Home > Political Insider > Archives > 2007 > February > 28 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USA developing resistance to the cervical cancer vaccine
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
State Sen. Don Balfour (R-Snellville) is picking up heat from the right for S.B. 155, a bill to require girls in Georgia who are entering the sixth grade to be vaccinated against human papillomavirus, or HPV.
The vaccine is intended to prevent cervical cancer and genital warts.
U.S. Rep. Phil Gingrey has come out against mandates for the vaccine. WSB radio talk show host Neal Boortz dwelt on the topic this morning, condemning the bill as unnecessary government intrusion.
Balfour said he had few doubts that the bill would get a floor vote — seeing that, as chairman of the Senate Rules Committee, he controls the flow of bills. But he acknowledge ideological resistance within his party.
“If I get half of Republicans I’ll be doing a good job,” Balfour said. With Democratic support, S.B. 155 could pass.
Conservative objections might cause the bill some trouble in the House, but again, Balfour will hold the future of much House legislation in his hands. No one thought the fireworks bill had a chance last year, either.
Services »
Comments
Commenting is now closed for this entry.
By griftdrift
February 28, 2007 4:34 PM | Link to this
It’s heating up the Georgia blogosphere too.
By Bull Moose
February 28, 2007 4:56 PM | Link to this
I have a hard time understanding why anyone would be against a vaccine against a particular type of cancer.
I want an answer, not a right wing attack.
By JK
February 28, 2007 5:35 PM | Link to this
Bull Moose, I don’t think people are “against” the vaccine, but rather, have a problem with it being mandated, especially when it’s so new. The vaccines currently mandated for young children entering school are for highly contagious diseases. HPV is not. The vaccine is new, and long-term affects aren’t known. And if it’s sexually transmitted, where is the vaccine for boys? As a parent, I appreciate the option and availability of the vaccine, to which I’ll give earnest consideration. Do I need the legislature all up in that decision?
As to which “wing” would attack the idea, I think the lines are becoming seriously blurred. Who exactly is playing “nanny state” now?
By Shar
March 1, 2007 8:30 AM | Link to this
I chose to have my daughters, aged 14 and 16, vaccinated with the HPV vaccine, but as with any vaccine, or medicine for that matter, there are concerns. There is a high aluminum content to the vaccine, and aluminum has been strongly linked to neuro diseases (check the contents of your deodorants and try to avoid the aluminum-based ones!). According to a study released yesterday, the four strains of HPV that the vaccine guards against are only present in about 3.6 percent of women ages 12 through 38, although those strains are the ones most associated with cervical cancer and the likelihood of having the virus is significantly higher in the 14-26 age group. The long term effects of the vaccine are unknown. And finally the cost is stupifying - a round of three vaccines, and each of them is costing me $235 per daughter, only part of which is being picked up by my insurance company.
I thought about all of those elements and decided that the benefits of the vaccine were higher than the costs and risks, which is why my girls are just about to complete the set of vaccinations, which started in August. I can understand other parents wanting to mull the decision over. If the General Assembly is serious about promoting the use of the vaccine, they should put up the money to pay for it or mandate that it be covered by insurance companies operating in the state, and take the cost consideration out of the decision mix for parents. With PeachCare funding in bad shape, however, it’s easier for Balfour and company to mandate the vaccine and leave it up to parents to figure out how to pay for it. Not just nanny state, JK, but irresponsible nanny state.
By southern students for choice - Athens
March 1, 2007 3:36 PM | Link to this
I don’t think a mandate means you have to go out and immediately get your children vaccinated. I think it has to have a deadline for you to have your children vaccinated by, in other words, by the beginning of the fall 2007 school year, or 2008, whatever. The mandatory vaccination order is needed — if it’s needed — to prod insurers and/or state agencies to move towards covering or subsidizing vaccination, and to make sure sufficient numbers of children are vaccinated. So anyway if vaccination was made mandatory, you could still wait and look into other options, if other HPV vaccines are available (GSK will have one out soon), what your payment or coverage options were, or if you wanted to opt-out, temporarly or permanently, from vaccinating your child.
I tried to write the above paragraph in a tone that isn’t biased pro- or anti-vaccination. I’m pro-mandatory vaccination, by the way. Could someone clarify if I’m interpreting this correctly — that there would be a deadline, if vaccination was mandatory, like the beginning of an upcoming school year, and when would that deadline be?
By Fall Line
March 1, 2007 4:08 PM | Link to this
I think that this vaccine is a blessing from God. Anything that will prevent the scourge of cervical cancer can’t be bad. However, I respect the right of parents to care for and make decisions for their own children. If HPV were communicable in any other way than though sexual contact, and it were a threat to the other children at the school, then perhaps it should be mandatory. The federal government should make it available to any person who wants it free of charge.
By southern students for choice - Athens
March 1, 2007 4:23 PM | Link to this
By the way, if you are considering having your daughter vaccinated, I wouldn’t let the possibility of increased virus coverage from another vaccine, namely the one coming out later this year from GSK, necessairly deter you from vaccination. I understand that there will likely need to be a booster shot at some point in the future for continued coverage, and those booster shots will likely cover more strains of HPV than the current vaccine from Merck does. Bottom line: whatever you do, ask your doctor, but I think there really does need to be a law to make SURE you do consult with a doctor about this. I don’t think you should just take the word of some left-wing pro-choice feminist youngster commenting on a website, in other words. ;)