More Legislator comment on the HPV Vaccine

I see a few of the legislators around the state are reacting to the HPV issue. Check out what was said in the Yankton paper:

District 19 Rep. Gary Jerke (R-Tripp) expressed concerns about the message that is being sent with the vaccination of young girls for a virus that can be spread by sexual activity.

"It makes me nervous that we don't have a corresponding emphasis on abstinence or those things that would discourage (sexual activity)," Jerke said. "To me, this makes a statement that the state endorses that type of lifestyle, of sexual promiscuity. What is the message that we as a state are sending, to make a drug available to 11-year-old girls and not, at a minimum, provide any other emphasis?"

District 18 Rep. Garry Moore (D-Yankton) disagreed, looking at the vaccination as a health issue and not as sending the wrong moral message.

"The governor said it best, that ... there is still a need to talk about abstinence," Moore said. "Anybody who thinks, if you go out and get this vaccination that you are promiscuous -- that is a misnomer. I don't think that's fair at all."

Moore said he hopes as many young women as possible receive the vaccine.

"Anytime you have the ability to be vaccinated, you should take that opportunity," he said. "We want people to remember, the government is not mandating this, they are just going to make it available to those who wish to have the vaccination."

"Anytime you have the vaccination, and it's voluntary in nature, I absolutely applaud a program like that," he added.

District 17 Rep. Jamie Boomgarden (R-Chancellor) predicted the availability of the vaccine, and the threat of HPV and cervical cancer, would stimulate frank discussions among families.

"If the vaccine becomes available, young adults and parents need to discuss getting it. I guess, as long as (the vaccine is) an option, it's probably the way to go," he said of the proposal. "As far as sexual activity, I don't think (Rounds' proposal is) sending a wrong message. But parents need to be talking with their young kids. ... Hopefully, it will open up dialogue and open up the knowledge that kids as young as 11 are sexually active out there."

District 18 Rep. Charlii Gilson (R-Yankton) said she had previously known about the cancer threat.

"My sister is a pathologist specializing in female cancers, and she has told me a long time ago that most cervical cancers are caused by this HPV, so I think this vaccine is wonderful," she said.

"If we prevent 20 cases of cancer, it's worth it. Think of the health care costs to treat one case. Most of the time, when these young girls get cancer, the outcome is not good."

District 19 Sen. Frank Kloucek (D-Scotland) said constituents had asked him to submit legislation on the issue, but he will now defer to the governor's proposal.

Read it all here. (free subscription required).


VJ said…
"Focus on the Family affirms –- above any available health intervention -– abstinence until marriage and faithfulness after marriage as the best and primary practice in preventing HPV and other STIs."

Enough said!
Anonymous said…
Traditional values are very important and I agree VJ, but, on the other hand we would be less than honest to think sexual activty does not happen in many cases.
Maybe we should look at this as prevention of cancer not as a med for sexual activity.

What bothers me the most is the newness of the drug and what has been the lack of some time periods data trials and when the FDA approves some drugs.
Anonymous said…
You theocrats need to get your heads out of the sand. A staggering 95% of people have premarital sex. That's right, over 9 out of 10.

It's called the 21st century. Maybe you'll join us here someday. Or maybe you'll die first. Either way, kids are going to keep having sex, no matter what you do about it. Might as well make them a little safer and give them the shot.
Anonymous said…
And the only thing that bothers me is that the state expects ME to pay for it!!!!
Anonymous said…
Smaller government!

Less intervention!

If you want the vaccine--go get it--but don't pay for it with tax money--pay for it with the money you make at your JOB or place of business!
Anonymous said…
Why are we taxing individuals to smoke, but paying for others to engage in premarital sex?? Isn't the bottom line the same issue...what people choose to do? Just a few decades ago thousands more people used to smoke and the rest of us paid for it in several ways. When is society going to wise up about the ill effects of premarital sex and promote abstinence??
Anonymous said…
I know it's hard to think about the future and spending a little money now creates greater value in the future.

7:52 PM is right, no matter how much abstinence education there is people are still going to have premarital sex. Why not spend a little money now and be able to save lives and also decreasing the insurance/medical costs that we all end up paying for someone dying from a cancer that could have been prevented?
Anonymous said…
anon 9:01
This vaccine wont lower insurance costs at all. In order to truly prevent cervical cancer the women MUST get their regular pap smear. I'm interested to see if insurance companies will cover doctor's visits and this vaccine.

Please remember this vaccine only protects against a sexually transmitted disease.

This is not a cancer vaccine!

Proper knowledge women need to take care of them selves physically wont come through a shot, and unfortunately I see to many treating this STD vaccine as the miracle cure.
Anonymous said…
It's not a miracle cure, but it does protect against four strains of HPV that cause 70% of cervical cancers. That is a great start.

It will reduce insurance cost of the treatment of those 70% of cervical cancers. Treatment and death is a hell of a lot more expensive than a shot and a Pap.
Anonymous said…
anon 7:52

Time to get your facts straight.

First of all, CNN is not a credible source of information. They have a personal agenda just like any other liberal news source which is fine. Just don't quote their stories as fact.

Second, they are talking about the study from Guttmacher which is paid for by planned parenthood.

Third, they are talking about people who are in the 40+ age bracket which is way beyond the age they are looking at vaccinations for. Not to mention that abstinence education didn't begin until the 90's so they never would have received that information in school.

If you truly look at the numbers of youth who have sex the number is less than half.

I hope the link works.

This was a study done in conjunction with the CDC and National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion.

According to the CDC's numbers less than 47% of the kids were having sex.

So your phony 95% doesn't hold water to that. Sorry!
Anonymous said…
I just cannot believe that this is even an issue. A drug may prevent a horrible disease, and some of you are actually against it? What is wrong with you? Have you no decency?
Anonymous said…
Anon: 12:17
Follow up, I forgot to mention in the post that abstinence education started in the schools in 1995 with the Welfare Reform Act.

Since 1995, the number of teens having sex has decreased by over 6%. Those are the facts talking!!
(use the same link earlier to look it up for yourself)

You also can't ignore that this "vaccine" prevents only 4 of the 30 strains of ONE of the countless STD's in the US.

We just need to come up with about 650 more vaccines to cover all strains of STD's and it will be "safe" for us to all have sex with each other. (physically anyway)

Abstinence education works and the numbers prove it!!
Anonymous said…
Of course, if you catch HPV from a toilet seat or a swimsuit or something, abstinence isn't going to do you much good.
Anonymous said…
Again, those 4 little strains cause 70% of cervical cancers. How is this even an issue?
Anonymous said…
anon 12:54

Was there a point to that post?

Pornographic sex ed wouldn't do you any good in that case either now would it?
Anonymous said…
Pornographic sex ed? Holy crap, do we still live in the United States or is this blog taking place in some third world country where the best medicine is the local witch doctor?

You're makin mountains out of molehills people.
Anonymous said…
anon 2:56

I'm assuming you didn't see the books that were in the Sioux Falls School District last year.

oral sex, anal sex, mutual masturbation were being taught in 7th grade "health" classes.

You call it what you want. If it walks like a dog, barks like a dog and looks like a dog. Guess's a dog.

I will now sit back and wait for someone to bring up "comprehensive" as I laugh at their attempt to credit that garbage.
Anonymous said…
Once again, definitive proof that sex sells.

Why is that?

(secret password: "entdo")

... kind of interesting, karmically, maybe.
Anonymous said…
4:46: That's false.
Anonymous said…
Typical liberal response. When you can't debate, call your opponent a liar to discredit the source. Do you really not have anything else besides finger pointing?
lexrex said…
ditto 10:14.
Anonymous said…
I want to know where PP finds (or they find him) the um "interesting" people who post in thes HPV threads.

You guys make the anti government militia guys look reasonable.

95% of people have premarital sex.
Abstinence programs have been shown to be a miserable failure in repeated studies.
The vaccine prevents the infections that lead to cervical cancer so it IS a prevention for cancer.
The strains this vaccine covers account for 70% of the cervical cancers and is 100% effective at preventing them.
Yet you people are obsessed with some teenage girls vagina.

Your promoting that we look the other way and allow people to die from a preventable cancer.

How pro life is that?

Popular posts from this blog

Why should we be surprised?

That didn't take long