Debbie does... ??

by Jill Stanek

Responding to a barrage of criticism for signing on executive order that will force adolescent girls to receive the HPV vaccine regimen, Texas Gov. Rick Perry is quoted in the Houston Chronicle today saying, "If the medical community developed a vaccine for lung cancer, would the same critics oppose it claiming it would encourage smoking?"

I have thought of that analogy myself.  It is perfect.  Lung cancer is predominantly caused by cigarette smoking, which is currently a politically incorrect behavior.  Chicago and Illinois lawmakers have increasingly sought to discourage this behavior by making it more difficult to carry out this behavior.

So to answer Perry's question, we would welcome a lung cancer vaccine but wouldn't turn around and say, "Great, let's all smoke!"  Because we know smoking causes a myriad of other cancers as well as health problems like emphysema and hardening of the arteries.  Furthermore, we know this behavior has secondary consequences of endangering the health of other people who come in contact with the smoker.

So when state Sen. Debbie Halvorson admitted she had HPV and worried others might get it, you would think she'd focus on her behavior that caused her to contract that sexually transmitted disease.

Halvorson would be most helpful by discussing the health consequences of pre- or extra-marital sex.  Here are some potential topics:

• Halvorson could discuss the number of sex partners she has had throughout her lifetime and how each one increased the likelihood of contracting HPV. 
• If Halvorson even had only one sex partner aside from her husband, she could discuss how one can contract HPV from a sole encounter. 
• Halvorson could discuss whether she realized at the time her sex partner carried HPV, which most trusting, vulnerable women don't. 
• Halvorson could disclose whether it was her husband who passed HPV on to her after sleeping with other women, demonstrating another reason for chaste behavior outside the marriage bedroom. 
• More uncomfortably, if Halvorson contracted HPV through rape, she could discuss ways to avoid rape.

But no, Halvorson does not advocate avoiding a risky behavior that leads not only to HPV but to 20+ other STDs and their strains, along with unplanned pregnancy.  Halvorson merely advocates trying to avoid the consequences of risky behavior.  Shame on her.

Comments

[Donna]

I have no problem with a lung cancer vaccine being offered to the general public. But I would have a BIG problem with government deciding my 9 year old needed the vaccine because she might decide to one day take up smoking.

Why can't anyone understand that this is not about having a new vaccine available, it is about mandating every child receive it.

[Julie]

The FDA says HPV is transmitted through intercourse or skin-to-skin contact with infected areas.

If that includes kissing, it means that mouth has been in direct contact with HPV infected areas.

Gross as that sounds, HPV is sexually transmitted.

Condoms are no preventative in passing along this virus.

[NW burbs]

Actually Julie,

"However, the HPV virus can not fit through pores in latex. Therefore, latex condoms, used correctly and consistently, do provide some protection against transmission. The reason condoms are not considered 100% protection is because the virus can be present in places not covered by the condoms."

And if one does put their lips to the area you describe, and then goes on to kiss someone... It could create a lip to lip transmission.

And of course, there are still blood transfusions to consider.

[dbt]

You know, my aunt never smoked and died of lung cancer. The fact that you feel free to judge other people based on your childish prejudices says more about you and your lack of empathy or judgement than it does about her statement.

[Jill Stanek]

DBT: We could conceivably create vaccines for hundreds of diseases.

Now, are you going to subject your children's bodies to every vaccine available for every disease out there, or will you consider risk factors?

The fact is most people with lung cancer smoked or received second-hand smoke. It is a big risk factor.

And whether NWB prefers to ignore it or not, HPV is a sexually transmitted disease.

And most people with HIV either engaged in male-to-male sex or used infected needles when shooting up.

Any exceptions to the above are rare.

If an HIV or lung cancer vaccine becomes available, I will take those risk factors into account before deciding whether to be vaccinated against them, or HPV. I would follow the same rationale if I still had children at home to consider.

[Brooke]

I have to say that as a conservative and as a Christian, I'm disgusted at the way the those two groups are responding to this controversy.

Parents have a duty to raise their children and guide their behaviour through love and discipline. Any parent knows that there are times when their children falter, though. How terrible of a parent to chalk it up to, "Well, that's what you get!" when their child comes home with HPV? How is that forgiving, loving, or responsible?

And consider the terrible event in which a woman is unable to "prevent" (as the usually-admirable Mrs. Stanek puts it) a rape. Should she also be punished with a life-long STD as well as a life-long emotional scar for such failings?

Mandating an HPV vaccine is as much an endorsement of promiscuity as a flu vaccine is an endorsement of licking dirty tissues.

It's a failing tactic to use fear and threat to promote abstinence, just as it's a failing tactic to resort to personal attacks on a legislator for poor judgement and moral stumbling to oppose an issue. Instill in the children a sense of self-esteem, integrity, and morality to stand up to the hard choices they'll face. It's a bit harder than scaring them into walking the line, but it provides a much sturdier foundation.

There is a loving and forgiving way to approach this debate, and I fear Mrs. Stanek has completely missed it.

[Jill Stanek]

Brooke, you're right it is the parents' duty to raise their child, not the government's, especially when it comes to decisions related to sexual behavior.

Your thought that conveying the truth about the consequences of illicit sex is nothing more than using "fear and threat" suggests either a paternalistic view of women or a willingness to partner in the exploitation of women by keeping them ignorant.

This conversation has nothing to do with the consequences of illicit sex pertaining to forgiveness and grace, which of course I endorse, have received, and have given.

It has to do with the actual physical consequences of this behavior.

[Brooke]

Jill, in no way to I discourage sharing the more unpleasant sides of sex education with kids. They do need to understand the consequences of their actions. I think it's faulty logic, though to rely on a child's fear of catching a disease as the only safeguard against bad decision-making.

[Jill Stanek]

I have never said that, Brooke. This conversation is strictly about the HPV vaccine.

[Brooke]

And, I still think it's tacky that you attacked Sen. Halvorson's sexual history to make a point.

[Brooke]

You indicated I was being paternalistic and willing "to partner in the exploitation of women by keeping them ignorant." I was explaining that I was not, in fact expecting parents to keep their children blind to the consequences of bad sexual decisions.

My point is that it's irresponsible parenting to rely on fear of consequences as the main motivator for their behaviour. Furthermore, I note that the arguments being used to oppose the mandate are leaky, at best, and in this case, reprehensible.

[Julie]

Adjusting behavior is the only thing that can stop the spread of HPV. When our state pays for and endorses comprehensive sex ed -- which gives all the horrid details from healthy, natural sex to vivid details of unnatural sex acts -- who do we have to blame but ourselves for this rampant disease? We have stood by and let strangers tell our children what their attitudes towards sex should be. That's a parents job. It's also a parents job to direct their children's medical care.

The state has taken all of this decision-making and influence out of the hands of those who brought the children into the world, and who pay for their everyday needs. We're to stand by and let others steal our heritage from us?

This HPV Vaccine is opening up a can of worms that stinks and needs to be aired out. I say let's start the disposal.

[22state]

Fortunately, none of Ms. Stanek's children or friends will need this vaccine because all of them will wait to kiss until marrying a partner who himself has never kissed anyone.

I applaud such an unremitting dedication to chastity.

[Brooke]

Please, someone explain to me how mandating an HPV vaccine takes away parental authority?

Just like you teach your kids to wash your hands before a meal, after using a restroom, after sneezing, etc. you teach your kids responsible sexual behaviour, whatever your standard of that might be. You don't abdicate your right to teach children the difference between right and wrong simply because the government safeguards a portion of the population against one consequence to risky behaviour.

It seems counterintuitive and spiteful to not vaccinate against HPV simply because those who engage in risky behaviour supposedly deserve the horrible consequences. From a public health standpoint, is it not better to eliminate (just for women) one nasty disease from the long list of others they could still get?

[Julie]

The Vaccine Adverse Effects Reports speaks of a 16 year old Illinois girl who got the shot and was stricken with Guillen-Barre syndrome, unable to walk without a gait, dizzy and high fever. Another IL woman fainted immediately after the vaccination, another side effect reported by Merck.
These are "volunteer" recipients. The vaccine ingredients themselves could produce problems.

[JK]

So where did you find in the story you linked to that Halvorson "admitted she had HPV"? She said an exam had found precancerous cells. HPV may be a cause of cervical cancer, but does that mean ALL cervical cancer is caused by HPV? That's a pretty big conclusion to jump to in order to self-righteously speculate about someone else's behavior.

[Jill Stanek]

Brooke, parents teach their kids to wash their hands. The government doesn't mandate hand washing as a requirement to go to school. And to compare, if it did, the particular analagous "soap" we're speaking of just may be dangerous.

JK, read the story again. Never mind, I'll post the relevant portion for you: "Halvorson (D-Crete) learned that her annual Pap smear showed abnormal cells. Follow-up tests revealed precancerous cells on her cervix. She had never even heard of the human papilloma virus (HPV), which causes cervical cancer.... 'I was pretty scared. If I had let this go, I would have had cervical cancer,' she recalls.... Now, there's a vaccine to prevent HPV. But that's not enough. Halvorson wants to take it a step further."

[Jeb]

Ms. Stanek, I think your personal attacks on Sen. Halverson are irresponsible, ignorant, baseless, and will only serve to weaken your argument. For the record: although I admittedly do not know her well enough to make a truly informed judgement, I strongly dislike Sen. Halverson's tactics and political views. Nonetheless, to attack her in the manner you did is idiotic and shameful.

I'm curious as to whether or not you would be in favor of government mandated vaccination if a vaccine for HIV were developed. While not only a sexually transmitted disease, an overwhelming majority of all cases are due to transmission through unprotected sex. Your thoughts, Ms. Stanek?

[Brooke]

FYI Jill --

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?DocTypeID=HB&DocNum=382&GAID=9&SessionID=51&LegID=27167

Rep. Mary Flowers has introduced a bill (HB382) requiring handwashing in schools before meals and snacks.

If your real concern is about the safety of the vaccination, why all this posturing about Sen. Halvorson's sexual history?

[Jill Stanek]

Jeb, what you call a “personal attack” is not. Halvorson put it out there that she contracted an STD. She later admitted she regretted panicking and rushing to get a hysterectomy.

I do not accept Halvorson’s second wave of panic to try to innoculate every girl in IL against the STD she caught. Her proposed solution is also misguided. I merely want to stop and discuss the behavior that caused Halvorson's STD rather than ignore it. How stupid would that be?

Let's stop and examine your accusation that my wanting to talk about this is "ignorant" and 'baseless." Who is really the ignorant one, Jeb? The one who doesn't want to know how one catches an STD or the one who does? How can it be baseless to evaluate the sex life of someone with an STD? If Halvorson contracted chicken pox this discussion would be baseless, but she contracted HPV! Exactly explain your accusations.

Rather, the “personal attack” is on Halvorson's part. She is literally attacking the health and safety of my granddaughters by mandating they get a vaccine no one is sure of yet. Have you read what’s in it? One ingredient is aluminum adjunct, the same ingredient suspected of causing Gulf War Syndrome. It’s not as if the FDA hasn’t approved dangerous meds before, Vioxx to name one.

Furthermore, the life expectancy of this vaccine is only known to be four years. I submit it is likely many girls and women getting this vaccine will be lulled into a false sense of security and not get the PAP smears they should to truly know. I also submit many girls and women will contract numerous other STDs via this same false sense of security. And the number of STDs is only growing, and the strains are becoming more resistant.

As for your HIV question, read my 11:02a response.

[Jeb]

You are unbelieveably ignorant. The highest rates of HIV contraction are among WOMEN in impoverished African countries. Not just the highest percentages, but THE HIGHEST RAW NUMBERS. Many of these cases occur through rape at gunpoint (how does a woman "avoid" that?) or through sex with their husbands. Also for the record, most me in Africa contract the disease through blood-to-blood methods or heterosexual sex. I'm not condoning premarital sex, but it happens whether we like it or not.

We may have a chance to protect our children from a painful death (at worst) or the inability to bear their own children (at best). Any parent who refuses to allow their children to receive safe, proven, effective (which I realize the HPV vaccine is not, necessarily) vaccines should be charged with child endangerment.

[Donna]

Why is it that so many people feel the need to tell others what is good for them? I have no problem with this vaccine being made available to those who CHOOSE to receive it. Why is it so important to so many of you that this be forced upon every young girl out there? I bet most of you opposing vaccine choice are pro-choice when it comes to abortion. Why is it ok to allow women the choice to kill their unborn babies, but not to refuse a vaccination?

[Brooke]

Vaccine choice? Seriously?

As noted before, Cal Skinner has laid out the methods to be granted an exemption to a vaccine on this very site.

One of the other benefits to mandating this vaccine is that insurance companies will be compelled to cover the cost of a potentially pricey shot.

[Jeb]

True, one may opt out of the vaccine requirement. While I think it is child endangerment, the legal system doesn't apparently agree.

Perhaps we should institute a rule that if one chooses not to receive a vaccine then one forfeits public aid or private insurance coverage of the treatment of any disease or disorder the vaccine would have prevented...

I'm against abortion, by the way. Abortion is the state's act of enabling a life to be ended without due process.

[Jill Stanek]

Jeb, if you want to have a discussion about AIDS in Africa, the reasons for which are distinctly different than in the U. S., perhaps we can do that someday. It seems to me you moved to Africa to avoid discussing the reality in the U. S.

And that reality is, according to the Centers for Disease Control, the No. 1 cause of the spread of AIDS in the U. S. (47 percent) is "male-to-male sexual contact."

The No. 2 cause of AIDS (27 percent) is "injection drug use."

(http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/basic.htm)

[Jeb]

I'm sorry - my psychic abilities are failing me. I wasn't aware you were only talking about US cases of HIV/AIDS.

By the way, don't try to get away from the FACT that you personally attacked the senator. The fact that your original post's title is a reference to a pornographic movie (Debbie Does Dallas) is proof enough of your intent.

You are an ignorant, mean-spirited, counterproductive person. I hope that you will reject your false ways and return to truth, compassion, and understanding.

[Donna]

Brooke: You seriously do not believe one should have a choice over the things one puts into ones own body? That is how I read your comment "Vaccine choice? Seriously?" You also noted that there are ways to exempt oneself or ones children from vaccinations. In a free society, why should I have to jump through hoops to make a choice for what I feel is in the best interest of my children?

Jeb: You think it is child endangerment to allow a parent to choose what is in the best interest of their child? Do you know what is in most vaccines? Have you done any research at all? Some would say it is child abuse to allow children to receive vaccines. As far as refusing medical care to those who succumb to illness but did not vaccinate: I know of three children who received the chicken pox vaccination and still contracted chicken pox. Should they be refused care? They got the shot but still caught the disease. Do you think that every person who gets the HPV vaccine will not contract Cervical Cancer? It does not stop every strain of HPV and does not stop all types of Cervical Cancer.

[Jeb]

Donna:
A) MANY MORE CHILDREN ARE SAVED from illness by vaccines than are harmed by them.

B) If a child receives the vaccine, they then, by definition, did not refuse the vaccine and so are therefore elibible for funding of their medical care.

C) I proposed a policy that refuses to award ignorance and irresponsibility with funding for medical care, not the care itself. It all comes down to the fact that I don't want to pay for your stupidity.

D) I hope the lettered paragraphs make it easier for you to read and understand what I'm actually typing...don't claim things about me or my writings that are blatantly false.

[Brooke]

You do have a choice about vaccinations, which I noted. The process isn't any more of a hoop than writing a note asking your child to be exempted from public sex ed classes, and if it's that important to you, why are you so incensed about jumping through it?

Jill's point about the safety of the vaccine (regardless of how late it came out and how buried it is under the layers of bile about Sen. Halvorson's sexual past) is a valid one and should be explored.

But, in the event that it is deemed safe and people are properly educated that they need to get it on a regular basis (much like a tetanus shot), I still say it is far less of an evil than the virus itself.

[Donna]

Some of you with open minds might find this article enlightening:

http://www.mothering.com/articles/growing_child/vaccines/wake.html

[countmein]

Jeb, by your logic, anyone who decides to have unprotected sex and contracts any STD, the price of their ignorance and expense of treatment shouldn't be covered by any government medical programs or private insurance either, right?

[Byzantine Ruins]

You do not merit a direct response. Actually replying to you would imply your ideas merit the effort of dismissal. They do not.

However, to third parties who may read this, I'd just like to say that as a Goldwater Conservative, I find your views beyond appalling. PLEASE, gentle reader, do not generalize all Consevatives as being like this contemptible, hateful speck.

You are precisely what is wrong with the American Right today. Your hateful rhetoric will do far more damage to our standard than a thousand liberals ever could. You should throw yourself on your sword immediately for the good of the movement.

[Jill Stanek]

Goldwater was a social liberal - pro-abortion, pro-homosexual special rights. As a Goldwater conservative, you clearly are at odds with much of the American Right today. So I'm not sure you're one to diagnose what's wrong with conservatism, since you don't even fully embrace it.

PS - We also oppose self-euthanasia.

[John]

Congratulations, Jill. Your personal attack on Sen. Halvorson has exposed you as a complete lunatic. Perhaps you could have made some good points on this issue, but they were lost in your idiotic rant.

[Jill Stanek]

Dear John, aka Rich Miller lemming: If you can truly think for yourself, tell me what good points I could have made and tell me exactly what was my idiotic rant - my words, not your paraphrase or interpretation.

[John]

Sorry, but I have a job and will not spend my time picking apart what is clearly nonsensical tripe. I think your comments speak for themselves and fairly illustrate what sort of person you are. No idea what you are talking about with the Rich Miller thing, but in any event, I have humored you enough. You clearly have a bad outlook on life-- good luck with that.

[rich miller]

Rich Miller lemming? lol

[Paul]

It's invasive. No one shhould be forced to put anything in their bodies . That they don't want to. According to laws you can't foce one to take medications. Many times this is a court issue.

Paul

[Ann]

I read about this controversy on the Capitalfaxblog. I think perhaps some are slightly overstating Ms. Stanek's "attack" but, in a sense, it does come across in a negative way, which she may not have intended...I do not think the State should be mandating this shot. In addition, I do not think Debbie's position necessarily adds merit to the cause, in the same way Ms. Stanek's commentary about Debbie does not add merit to her argument. The issue is not why Debbie is promoting it, but why the State and Merck are promoting an unproven vaccine. FYI, at age 20 I was diagnosed with "pre-cancerous displaysia" after an abnormal pap and then a biopsy. I was scheduled for "cryosurgery" to remove the affected cells, and told if I did not, I would have cervical cancer within two years. I went to the clinic for the scheduled appointment, and was told, "we can't do it today, as we are out of the solution needed to perform the "cryo" procedure. Let's retest you, it may have been nothing." After a normal test result, 17 years later, and 20 normal pap tests, I did not and do not have cervical cancer. I'm not sure why she rushed out to have a hystorectemy, everyone has unique circumstances I suppose. Because of my personal experience I am extremely skeptical of the HPV cervical cancer vaccine, and shouldn't more research be done before anything is mandated? Not to mention the issues of Autism Causation and the possible link to vaccines. Until we know for sure there is no connection, no one should be encouraging or mandating a vaccine for HPV that doesn't even necessarily work and make only lead to other problems.

[توبيكات]

thank you

[Rachael]

Thanks for the information...I bookmarked your site, and I appreciate your time and effort to make your blog a success!

[Rachael]

Thanks for the information...I bookmarked your site, and I appreciate your time and effort to make your blog a success!

[Rachael]

Thanks for the information...I bookmarked your site, and I appreciate your time and effort to make your blog a success!

[xyjuzi piohkvzqt]

jmtsae wezqfbvjc wyhlqvmrb ixlkhbjv gislrmqfz bxkrv kwpj