what “good Christian Moral Values” that everyone should have. And also chastise those people that don’t measure up to the “Christian Moral Values” standard. A lot of that happens on this blog. And then when it comes to a family member, a person can pick and choose what Christian Moral Values standards they will follow.

I don’t know. Some people think that’s fine. Some think that’s the way it should be. But something just isn’t right here. Sort of seems like saying one thing about “good Christian Moral Values” and then doing something else.

You know, buying into being a Christian is not like buying a car. You can’t pick what options you want. You get the whole thing and that’s the way it should be.

Nonnie thinks Abstinence has nothing to do with this IMO! Well, if you and your future husband have practiced “abstinence” until marriage I guess you don’t have the worry about sexual transmitted diseases do you.

And about the promiscuous men. If that is all a good Christian young lady can find to marry, I guess she is going to have a whole lot of other issues to deal with then possible health issues.
Anonymous said…
This argument is NUTS. Go ahead VJ, refuse medical care, that's fine by me but don't try to legislate something based SOLELY on your religous beliefs that can keep young girls who aren't as enlighted or as saved (chosen?) as you from getting this smart medical treatment.

Citing Tony Perkins and Leslee Unruh does not bring weight to your argument it weighs down your argument.

You can get HPV from a gay male prostitute selling meth in Denver but you can't get it from a delusional female windbag from S.F. so be careful. Of course if we never have sex we are safe, so I guess that just settles it...let's pass a law outlawing premarital sex, isn't that what we are really talking about?

Sex ed, birth control, vaccines, gay porn, they all are conspiracies to get your 11 year old to have sex, sex, SEX!!!!!
Anonymous said…
The snake convinced Eve to talk Adam into eating the apple. There are a whole host of influences trying to convince our children that sex before or outside of marriage is OK. There are a relative few trying to convince them that it is not.

Would you punish them by death for succumbing to those influences? I expect not. If a simple shot can protect them from the unknown, why not give the shot?
lexrex said…
for me, this is more about the line of thinking that the government is the answer to all our problems.

i understand your point, pp. and i also understand the point that HPV is mostly preventable by being sexually responsible.

but i think we ought to be asking ourselves whether it is the proper, constitutional role of the government (i.e., the taxpayers) to pay for everybody's vaccinations -- from measels to flu shots.

if my wife and i decide we want our daughter to get the vaccination, i shouldn't expect my fellow taxpayers to foot the bill.
Anonymous said…
lexrex - Exactly! This is more than just the vaccine being availible. It's a question of why taxpayers should pay for someone else's promiscuity. If your daughter is sexually active and you want her to have the vaccine. Then pay for it (the vaccine) yourself!! Don't expect others to cover the cost.
Anonymous said…
yeah, lexrex, let's make the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine optional, too. And how about the polio vaccine...let's just let folks pick and choose on that one.

the fallacy of your laissez faire argument is decades of epidemiological research. modern science allows us to put a final end to certain kinds of illnesses, but only via near-universal participation.

if you or your neighbor don't pay for the vaccine, then we all pay later on to treat the cancer....either via increased health insurance premiums or via increased taxes for medicaid....not to mention the risk of life for innocent women.

by the way, a female virgin can also get the virus on her wedding night from a divorced man whose wife was cheating on him prior to the divorce. shame on that virgin!!!!!
Anonymous said…
anon 4:22 - "And a simple shot can wipe out the problem."


Let's look at some facts on the HPV vaccine.

1. The vaccine prevents only 4 strains of HPV.

2. There are approximentally 30 strains of the virus. So if your daughter gets any one of the other 26 or more strains you are out of luck!

3. There is no long term data that supports the vaccine can last longer than 5 years. So are the taxpayers going to pay for another round of shots at age 16??
You also have to wonder if the state is going to pay for these shots for women in their 40's as they can get HPV just like anyone else.

4. In the trials of this vaccine there were 17 women/children that died out of the over 11,000 that took the vaccine. (of course Merck says the deaths were not related...Merck stands to make hundreds of millions of dollars if they can push their medications through)

5. We don't know how many women/children were really 11-15 years old in the trial study. Most of those who received the vaccine were between 16-26.

6. It is ILLEGAL for girls or boys under 16 to have sex in the state of South Dakota. This is to protect them against sexual predators who are older than they are. What message do we send these children when we vaccinate them for a disease that is sexually transmitted.

7. Every single one of the three shots contain aluminum in them. I have to question how healthy it would be to subject a 11 child to 3 shots that contain aluminum when they can completely avoid the disease by self control.

8. The vaccine does no good unless you apply it to the males as well. The males will also be carrying the STD and passing it to others. So you are still not solving the problem through a shot. *Not to mention that HPV has been linked to prostate and anal cancer in men.* (I'll let the rest of you figure out how HPV gets to the anus)

9. Females still have to go in and get their regular pap smear. This "vaccine" only prevents some causes of cervical cancer so they can still get cervical cancer even if they get the shots.

It ultimately boils down to the question of WHY?

Why is our state going to be paying for these shots?

Why are we forcing others to pay for someone else's child who is involved in a risky behavior?
Anonymous said…
Kids under 16 can have sex legally in SD, just not with someone older than them by 2 or 3 years...
Anonymous said…
To all you morality police insisting that you would never vaccinate your daughters. Please keep your daughters away from my son. A big red X on their foreheads would be appreciated also.

I know that some point in his life he will have sex, probably more than once and probably with more than one person. It might be in High School, it might be when he goes to College, it might be later in life.

He does not need to be a carrier of a preventable disease unknowingly because you refused to vaccinate your daughters and turned them into a public health risk.

95% of the American public have premarital sex. These statistics go back to the 40's. Your delusion that your precious little daughter is actually going to follow your virginity directive is laughable. Its a nice thought and you should encourage people to be sensible about their sex lives. But kids have a knack for doing things their parents never find out about and they do eventually grow up, leave the house and do what they want. Even abstinent precious little virgins are victims of sexual violence. Your leaving them swinging in the breeze.
Anonymous said…

Congratulations on not just a brave stand but a common sense one. This issue is a public health matter. I am sure you and your wife have instilled your values in your daughters. The shot could save their lives or keep them healthy.

Vaccinations are a simple, cheap, and effective means of preventing disease.

As a constant critic of Gov. Rounds, I also applaud him for his position on this issue. It is about saving lives and improving health.

The logic being put forth would say that we shouldn't work for a cure or vaccination for AIDS/HIV or other sexually transmitted diseases. Disease is disease. Human suffering is human suffering. To think otherwise, in my opinion, is to take society back to the Dark Ages, where illness is due to "God's will" or bad "humors."

Do we not still treat the drunk driver who is injured in a car accident? Where's the morality in not treating disease or injuries, no matter what the cause?

Should people do things that prevents disease? Absolutely. But sometimes in life, shit happens.

Pat, Gov. Rounds, hang in there. You're right on this issue.

And those of you who oppose this common sense plan, give Pat as a parent some credit, give his daughters some credit, and give women some credit for the ability to make good choices. And when we don't, thank God there is modern medicine and science.

Best regards,

Todd Epp
S.D. Watch
Anonymous said…
10:50 pm, were you being sincere? Or do you actually have a phoneline to God somewhere? Did HE tell you he was against this policy?

But I guess you're right, anyone who has premarital sex should have a significantly increased risk of DEATH so we can better enforce Christian morality as a state.

What is your desired end? Christian values or individual lives? They seem to be contradictory at this point.

Pray for sanity. Pray for reason. Pray.

Gimme a break!
Anonymous said…
I think it's important to point out PP that you said that "one shot will not alter their values".

But, look at what one person posted on here about the vaccine.

anon 4:22 - "And a simple shot can wipe out the problem."

It's already altered that person's "values" if he/she truly believes this shot will "wipe out the problem".

Just look at whose side you are lobbying for PP. Planned Parenthood, AGI, NARAL, SIECUS, and Kinsey just to name a few.

Just look at the company that surrounds you on this issue and you will see this promotion of this vaccine as the miracle cure to promiscuity will not solve anything for our youth.

Just wait until the side effects start showing up everywhere. This needs a much longer testing period before we need to vaccinate children.
Anonymous said…
I disagree with lexrex about certain vaccines that prevent outbreaks....that is a public health issue and that IS a government function. There aren't that many preventive measures (i.e. behavorial choices) when it comes to stuff like contracting measles. On the other hand, the HPV issue involves a choice in behavior, so I can understand concerns about that, although personally I don't have a problem with providing it.
Anonymous said…
Yeah PP, take a look at who's side your on. Susan G. Komen, American Medical Association, American Cancer Society, the Dept. of Health, Women's Cancer Network, etc. What do they know? Obviously nothing about public health.

And Anon 9:52, those 4 strands account for over 70% of the cervical cancer deaths.

Gov. Rounds and PP, as a father of two daughters and a great-grand nephew of a 45 year cervical cancer survivor I applaud your support for this action.
Anonymous said…
I believe that those who oppose HPV vaccination for moral reasons are in an extreme minority, and I am pleased that Governor Rounds is serving the state's best interests rather than the religious minority.

The idea that HPV vaccination encourages promiscuity is silly, and for two reasons:
1 - One can get HPV through a variety of means, not just sex, and
2 - There are still numerous other STDs to discourage young women from becoming unchaste.

Good for Governor Rounds. It will be easy to see who opposes this.
Anonymous said…
anon 1:02 pm,

I hope you also voted for medical marijuana. Because some of those same medical associations endorse that, too.
Anonymous said…
I've got three daughters between 15 and 20 and wholly agree with PP on this. Neither promiscuity nor values (or the absence of either) comes from a syringe in a doctor's office.

As I understand the proposal, it would reach down to children of age 11. Once the program moves forward, hopefully it would only be 11 or 12 year olds who need the vaccine. How in the world is vaccinating such children "marketing" or encouraing promiscuity? Avoiding the sexual implications or overtones the uptight right associates with the shots is simple. As PP indicates, all children need to know is that the vaccine is designed to help prevent a disease women can get, no more or no less. How does such a wholly accurate statement encourage promiscuity?

It strikes me that sacrificing thousands of women a year to cervical cancer is about as far as you can get from what I think the namesake would consider a Christian value.
Anonymous said…
Anon 1:24, name one of those organizations that endorsed the medical marijuana initiative and please provide documentation.
lexrex said…
mr. epp, you said, "Vaccinations are a simple, cheap, and effective means of preventing disease."

then it should be easy for parents to make that decision.

the question is whether it's the government's and taxpayers' duty to solve every public health problem. what about obesity? it's a bigger problem than hpv. should we fund everybody's gastric bypass surgeries?

i'm not saying girls shouldn't get the vaccination. my wife and i may just decide to get our daughter vaccinated when she's of age. but as a believer in a small, limited government, i just don't think it's the government's rule to pay for it.
Anonymous said…
So, lexrex, medicare and medicaid should be eliminated as far as you are concerned. Is that what you're saying? And all the school shots? Whatever happened to the idea of promoting the general welfare?
Anonymous said…
anon 1:38,

The American Cancer Society supports medical marijuana research, and has endorsed medical marijuana legislation. Here's a quote:

"[California Senate Bill] 535 focuses on medical marijuana research. [The] American Cancer Society ... supports S.B. 535 because it is consistent with our long-held position of supporting research of any agent or technique for which there may be evidence of a therapeutic advantage."

Reference: letter from ACS to California State Senator John Vasconcellos (July 24, 1997)

ACS joins the following medical organizations in endorsing medical marijuana research or legalization:

The Institute of Medicine; The American Academy of Family Physicians; American Bar Association; American Public Health Association; American Society of Addiction Medicine; AIDS Action Council; British Medical Association; National Association of Attorneys General; National Association of People with AIDS; National Nurses Society on Addictions...

...and just about every single state's nursing association.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
Anonymous said…
The AMA also endorses medical marijuana research:

"The AMA calls for further adequate and well-controlled studies of marijuana and related cannabinoids in patients who have serious conditions for which preclinical, anecdotal, or controlled evidence suggests possible efficacy and the application of such results to the understanding and treatment of disease..."
lexrex said…
so 2:12, should taxpayers fund gastric bypass surgeries?
Anonymous said…
Anon 2:26,

Why don't copy and paste the really text of the website rather than your version. Looks like ACS supports research (OH MY GOD NOOOO). At no point does this site say ACS supports initiatives to legalize marijuana. NORML even highlights the RESEARCH portion of the sentance.

Not to mention a letter from a local chapter does not mean nationwide support.

Health Organizations Supporting Medical Marijuana Research

American Cancer Society
"[California Senate Bill] 535 focuses on medical marijuana research. [The] American Cancer Society ... supports S.B. 535 because it is consistent with our long-held position of supporting research of any agent or technique for which there may be evidence of a therapeutic advantage."
Reference: letter from ACS to California State Senator John Vasconcellos (July 24, 1997)
Anonymous said…
2:44 lexrex, a little protocol, my friend. you answer my questions first, then i'll answer yours, ok?
lexrex said…
actually 2:54, i asked the question first at 2:01.
Anonymous said…
lexrex, why don't you crawl back into your psuedo-christian hole and leave public health policy up to sane, reasonable people. When a vacine for AIDS is developed I shudder to think what your thoughts will be.
Anonymous said…
Fact - HPV is a disease that can cause deadly cervical cancer.

Why wouldn't you want to give your daughter an increased chance of avoiding this potentially fatal disease?

Fact - Humans have sex. If we don't, we will cease to exist.

Why wouldn't you want to protect your daughter from cancer simply because this type of cancer can be contracted through sexual contact?

I don't get it? I want to give my daughter the best chance of survival possible. Why am I wrong for wanting this? How am I or my daughter making a moral choice by seeking preventative vaccination? Help me understand.
Anonymous said…
yes, lexrex, of mr. epp. i am not he.
lexrex said…
nice, 3:00.

3:01, you can't be talking to me, right? you're not wrong for wanting the vaccination. if it's indeed safe, you should get it for your daughter.

3:07, huh?
PP said…
I can very, very easily understand the concerns of those whose objections solely revolve around Government paying for it.

I'd be a liar if it didn't make me stop and think as well.

The thing is, I'd get it for my daughters regardless. But if it was offered for free to only those at a certain income levels, there would be those above those income levels who would choose not to get it for various reasons or another.

Just because you make a certain amount of money, doesn't mean you're flush with cash. (God knows, you should see my food bill.)

The only way to guarantee the maximum number of people get the vaccine is to make it free and publicly available, just as many flu vaccines had been in the past.

During the polio outbreaks, when the vaccine finally became publicly available, I can assume those were handed out for free as well in order to get the most people vaccinated.
Anonymous said…
lexrex, you asked the gastric bypass question of Mr. Epp in 2:01.

I assumed it was either in jest, or purely rhetorical, since you went on to make a larger, more sweeping point about your beliefs as to what government should pay for.

I'm just trying to clarify what it is you are trying to say... what your philosophy on medicare, medicaid, school vaccinations and other public health issues is.

Certainly there are numerous government dollars being spent to help people aboid becoming obese.

Along with the other things I mentioned, do you think that is a good way to spend taxpayer money, or not?

There, did that help?
lexrex said…
3:28, you still didn't answer my question, but do i think taxpayer dollars should be spent on helping people avoid becoming obese? no, i do not.

as for medicare and medicaid, they are likely unconstitutional programs, at least at the federal level, but the point of being an constitutional purist is past.

so, i have to accept them and deal with them, though i would still like to see those programs limited in growth, which is why in principle i oppose the growth of government into health care, including vaccinations such as this one, if for no other reason than the sheer, forced cost to the taxpayer.

and if you want to ensure that a program will become less efficient and less effective, invite the government to come in and run it.
Anonymous said…
So only people who can afford health care should be able to receive it? Wow, you are a great Christian.
Bill Fleming said…
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said…
anon 2:49,

Can you translate your comment into English, please? Then maybe I can respond to it. Thanks in advance.
Anonymous said…
Thanks, lexrex! Now for my answer. I don't think the government should pay for gastric bypasses either. But I think my health insurance policy should cover such things and other "wellness" programs that they don't cover now. And I think my government should help convince our insurance companies to do so.

p.s. sorry about the above. I forgot, to post as anonymous. Wouldn't want anyone around here to get confused as to who I am (smile).
lexrex said…
3:57, "So only people who can afford health care should be able to receive it?"

when did i say that? i don't think i did.

your answer, though, is to turn to the government for help. i look to the private sector, to families, to churches and charities. even those evil pharmaceutical companies have programs for the poor. hospitals do, too. i know, because i've utilized them.

but the more the government takes our tax dollars, the less able those private entities will be able to help.

people, stop looking to our elected officials to solve all our problems. it's not their duty. besides, they're usually not very good at it.
lexrex said…
4:05, by your comments do you mean "force" insurance companies to do so?

again, with the government reliance. where does it end?

but if you don't think the government should solve the obesity health problem, why should it solve the hpv health problem?
Anonymous said…
I think insurance companies should be required to deliver on their promises and to justify the expense of their premiums by giving policy holders a good faith return on their investment. Otherwise, there is the potential for them to become a form of legalized fraud.

Gastric bypasses don't solve the obesity problem.

Polio vaccine solved the polio problem, smallpox vaccine solved the smallpox problem, etc.

Government funded research and other programs have helped solve a lot of our health related problems (TB, DTP etc.)

Not just with the development of the various treatments but also with the education and
distribution of them.

(This has been Fleming talking to you by the way, lr, in case you haven't already figured it out. But when in Rome...)
Anonymous said…
ps. lexrex, none of my comments to you contained any religious references or overtones, just so you know.

Those were some other "anonymous" person.
Anonymous said…
So, not only do women have to live according to narrow interpretations of Biblical meanings, but according to the Taliban writers in this post, they must die painfully because stupid people force their religious-political will upon others.

I've felt for some time now that the Bible-thumpin' ignoramouses out there need to stay away from science-based medical facilities and seek remedies solely from prayer-based services. This would lower the demand on medical facilities and improve the overall gene pool of humans breeding new generations of citizens. These creationist whackjobs can just go to non-science-based Prayer Hospitals and leave this planet just that much quicker. In their world of absolutes, certainly they can understand the value of leading, living and dying according to their narrow religious interpretations.
Anonymous said…
In short, lexrex, any chronic, epidemic medical problem that causes people to suffer and die that we the people can together solve, we the people should, IMO. That to me is what "promoting the general welfare" means. It's part of our constitution's mandate... one of the list of "in order to"s in the Preamble.
Anonymous said…
In short, lexrex, any chronic, epidemic medical problem that causes people to suffer and die that we the people can together solve, we the people should, IMO. That to me is what "promoting the general welfare" means. It's part of our constitution's mandate... one of the list of "in order to"s in the Preamble.
Anonymous said…
Government pays for or subsidizes vaccines because the break the cycle of contagious diseases.

All of these people whining about tax dollars to prevent public health outbreaks. You need to swear you will not accept any government arranged help in the event of an avian flu outbreak or a smallpox attack.

When they start distributing preventative vaccines or anti virals you just say no. Just trust in god. We wouldn't want to spend any tax dollars making sure you don't die of smallpox now would we?
Anonymous said…
To lexrex - You are amazing. Medicare and Medicaid are unconstitutional? Really? Please set forth argument for that?
Anonymous said…
6:06 Maybe not. Maybe we should take care of them in spite of themselves. It's the right thing to do, right? That's what I think, anyway.
Anonymous said…
Some of the conversation is very complex and left to just a few sentences.
Governmental mandates increase the cost of insurance to those who purchase insurance. People choose for various reasons not to purchase health insurance.

As a rich nation and all the money that seems to flow around eg; charity, imho, the government should stay out of science. I believe that the government can/should regulate science but not fund. I believe we could for example use the CDC to confirm test findings and results. Yes, the CDC is a governmental agency but some of those cost could be absorbed by the foundation/science based research facility trying to bring new meds, treatments etc into society.
Is this doable? I would think it would be. When people have a cause they are willing for fork the $$$ over.
Each time society leans on the government for money and/or funds the more society wants more of the cookie jar. We are not reducing programs they are growing to the point American can not afford it.
Should I say those who are paying taxes and I am not talking about someone paying sale tax for a burger from a fast food joint.
Again these statements are not in full context, just a bite as I think most is on this board.

Anonymous said…
Before I get jumped on yes, sale tax from fast food joints to count in the sceme of things and adds up quickly. Sorry to sound the way i did.
Douglas said…
Apparently the threat of cervical cancer has not stopped sex from happening, so why should removal of most of that threat generate rampant sexual misbehavior?

Some of the posts here suggest that PP needs to talk to Rounds about getting legislation that bans public stoning of females in South Dakota.

The primary problem with pre-marital sex is not the pre-marital sex per se, but with the apparently unforeseen consequences and those ignored by the naive and ignorant.

Sex education that isn't focused simply on abstinence might provide some of that useful information.

Of course, the professionals of chastity need to be hot on this issue to maintain reasons for continuing contributions to support their lifestyles.
Anonymous said…
While you folks are dunning the government for vaccine for your daughters, aren't you discriminating against your sons?

Since it still takes two to tango, why leave the young testosterone-loaded males loose to infect the female population?

In some cases, those girls may become future wives so shouldn't the government also pony up to pay to protect both sexes involved in the promiscuity?

Why not just vaccinate everyone and in so doing, we can wipe the two or three strains of HPV that are actually affected by the vaccine off the face of the earth? Of course that would involve furnishing vaccine, at around $300 a person, for every human on earth.

But of course, it’s only money and, hey – it’s for the children, isn’t it? And to hell with personal responsibility.
Anonymous said…
The kicker is...this was all probably proposed as a stunt just the make the blogsphere get it's collective panties in a wet little wad.

Damn Slick. It's working.
Anonymous said…
10:34 am Todd- Where was your fatherly advice and expert wisdom of morality during the fight to save pre-born babies?

2:26 pm - We should vote to smoke pot for any reason then and not just for medical reasons. NOT.

This sounds like a 14th Amendment battle and I expect males to equal access.
Anonymous said…
the people against this vaccination grew up in houses where their parents thought flouride was a communist conspiracy.

dont tell me you will pray for me. Im praying for YOU.

PP is right on the money.
Anonymous said…
The very first post on this long string still blows me away. The part about "True Republican". There are still fringes out there that believe that "they" are the true Republicans. Life has to be really frustrating for them.

The train has left the station pal.
Anonymous said…
8:26am: The fact that this string has over 60 posts is telling. The train has not left the station, pal. Those of us who happen to believe that Abstinence and prayer are more powerful than liberal government programs are trying to save the soul of the Republican Party.

What are you trying to do?
Anonymous said…
8:26am: Your statement: "Life must be frustrating for them?" is both untrue and unfortunate. Life is a wonderful thing, an opportunity to seek God's glory, both spiritually and politically. How can that be "frustrating"? It is, in fact, the opposite. Life is good.

It is unfortunate that you would try and demean us by making fun of what you think our lives must be like. I hope that someday you will recognize that.
Anonymous said…
I too wish the liberals in the GOP would stop demeaning the true conservatives who are fighting for God's will.

The liberals in the party are so worried about education, secular preschool, and silly reforms.

The only reform that matters is imposing God's will.

He will come crashing down on us if we fail in this command.
Anonymous said…
I love it. The theocrats are the heart and soul of the R party. Good luck to Karl Adam trying to keep this house in order. It's gonna be a hoot!
Anonymous said…
Religion has nothing to do with this issue. This is just one more example of our liberal governor throwing our tax money around to buy himself votes in future elections.

Dang it - that's my money you are wanting to use to vaccinate your kids with. Spend your own money to protect them! Aren't they worth a few hundred dollars to you?
Anonymous said…
11:10 I would spend money to vaccinate your kids. This only partly altruistic. I don't want your kids giving my kids the creepin' crud. (smile)
Anonymous said…
"The only reform that matters is imposing God's will"

Good to know you are aware of God's will. Realize of course that language like this leads people to blow up buses, kill doctors at family planning clinics and utilize the services of male prostitutes in denver for "massages" as well as meth procurement.

Anonymous said…
11:10. Rounds is wasting his time. Do you really think the libs are going to vote for him? It's useless pandering, just like a number of other things he has done. IT WILL GET HIM NOWHERE except distanced from his base of support.
Anonymous said…
I am a SD lib. I have voted for both Rounds and Mickelson. Never Janklow. Go figure.
Anonymous said…
Do you really think every move Rounds makes is based on political posturing? What if he really believes in saving a few lives by providing this vaccine regardless of how his base, future votes, or current favorable percentage will be affected?

Is is wrong for a person to do something because they believe it is right and good, and for no other reason? I think people are forgetting the true definition of politics (from Aristotle): the practical art of doing good.

I know there are a lot of people who don't believe this, but please don't forgot this is the reason why most people are active in our representative democracy.
Anonymous said…
I echo 1:16 pm's comments.

All of you fundamentalist religious people are ruining the Republican Party. You are not and never have been the majority, and your perception as such is further evidence of your deluded world view.

Your fundamentalist rhetoric is divisive and not founded in logic.

Christianity is an important part of many people's lives, but it does not lead to coherent/logical public policy.
Anonymous said…

I guess you liberals don’t understand that at the State and National level we ARE the base of the Republican Party!

Oh sure, some Republicans sprout off now when they don’t have anything to lose at the time. But we know, when they need campaign funds and votes, they will be calling on us just like they did in the last election.

You Democrats and liberals have been played well as the “anti-Christ”. The Republican Party at the State and National level labeled you. And the shoe fits so wear it!

I am sure that their slamming you for being anti-God, anti-family and anti-American are to get OUR votes, not yours. Not that hard to figure that out is it.

We know the Republican legislators will be back knocking at our door during the next election. Everyone knows we ARE the base of the Party. They always come back to us. Always have. Always will.

Sorry 3:24 PM but you are wrong. What I say in this post won't convince you. But just sit back and watch over the next couple of years. It won't be any different then the last election. The Republican legislators will come callin on us, not on you!
Anonymous said…

From my perspective, the conservative movement is not about saving Republicans, it is about saving America by saving the traditional American family. America was founded on the belief that God was above man. The secularists instead think that man should be above God.

And PP is wrong to think that giving eleven-year-olds STD shots is nothing but a public health issue. It’s about condoning the secular humanists’ sexual rights agenda, as the proponents of these shots are condoning eleven-year-olds having sex. If individual parents want to do that, the government shouldn't stop them. But it is wrong for government to make it public policy. That would be undermining it’s own criminal laws.

It is past the time that the sensible among us step up to the plate and protect our children from the sex-crazed agenda that the secular humanists are attempting to implement in the government schools.
Anonymous said…

No, please stay. For the exact same reason.
Anonymous said…
"Good to know you are aware of God's will."

Have you ever heard of the BIBLE?

It IS His word.

We know what His word is.

The Sioux Falls libs in the GOP who are oh so concerned about campaign finance reform and secular education money are betraying His word and destroying the Republican party.

It's simple.

Read the Bible and don't stray from implementing His commands.

If we don't give in to the secular wing, we will pay for it on judgement day.
lexrex said…
good to hear from you, bill flemming.

you say, "In short, lexrex, any chronic, epidemic medical problem that causes people to suffer and die that we the people can together solve, we the people should, IMO. That to me is what "promoting the general welfare" means. It's part of our constitution's mandate... one of the list of "in order to"s in the Preamble."

where do you get that definition of "general welfare?" did the guys who drafted that say anything remotely close to your definition?
Anonymous said…
From bill fleming:
“That to me is what "promoting the general welfare" means.”

South Dakota statutes state that the age of consent is 16. Promoting the general welfare should not include condoning illegal activities.
Anonymous said…
lr, 5:21. I don't know for sure, lexrex. Like I said, that's what I think it means, what do you think it means?
Anonymous said…
Read pp's post Sibby, and try not to be so dumb.
Alexander Fleming didn't develop penicillin so you could have more sex and not have to worry about getting the clap. The children who get the vaccine don't even have to know what it's for. Better if they don't actually. When they get their DPT shots, do you do into a long speech about what Diptheria, Whooping Cough and Tetanus is? Do you even know what they are?
Anonymous said…

You hit the bullseye. Your initial post (I have neither the time nor the stomach to read the 82 posts above this one) is dead on the mark.

Congrats on having another. You're great parents.

Anonymous said…
If God is a Republican, as many seem to believe, what was he before the 1850's?
Anonymous said…
Sleeping, waiting for the Republican enlightenment of the 1990s.
Anonymous said…
We should not fight lung cancer because smoking is a sin and we will only be promoting that behavior? We should not fight liver disease because to do so would encourage the sins of the drinker? On and On.

Perhaps "Doctor" Unruh should stop practicing because surely he is encouraging a plethora of ungodly activities.
Anonymous said…
It is with great joy that I see the control of the grassroots of the Republican Party firmly in the grasp of fools who've offered their Taliban views here on modern medicine. These "Thought Police" will serve Democrats well by driving every common sense American to run as far from the Republican Party as possible.

I like the idea from an earlier post that these Taliban Republicans be refused treatment at modern hospitals because of their neanderthal agenda to turn the clock backward for all of us. If they have any personal integrity, they should be willing to go the way of the Shakers and be willing to die young and painfully for their cause to force their narrow, uneducated religious beliefs down the throats of our free nation.

As caustic as that sounds, P.P., I congratulate you for announcing that modern science can continue its progress to cure more and more ailments, slogging against the hordes of superstitious twits who wish to stop science-based progress. Rather than force schools to preach religious beliefs as a substitute for science, they should ask to pass legislation which identifies themselves as Faith-Healed on their driver's licenses. This would enable first responders to refuse them treatments that would confound their religious principles. In fact, I think this could be achieved through amending the silly conscientious objector law which allows pharmacists from refusing to fill medical prescriptions solely because of their personal religious beliefs (against contraception).

A modest proposal from your humble servant.
Anonymous said…
The "Thought Police" are not in control anymore. Take a look at what has transpired in Pierre since the election.

I am a Pro-life Republican but I will not suffer these fools any longer. They would prefer young women endure immense hardship to prove their self-righteous points.

Some of the greatest sinners are those who refuse to recognize their own failings. Sad, pathetic, unforgiving fools.
Anonymous said…
Fyi... new poster here, having read all 88 of these comments thought I'd weigh in myself.

The Republican Party "base", in my opinion, has a much more moderate view than people setting policy. In short, the 10% of people who are rabid..err.. attend meetings set the agenda. The same goes for the other side.

Consider the vast number of my friends who are Catholic. I don't know a one of them who doesn't agree with one or more of the "required" beliefs. The cafeteria Catholics if you will.

Power ultimately comes from the people. The 10% of you who lean wayyy to the right or the left will find this out when you cross the line and discover that no one has your back.

The Republican Right spouting God's Will is in this situation right now, again in my opinion.

Happy Trails!
Anonymous said…
1:22. I Agree.The SD state motto is "Under God THE People Rule" , not "SOME" people rule or "ONLY CERTAIN" people rule. And it certainly doesn't say "God Rules." Who wrote that motto anyway, some Democrat?
Anonymous said…
pp, in a different blog topic you posted "Live Republican or Die" me

Do you think you need to change that to "Live Liberal Republican or Die" me?

Just as the first post on this topic said: "I thought that you were a true Republican. Your liberal ideas on this matter are deeply troubling."

"Live Republican or Die" me yeah sure, cafeteria Republican. Just pick and choose when you want to follow that statement!

Sandra Petree in today’s Argus leader had a great suggestion: "How much better it would be if that much money was spent on abstinence-based and self-help educational programs for our young people, rather than on programs that give the wrong message".

pp, you can't pick and choose when you want to be a true Christian. Either you are or you aren’t. Are you?
Anonymous said…
9:18pm - Prior to 1850, the United States allowed slavery. The Republican Party ended that practice 15 years later.

Thomas Jefferson, the founder of the Democratic Party was an avowed atheist.

Now, you tell me whose side God is on?
Anonymous said…
Hang tough, PP. You know what to do, brother.
Anonymous said…
who doesn't have sex out of fear for cancer? this is ridiculous.
Anonymous said…
you can get cancer from sex? Also, why hasn't God smitted all the sex sinners, VJ?
Anonymous said…
Pay for your own kids' shots. I have enough trouble trying to come up with the money to pay for the deductible on my insurance without having to find the money to pay for your kids' medical bills. If you want socialized medicine, move to Canada or the United Kingdom.

And leave religion out of this.
Anonymous said…
Anon 3:31 - Thomas Jefferson, the man who penned the Declaration of Independence was an aetheist?

So where does that fit into the argument that our forefathers intended for God to be involved in government?

Gee, maybe the Bill of Rights section that addresses Freedom of Religion also means freedom from having some people force their religious beliefs on others who do not share those beliefs. Do ya think?

Wow, what a radical liberal concept!

P.S. I don't think God takes sides between his children. Most parents don't.
Anonymous said…
When the old man at the convention said, I am to old to write the important document. They chose a man who had a way with words. He went back to his hotel room and sat down to write. He borrowed from the Enlightenment-reason and liberty. The 33 year old man was diest by faith. When ask about his accomplishments later in life, he listed the University of Virginia. The man who professed seperation of Church and state said that Virginia was the first university which was created or operated by a religious faith. This man who had a way with words on paper, once said that I will not tangle with the words of wit from the former bartender. Both men stood for reason. The second may be only known for the label that many revolutionary soldiers wore in to battle "Give me liberty or give me death!".

I point to these two men of reason because of the new hpv vaccine from Merck and the new vaccine expected from GlaxoSmithKline in April, 2007. These vaccines have been worked on and developed over many years. Many failures by many companies have been reported. Then a man in Austalia said, maybe a recognized chemical that has no viruses in the vaccine would be the answer. Austalia named him the man of the year. He, too, was a man of reason. The hpv vaccine will not only prevent cervical cancer; but vulvar, penile, anal, and many head and neck cancers. Did you know that brain tumors in children under 3 years of age are associated with hpv. A school called UCLA dental school said that about 8,000 oral cancers deaths are attributed to hpv. Maybe this is the reason that the European Union gave a thumbs up for not only girls but also boys for the hpv vaccine. Maybe you did not know that the virus hpv creates portal entry for other viruses to enter the body. Actually, it is very difficult to get hiv because the single strain DNA is not capable of skin entry without a lesion.

Yeap, I am a man of reason. The message must be getting across to the women of New Hampshire. The news is that the women are calling doctors about the HPV is such large numbers for the vaccination that is being compared to the rush of the cabbage patch dolls. Cabbage patch dolls were the thing that mothers wanted for their daughters--- but a shortage created problems for them.

Yes, gramma is the leading force for the hpv vaccine. You see, one in four women end up with hysterectomies. The big reason is fibroids followed by the presence of cancer. There is hope and it is called Gardasil.

From a man of reason
Anonymous said…
10:59. Grouch.

Maybe if your insurance company wasn't so corrupt, you could afford a lower deductable policy.

Just a thought.
Anonymous said…
Well, "man of reason", I don't argue with the fact that the HPV vaccine would prevent many cancers, along with having many other benefits.

I most assuredly DO argue that I shouldn't have to pay for those vaccinations. I paid for all my children's vaccinations and all their medical bills and I expect you to do the same.

Again, aren't your children worth a couple hundred dollars to you?
Anonymous said…
8:30, are you the same one who doesn't want government to use tax $ to pay for highways in Aberdeen, Mobridge and Buffalo because you don't go there?

Are you the same one who doesn't want your tax dollars spent on public schools because you don't have kids in them right now?

Was that you who wants to eliminate medicaid because if people can't afford healthcare they shouldn't get any? They should just shut up and die?

I suppose if you had been around in the 1950's you would have been against government providing the polio vaccine.

Most likely, you're one of those people who think tax dollars should be used to spread your version of Christian values, but they shouldn't be used to spread public health. You're pathetic!
PP said…
VJ -

It's bad enough you call into question my Christianity. For the record, I'm Catholic. You know, that fringe sect that's been around a couple of thousand years, and can trace it's first leader back to Simon Peter, disciple of Jesus.

Oh yeah, it's also the largest Christian Church and the largest organized body of any world religion. 1 in 6 people on this planet are catholic.

But getting back to it - calling into question my creed is one thing, but inferring that I'm a Liberal Republican? Those are fighting words.

Lest you forget one of the things that republicans used to agree on.....I am a Republican Because

I Believe... The proper function of government is to do for the people those things that have to be done but cannot be done, or cannot be done as well, by individuals, and that the most effective government is government closest to the people.

I Believe... Good government is based upon the individual and that each person's ability, dignity, freedom, and responsibility must be honored and recognized.

I Believe... The free enterprise and the encouragement of individual initiative and incentive have given this nation an economic system second to none.

I Believe... Sound money management should be our goal.

I Believe... In equal right, equal justice and equal opportunity for all, regardless of race, creed, age, sex or national origin.

I Believe... We must retain those principles of the past worth retaining, yet always be receptive to new ideas with an outlook broad enough to accommodate thoughtful change and varying points of view.

I Believe... That Americans value and should preserve their feeling of national strength and pride, and at the same time share with people everywhere a desire for peace and freedom and the extension of human rights throughout the world.

I Believe... The Republican Party is the best vehicle for translating these ideals into positive and successful principles of government.

Cafeteria Republican!?! You show me what part I'm leaving out of my idelogy.

It appears that you are confusing political ideology with your own personal beliefs and morality.

As long as you're bringing up morality, my own moral code notes that telling my daughters they're going to get an immunization shot to prevent cancer is not going to send them out on street corners looking for love at 11 years old.

The vote yes on 6 movement (which I generally supported if you hadn't noticed) had several spokespersons who regretted earlier actions, and considered what they did earlier in life a mistake.

Despite all their parent's preaching of "don't have premarital sex," a couple of them admitted that they admit they made at least 2 poor judgement choices, one of which was having sex before marriage.

It's not like I don't preach abstinence and morality to my kids. But I'm not so naive to forget that kids do stupid things.

When I was a kid, I did stupid things. I ran with scissors. I played near traffic, and in high school, I wrecked 2 vehicles, one of which put me in the hospital in traction for several months, and the other put me in a half-a-million dollar lawsuit (And I'd personally like to thank God for contientious jurors).

God forbid if at some point in their lives, one of my kids does something incredibly stupid, such as have unprotected sex.

In this instance, I might not be able to prevent most of the other unintended consequences of the act, but I possibly can prevent it from being a death sentence from cancer.

As the parent of 5 (possibly 6) daughters, it's my duty to protect them from those that would harm them, including themselves through a poor moment's judgement.

If you'd prefer your daughters risk cancer for one of the times in their life they might exercise poor judgement, knock yourself out.

When it comes to my family, I'm just not that much of a risk taker.
Anonymous said…
Well said, PP. But where does the government paying for your kids' shots come into your conservative equation?

Your quote: "I Believe... The proper function of government is to do for the people those things that have to be done but cannot be done, or cannot be done as well, by individuals, and that the most effective government is government closest to the people."

You can't get your own children vaccinated?
lexrex said…
3:38, i think you got your history wrong about jefferson. he was a professed Christian but a unitarian, not a deist.

but what does that, or religion, have to do with this issue? this is about those who believe the government is the answer to all our problems and those who believe that the private sector is better suited.

i'm quite sure that jefferson would've scoffed at the thought of socialized medicine.
lexrex said…
pp, i always wondered about that when you said, "I Believe... The proper function of government is to do for the people those things that have to be done but cannot be done, or cannot be done as well, by individuals, and that the most effective government is government closest to the people."

where does that come from? did any of our founders say that?

isn't it better said that republicans believe that the proper function of the government is to do what the people gave it permission to do in the constitution?
Anonymous said…
US Constitution, Article I

Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and GENERAL WELFARE of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.

So, lexrex, do you think the terms "general welfare" and "common good" are interchangeable? A lot of people do.

The same language is used in the SD Constitution also.
Anonymous said…
You know, you guys (assumption here, I know) act like ONLY women carry the virus. Have you stopped to think about your virginal daughter on her wedding night catching the virus from her "good ol' boy" groom? UNBELIEVABLE! I'm pro life (with no exceptions), voted for 6, voted conservative republican all my life. There is nothing "liberal" or "wanton" about wanting the best health for your daughters. SHAME, SHAME,SHAME!!!
Anonymous said…

your set of beliefs sounds a lot like mine with the exception of the one about the Republican Party being the best vehicle to translate those ideals to positive and successful principles of government.

On several of those principles, the Republican Party is a resounding failure with no hope of turning things around in the forseeable future.

As to government facilitating those things that individuals cannot do for themselves, Republicans were principal opponents to social security, medicare and medicaid.

As to freedom and government close to the people, Republicans have brought us a federal government run amok, with the patriot act, indefinite detentions without trial - even for American citizens, warrantless searches of bank records, internet and mail, and the position that the President can do whatever he wants unrestrained in any way by courts or congress. Under Bush, all of our freedoms are put at risk by unrestrained government.

As to free enterprise, Republicans again fail. No-bid contracts to big political supporters, no-negotiation law for medicare prescription drug benefit. So much for competition and free enterprise where the company with the best product and price is allowed to compete.

As to sound money management, using that phrase in the same sentence as Republican Party is utterly laughable. Under the Reagan presidency, the deficit ballooned, even though the Democratic congress cut Reagan's proposed budgets. Democrat Bill Clinton's fiscal responsibility eliminated deficits and even paid down the national debt. Then GW came in and cut taxes while increasing spending - again creating huge deficits.

The Republican Party's national version of "sound money management" is cutting taxes while increasing spending and awarding huge no-bid contracts. The Republican Party's state version of "sound money management" is increasing taxes while at the same time stockpiling taxpayer money in reserve and trust funds.

Anyone who believes in the ideals PP set out should vote Democrat.
Anonymous said…
10:40 a.m. said: i'm quite sure that jefferson would've scoffed at the thought of socialized medicine.

10:40 AM

Hmmm...doesn't matter what Jefferson said. Many here have entered religion into this mix.

Along those lines...Jesus said we need to be our brothers' keeper. I wonder about the far right Republicans "take care of myself" beliefs in regard to medical services. They are hiding behind religion, when in fact they are just plain selfish.

Universal coverage needs to be done or it won't be affective.
Anonymous said…
Maybe someone has already pointed this out, but let's be very clear.

Cancer does not have a vaccine at this point!!

This vaccine is for an STD only!

Just because you found short term cure for one of the causes does not make this a cancer vaccine.

Women still have to go in for their regular pap smear's and cervical cancer is almost completely preventable by this alone. We need to educate women on the importance of taking care of their bodies vs. just giving them a shot in the arm.
Anonymous said…
Excellent point 12:06.
lexrex said…
12:10, here's my answer:

james madison said: "With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."

thomas jefferson said, "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."
lexrex said…
james madison said: "With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."

thomas jefferson said, "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."
lexrex said…
do i need to say it a 3rd time? (sorry, i double-pumped on my last post.)
Anonymous said…
I just got back from visiting the pediatrician with my 8 year old daughter. She "recommends" the vaccine.
I see no reason to inject her with this. The side effects are as yet unknown. The pediatrician also told me that she's going to need a new chickenpox vaccine because (guess what) the one that they gave her as a child has worn off. How long will this vaccine last?
Look at the numbers: 10,000 women a year diagnosed. Not a very common disease. I only know 1 person who has had it, and yes, she was promiscuous (spelling)as was her spouse.
Cervical cancer is treatable if caught early. That is why women should be getting annual pap smears.
This vaccine doesn't prevent all cervical cancers. Are kids 20 years from now going to be getting multiple shots for all of the different varieties?
Maybe if she were 18, this might make sense, but at 8? and the pediatrician wonders why I don't bring her in except when she needs vaccines.
I think its just a scam to make more money for the health industry.

Popular posts from this blog

Breaking News: Frederick not in SDGOP Chair Race

A strategic move by Sutton. Good for him, bad for Dems.