Vaccine Mandate Won’t Pass in Wisconsin
In January two Democratic senators announced bipartisan support for a proposed bill that would require all sixth-grade girls to be vaccinated against the virus that causes cervical cancer.
But since then, social conservatives and medical groups have opposed the mandate, some Republican cosponsors have withdrawn their support and the chairwoman of the Assembly health committee has declared the proposal dead on arrival in that chamber.
“If the legislation comes before my committee, it’s not going anywhere,” said Rep. Leah Vukmir, R-Milwaukee, the Assembly health committee chairwoman.
Thank goodness that the Assembly still has people like Leah Vukmir in it.
Dang right. Government has no business making health care decisions for our daughters.
Now if we can get them out of the contraception debate thin gs will be hunky-dory. Will Vukmir be leading that charge as well?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 05, 2007 at 0955 hrs
Grumps,
The last time I checked, nobody was trying to mandate that your daughter use or obtain contraceptives.
Is that what you had in mind?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 05, 2007 at 1046 hrs
Gotta admit, I’m torn on this one. While the bill had an opt out for parents who didn’t want their daughters to have the vaccine, it was still heavy handed. Ideally the choice should be proactive (opt in/yes I want my daughter vaccinated). Yet we all understand why it was written the way it was, basically trying to get the vaccination out to populations who won’t, or can’t, get regular preventative care for their children.
At the end of the day though, rational thinking could come to a logical compromise. But we all know this thing is being killed out right based on fear mongering from the far social right, who have concocted in their minds a senario where this vacine isn’t about preventing cervical cancer, but somehow about encouraging teen sex.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 05, 2007 at 1142 hrs
Lefty
You apparantly missed the “medical groups” opposition to this bill. I am a far right social conserevative and I do think that this sends the wrong message about sex but all of that aside this thing is simply not proven safe or effective in this population (young girls).
Should we force it on people without adequate testing? Can you imagine the lawsuits if anything went bad? Think Vioxx litigation with every school district in Wisconsin as a defendant.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 05, 2007 at 1158 hrs
Joe> So after adequate testing you’ll be all for this vaccine then?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 05, 2007 at 1222 hrs
I may be all for the vaccine if it is safe - sounds like it could help some people. But then we can discuss the proper role of gov’t with regard to intervention into private family for students’ health “needs.” My point was at this point we don’t need to get to the philosophical debates about the proper role of gov’t or of morality of the messege being sent. We have more basic reasons to not do this.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 05, 2007 at 1252 hrs
Joe, I don’t know what you are sighting. I took the reference to medical groups in the article as refering to the insurance providers that don’t want to cover it and the doctors who don’t want to stock it because of it’s cost. I haven’t seen concerns about the vaccine in girls of this age.
Let me know if I missed something. All I see is an endorsement by a CDC panel and several anti-cancer agencies.
I’m fine with not imposing an opt-out mandate. But there are certainly other ways to encourage use of the vaccine that would be appropriate for state government. For the chair of the committee to say this bill is DOA, implies she won’t even give it a public hearing or listen to suggestions for other ways to go about increasing use of the vaccine. She’s essentially saying requirements on providers, requirements on insurers, funding for education, all of those are off the table. Are you really ok with her committee not even exploring the issue?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 05, 2007 at 1325 hrs
The National Vaccine Information Center and the American Academy of Pediatrics are recommending that state legislatures proceed slowly and cautiously with this vaccine. The American College of Pediatrics has gone a step further and is opposing any legislation requiring this vaccination.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 05, 2007 at 1341 hrs
Am I okay with gov’t deciding that mandates on providers, employers, school districts, etc. are off the table. Of course! Do I think the gov’t should play some role in providing people information about this vaccine? I don’t know. I am not sure that the public is unaware. Heck we’ve been talking about here for weeks. It has been in the news for over a month and drug companies spend tons of money on advertising. Does the gov’t need to play this role? It is not like this thing is a secrete.
Thanks for the info Steve.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 05, 2007 at 1355 hrs
I’m confused. Are people opposed to any requirement for any particular vaccine before a child is permitted to attend a public school? Or, is this vaccine the specific problem?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 05, 2007 at 1753 hrs
It is this particular vaccine. Smallpox, measels and polio can all be contracted in the classroom. An STD cannot. Plus, you have an unproven vaccine that was tested for a short period of time on less than 1200 girls under the age of 14.
Polio can only be prevented by a vaccine. HPV is preventable without this vaccine and the cervical cancer can be prevented even if someone has the virus.
The only reason this is being pushed on the schools is money. Profit for Merck and government money to pay for the poor. Cervical cancer will kill less than 12 women a year in Wisconsin. Giving all girls 11-16 a shot that costs at least $360 will cost over $20 million. Is that not insane?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 05, 2007 at 2123 hrs
The distinction between methods of transmition is the key factor. There is no “public” health problem. Just because some people are getting an STD or cervical cancer does not mean the “public” is in danger. An ariborne flesh eatinf virus - now you’re talking public health issue.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 06, 2007 at 1647 hrs
Certainly, I can see concern if there are safety or lack of testing issues. But, absent any health downside, isn’t the question simply whether lives will be saved?
Is an illness a “public health” problem only if it can be transmitted through the air?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 07, 2007 at 1456 hrs
“isn’t the question simply waether lives will be saved?”
No! Just think of all the ways we could save lives. We could outlaw swimming, hunting, eating high fat foods, etc. The question is, is there a public health need of such a magnitude that it requires an invasion of the private domane of the person and of the family.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 07, 2007 at 1548 hrs
In answer to your question: YES and NO.
A Public Health issue is NOT a problem if it can ONLY be transmitted through the air - Consider the HIV virus. HIV/AIDS is a worldwide health issue.
Unfortunately, we don’t know if there is a downside yet, as the drug is new to the market. But the REAL upside is aimed at Merck. Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of US citizens were unable to get inoculated from the flu just two years ago…
Because this virus is transmitted through sexual activity (and it is only ONE cause associated with cervical cancer), WE have decided to require inoculation for all girls 12 years of age, yet WE cut back on funding for Planned Parenthood. Seems to me that this is one instance where there should be some type of collaboration….
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 07, 2007 at 1555 hrs
Total Entries: 19656
Total Comments: 129831
Most Recent Entry: 02/11/2012 09:52 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 02/11/2012 04:55 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 96
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 02/12/2012 02:37 am
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).