Her Body, Your Choice

God made me the mother of sons because He knows, a.) I would craft a lovely frock from three feet of gaffer's tape and a lawn and leaf bag before I gave in to pop culture and dressed my daughter like a prosti-Tot, b.) there is not a nerve pill on the market to soothe the skeeves I would endure watching my daughter wiggle her cooch all over a filthy public toilet seat in order to pee, and c.) Jane doesn't look so good in stripes.

But I would gladly do jail time before I allowed Big Brother access to my little girl's panties.

The presumption by some law makers that they know best how to save us from ourselves is not new, but it has taken a grotesque twist this week. New Hampshire has been giving the Gardisil vaccine away for free (with your federal subsidies) since January first. But coming soon to a state near you, pseudoscience peddled by pharmaceutical giant and sole manufacturer of Gardisil, Merck may determine if your sixth grade daughter can legally attend school.

I will not waste a moment arguing the efficacy of the immunization for Human Papillomavirus (HPV) or the various forms of the infection itself. What fascinates me is the same shrill Democrat lawmakers and proponents of "choice" with regards to other matters involving the Government's "control" of the female body, are forgetting the main tenet of their own argument. Ah, Feminist cliche.

Given the fact that a minor's body is still, to the disgust of Planned Parenthood, the dominion of her parents, the Nanny State agenda has resorted to intimidation and fear to build public support for what amounts to the Left legislating the morality this time around.

In bed with Big Pharma, Liberals (Libs?), are comparing the mandate for this shot to the need for a Measles vaccine. Since when was "likely" cancer a public health issue? Cancer itself is not communicable. Furthermore, this virus, HPV, is a SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED disease. This is the very down played part of the pitch. Your daughter can't contract the cancer-producing strain of HPV if all a boy does is sneeze on her. Nope. Gotta accomplish a little more than snot to pass this benefit on to a friend.

How about this? In exchange for God's merciful deliverance from parenting girls, I will consecrate my sons to a higher use than clean cars and mowed lawns. I vow to raise gentlemen who will keep their boxers pulled up so your little girl can keep her sleeve rolled down, everybody keeps their germs to themselves, and the Government can keep its damned laws off her body.

__________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

UPDATE: Wouldn't you just know it? Seizures? Side Effects?

CANDY SLICE OF LIFE updates the emerging faultlines in this tidy fix to a non-problem.

__________________________________________________________________________

Comments

[Stealthkix]

Once again we see an extreme lack of common sense from the left. How are we allowing these people to make decisions that effect us all??

[gary]

My position on this is that I am all for this vaccine but opposed to making it mandatory.

I'm not sure why you call this "pseudoscience." Presumably, the vaccine works and has been verified by the FDA. I would call it "science." Merck is pushing this bigtime, of course, for obvious reasons.

[JANE SAYS: You say "presumably" it works. Very cavalier when you are speaking of a young girl's fertility and other health effects for which THE SOLE MANUFACTURER, MERCK, has not done long term studies. Studies which are part of an HONEST "scientific" process, if I'm not mistaken.

Are you going to put YOUR daughter up for that study? After all, its for SCIENCE....RIGHT?

And can't you just hear the conversation in the back of the Mustang?
"Oh, baby, its OK, we don't need that CONDOM, I had THE SHOT!" Because as "ignorant" as these parents are according to the GOVERNMENT that wants to force their will on them, do you think Princess is going to get an intelligent EXPLAINATION of what it WILL and what it WILL NOT protect her from? ]

[FASTAC 6]

What's yer problem, Babe? Big Brother loves you.

[JANE SAYS: Niiice.]

[gary]

Merck must have done a series of studies, including preclinical studies, Phase 1,2, and 3 clinical studies, and then received FDA approval. This is a long process. Now, obviously they have not done long-term 20-30 year studies, which is one reason why I am opposed to this vaccine being mandatory.

I don't think the young girl in the back of the Mustang will forego the condom because she doensn't have to worry about cervical cancer. There is still the risk of pregnancy, AIDS, and sexually transmitted diseases.

My daughter is 18 and can make up her own mind about this vaccine. Some opponents of the vaccine seem to think that we should keep cervical cancer around to scare our children away from sex. I doubt that any young person has ever decided not to have sex because of the possibility of contracting cervical cancer.

[JANE SAYS:

"I doubt that any young person has ever decided not to have sex because of the possibility of contracting cervical cancer."

You are ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. BUT if she is that stupid, you gotta wonder how much MORE CONFUSED she will be when she hears "protect you from a disease".

But yeah I agree with you, if BIG BROTHER can't tell you that you can't have an abortion, you can't ask that same ogre to lumber into your house and shoot your daughter up with chemicals.]

[FASTAC 6]

BTW- I've got 2 girls, 2 boys (3 counting son-in-law). Boys are much easier to raise, for many reasons.

[Sniper One]

I have three sons, so I'm not really qualified to answer this question.

I'm not sure I'm against this being a regular immunization, like polio, because it "SHOULD" benefit the person receiving it.

At the same time, I don't know how widespread a problem this virus is.

I'll defer to your judgment (Jane) until I get more information.

[JANE SAYS: I am no scientist. (Reeeally?) But the point is we don't know WHAT it could do to our daughters in the long term. Fertility etc ?And while one cannot avoid the MEASLES short of living on a deserted island, one can READILY AVOID THE CANCER CAUSING STRAIN OF HPV by avoiding casual and frequent sex partners. Any man can be tested for it, so he need not pass it to his partner.

So there. IT IS YOUR ISSUE TOO, ELF.

Cop out chickenshit....heh. ;) ]

[gary]

Jane, you said that one can "READILY AVOID THE CANCER CAUSING STRAIN OF HPV by avoiding casual and frequent sex partners." But this would only decrease the risk not eliminate it. If it's spread through sex then having sex with one person could spread it, it seems to me, just like HIV. And, of course, most people have several sexual partners in a lifetime.

[JANE SAYS:

"And, of course, most people have several sexual partners in a lifetime."

Darlin', you make this too easy. As my Grandmother used to say, "Just because you CAN doesn't mean that you SHOULD."

First. There are blood tests one can have, EVEN MEN. If say, the man had the virus from an indescriminate youth, his WIFE might be protected from this virus that she DOES NOT HAVE by having the vaccine as part of a normal pre-marital physical.

Second. Just because a female CHOOOSES (there's that word again) to have sex before marriage, it is not MY fiduciary duty as a TAX PAYER to pick up the tab for whatever might befall her. Children, STDS...NOTHING. EVER. The fact that I THINK she is a slut is immaterial.It is about $$$$$$$. Nothing more.

ABSTINENCE PREVENTS STD's (and unwanted pregnancies) 100% of the time it is applied.

And don't niggle me with "what ifs". "What ifs" are for helpless victims. IF YOU FAIL TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT LAST FACT (FACT!), then you are not being RATIONAL, you are not interested in a thoughtful discussion and I will cease to acknowledge your comments. ;) ]

[Chuck]

Thanks for stopping by my little blog. I enjoy your blog. I also like your comments over at Hot Air. I have 4 children. 3 are boys and the youngest is a girl. She's only 3 and I'm already scared. Don't you love it when the left whines that conservatives are in bed with big business, but hey it's ok for them to do it because they are doing it for the "greater good" and not to line their pockets. Yeah right.

[JANE SAYS: A CYNICAL Evangelical! Oh, you'll be right at home in The Realm. WELCOME!]

[gary]

Not only CAN someone have more than one sexual partner in a lifetime I would say they should and most will. Others may disagree. I agree with Bertrand Russell who wrote that young people should be taught that sexual intercourse is never justified unless there is mutual inclination.

Sure, a man can be tested for this virus. I've never been.

[gary]

Oh, and you wanted me to acknowledge that abstinence prevents STDs. Yes, it does. And if young people can be persuaded to delay sexual activity for a few years, great; that is probably a good thing. But many people are delaying mariage until their mid-twenties or later, and cannot be be expected to abstain from sex for that long. And why should they-sex is a good thing.

[JANE SAYS:

Just as there are no atheists in foxholes, here are no Pro-Lifers under the bleachers, I always say. AND THAT IS "NORMAL". I was there. I have dear friends who made tough choices. But anyone's choice about the way they order their life is not a TAXPAYER's concern. And my two friends would agree with that. And thank you for being the ONE honest "progressive" to admit that abstinence works. You can't believe the ABSURD rhetorical lengths to which real KOOL-AID drinkers (on BOTH sides, regrettably) will go to deny that the emperor is naked, just to push their agenda!

And please understand, I DO NOT DOUBT that the vaccine is effective to the satisfaction of the FDA (yikes!) for use by a properly informed and consenting ADULT. (Its ALL about "consent", right?) But to foist it on a CHILD by scaring her parents, in exchange for a public education, is corporate driven extortion of the worst kind in which state governments are shamefully complicit.

I do not expect any "mandate" to withstand the first legal challenge. Some sheep will go along, but the ACLJ will be all over this like stink. And RIGHTLY SO.

See you tomorrow, Gary!]

[mymomsawenchbutsoisyours]

RE: Comment, "I'm not sure why you call this "pseudoscience." Presumably, the vaccine works and has been verified by the FDA. I would call it "science." "

Yes, we can trust the FDA and big pharma. Go ahead, trust them. These are also the "scientists" who stated that having ETHYL MERCURY (i.e., thimerosal) in my kid's vaccines would not harm him. Then he needs brain surgery for mercury-induced seizures. Thanks for your concern and for saving my kid from another unlikely contracted disease, Merck and FDA; I think I'll pass on this one....

[anonymous]

I hate to burst your bubble, but is there any evidence that liberals actually support mandatory Gardasil vaccinations? All that article states is that Merck lobbyists have proposed such a measure. There is NO indicator of support from either side.

[JANE SAYS: I quote from the article I linked in GREEN, that you DID NOT BOTHER TO READ, "ANONYMOUS"

"But Texas Rep. Jessica Farrar said her proposal is aimed at protecting children whose parents are less informed about or less interested in preventive care.

"Not everybody has equal sets of parents," said Farrar, a Houston Democrat who had precancerous cells removed from her cervix several years ago. "I think this is a public health issue and to not want to eradicate cervical cancer is irresponsible."

You not reading is no cause to accuse me of anything.]

[Canatheist]

The bigger question here is, would any mother that wanted to protect her child from cervical cancer NOT want to have her vaccinated? As someone who's worked in big Pharma (and heard endless griping about rules, regulations, change control, etc while doing research) I can say it's a pretty meticulous process with very little margin for error. There are always exceptions (phen-pehn, anyone?) but for the most part it's a solid, time-tested process. No process is 100% perfect, however.

You mentioned that "it is not MY fiduciary duty as a TAX PAYER to pick up the tab for whatever might befall her. Children, STDS...NOTHING. EVER." I'm curious to hear what you feel your fiduciary duty is.

I've found that people who do the absinence debate miss an important point - it only works when it's an informed choice. People are going to have sex. Why not make sure they're well educated in safety options and risks before they start? Would you want a son who was a construction worker to go on the job before receiving any safety training and being unaware of the risks?

[JANE SAYS: A Mother might very well CHOOOOSE to have her daughter vaccinated. Or tattooed, or pierced or circumcised, if she was inclined. Or she might bind her feet or cut her hair. THESE ARE THE MOTHER'S CHOICE to make. Not yours. Not mine.

Please keep to the premise: The government should not MANDATE this vaccine anymore than Libs allow for the government to control OTHER bodily CHOICES (there's that word again).

Most citizens are so concerned with their "rights" in this country that they completly discount THIER RESPONSIBILTY to this country. It is not mine to raise any child but my own.

LIBERALS have controlled the education establishment for so long, if JOHNNY doesn't have some magical knowledge, it can be laid square at the feet of the 40 years of a Democrat controlled Congress.

Welcome to The Realm!]

[radishthegreat]

The part that's just amazing to me is that the same people who want to deny your hypothetical daughter an education if you choose not to shoot her up with Gardisil will scream "KEEP YOUR LAWS OFF MY BODY" if you suggest they shouldn't be allowed to have their baby's brains sucked out when it's in the birth canal ("partial-birth abortion"). And they're wholly incapable of understanding how hypocritical they are. I can't understand how people can be so OBLIVIOUS and still function.

[JANE SAYS: THEY KNOW. Its called duplicity and they wear it well.Hell, they INVENTED it.]

[Reb]

Great article,I dont care if they do have a shot that would "cure' everything I wouldn't allow "them' to dictate it to me or mine,where is your backbone America?Cant you see this is not about protecting your kids? This is about creating a product and then mandating its use,not by choice, but manditory,and no, Merck did not have to jump through any hoops to market this stuff,FDA does not reguire any proof except the companies own findings to approve a drug,where have you people who believe that FDA is helping been?The fact is our govt is in bed with big pharm,big ag, big business,you are a good little consumer,nothing more, nothing less,and before you write me off I suggest you study the issues to see,otherwise you have been warned and it is only you and yours that will suffer for your ignorance and willfull stupidity in trusting the govicorp to be honest.

[JANE SAYS: I read 1984. Everyone should.]