Texas governor Rick Perry has issued an executive order requiring Texas schools girls to have the HPV vaccine shot. Focus on the Family has a section to help parents to opt their children out of the test in their respective state.

Questions for debate:

1.)Is it a valid argument that children who are vaccinated will be encouraged to recklessly engage in sexual behavior?

2.)Should the HPV shot be required for all students? Why or why not?

The HPV vaccine is a complete vaccine against Human Papilloma Virus, the leading cause of genetal warts. It is also the leading cause of cervical cancer and Vulval cancer, so much so in fact that HPV virus is detected in 85% of all cases of cervical cancer. Let us be clear on this, this vaccine is quite literally a vaccine for one of the more common types of gender=specific CANCER. Death rates in the US for cervical cancer are about 10,000 per year, but even among those who survive the treatment, they have usually had to undergo chemotherapy or radiation, and/or Hysterectomy, the latter two of which lead to infertility.

Is somebody out there honestly saying that we should prevent children from having a completely and 100% harmless, side effect free shot which will immunise them against one specific form of CANCER, because it might lead them to having sex? That is utter insanity.

Until this vaccene came out, most people had never even heard of HPV, so finding out they are immune to it will hardly lead to teen orgies.

Any group who would honestly advocate this is literally putting indefensable assertions about unreasonable assumptions of immorality ahead of the lives of children.


2.)Should the HPV shot be required for all students? Why or why not?


Of course it should, it should be included in the standard battery of immunisations against Polio, Rubella, Mumps, Whooping Cough and the dozen other ailments we as a modern civilisation have almost wiped out due to modern vaccination methods.

Oh and Rubella, by the way, is an STD (or at least thats ONE of the main ways it can be transmitted). Are the groups opposing HPV vaccinations also suggesting we eliminate Rubella vaccinations, over 40 years old, because they promote sex in kids?

1.)Is it a valid argument that children who are vaccinated will be encouraged to recklessly engage in sexual behavior?

Not at all. It is a specious argument without merit, along the same lines as saying that teaching kids about birth control will somehow encourage wanton sexual behaviour.

2.)Should the HPV shot be required for all students? Why or why not?

Absolutely not. HPV is not transmitted in a school environment. It is transmitted through sexual contact. Kudos to Texas, I suppose, for recognizing the importance of this vaccine, but really, it should not be a requirement for attending public school - since last time I checked, they aren't having orgies in the classrooms, or anything.

Don't get me wrong - all girls between the ages of 12 and 22 or so should get the HPV vaccine - this information coming from my wife, a Family Practitioner. Because kids will have sex at some point, and it would be folly for any parent to deny this vaccine, since the possible effects of HPV can be so devastating. I certainly hope that these groups opposing it are not in the practice of denying this vaccine to their daughters. I fear, however, they are - given their reasons for opposing it, which are completely wrong.

Vermillion is correct about this vaccine being very important. However, I still disagree with it being a requirement for school attendance. And the comparison to Rubella doesn't stand up. First, I can find no references to support the notion that sexual transmission is one of the "main" ways Rubella moves through populations. In fact, most information about Rubella warns that the most dangerous way Rubella is transferred is through the placenta to the foetus. But in a school environment, Rubella can be passed by coughing, sneezing, even talking - or physical contact with the rash. Therefor it more easily falls under the aegis of the school to protect its students.

1.)Is it a valid argument that children who are vaccinated will be encouraged to recklessly engage in sexual behavior?

I would say no. I mean we have the aids of all things in circulation and that really did not seem to hold as much as an impact as I would think it would.

2.)Should the HPV shot be required for all students? Why or why not?

I don’t know if it should be mandatory. If a person wants to run the risk of not having it that should be a personal choice, though I don’t know how this would conflict with socialized medicine, I am sure there are other conflictions too.

As a side note I worry about vaccines only from the point of what impact will they hold on the future of the virus, I mean could you think about the ramifications of aids if it somehow managed to survive outside of the body or go airborne.

So requiring vaccination is socialism? I thought it was smart policy that lead to lower rates of health problems. Interestingly enough, some of the old circa 1900 diseases come about precisely due to the fact that people develop paranoia about vaccines. The measles made a comeback in Britain in non-vaccinated children. I haven't heard of people opposing the shot due to socialism, I would think that is an odd argument, much like the anti-flouride crowd. I don't know much about the latter problem, but when the former have their way, there are MORE, not less cases of diseases as opposed to the "socialist" method of requiring vaccination.



I understand that viruses mutate and change. Vaccines cause them to eventually become airborne? Or is it that viruses mutate on their own regardless of vaccination?

1.)Is it a valid argument that children who are vaccinated will be encouraged to recklessly engage in sexual behavior?

Is that even the argument being made? Or is it rather that by mandating this vaccine, the state is effectively sending the message to kids that they're practically expected to engage in promiscuous sexual behavior? I can see how, at the very least, it would make peer pressure that much harder to resist.

2.)Should the HPV shot be required for all students? Why or why not?

Definitely not. Unlike diseases that can be transmitted to many people at once through more ordinary means, this is not one that falls into the category of public health. It'd be like passing a law requiring people to make sure they eat from the four food groups and exercise some minimum amount of time each day.

It would matter in regards to socialize medicine if the fact that the vaccination could have prevented what society now has to pay for because of the persons actions. I mean I am for people being able to get medical treatment at any time, I really am, but I realize the argument about some person that doped there body to destruction and now wants society to pay for those choices.

Will vaccinations cause aids to go airborne? I have no idea, I just no that organisms on that level adapt and overcome, and in that regard who knows what the change can lead too, can you answer the question you posed to me?

How on earth do you draw that conclusion from HPV vaccinations? How on earth does vaccinating children against a main cause of cancer tell them that they are 'practically expected to engage in promiscuous sexual behavior'?

And even if that were the case, which it is clearly not, this is not about sex education or homosexual-friendly kids litterature, this is a vaccination against CANCER. How in the name of everything Holy can you justify a psudo moral reason why kids should not be vaccinated against Cancer? This is painless, side-effect free, and will save lives, period. I cannot imagine a more obvious case of the public interest.

And as an aside, I for one am getting really tired of the oft-repeated (and oft-disproven) argument that taking ANY precautions against sexually transmitted diseases or preganancy in teens instantly forces them to have orgies.





No, it is absolutely NOTHING like that. It is a simple, effective one-shot immunisation which can prevent people from getting cancer. It is universally and completely in the category of public health. Does the fact that a disease can be passed sexually suddenly make it not a disease? Or is it just that anyone catching STD's 'deserves' the illness?

We vaccinate against diseases which can be tranbsmitted sexually already (Rubella) we vaccinate against gender specific diseases already (Rubella again, causes infertility in women) we vaccinate against diseases that cannot be transmitted to many people through ordinary means already (Polio), so how can there possibly be any logical argument against this vaccine?

Is it a valid argument that children who are vaccinated will be encouraged to recklessly engage in sexual behavior?

No, it’s not a valid argument. I'm a firm believer that knowledge and access to protection allows people to make more responsible and intelligent decisions than they would without access to all of the pertinent data.

Should the HPV shot be required for all students? Why or why not?

I agree with Quarkhead that this is not something that should be required for admission into the public school system. It’s not going to be spread in the school environment, and in cases where other students are not in danger, I’d like to leave the choice to the person being vaccinated, particularly since the immunization is relatively new.

At the moment, the vaccination looks to be a really positive choice for women, and I hope that most parents and girls will choose to do it, but I can certainly understand why they might feel hesitant.

There are currently tests being done to see if the vaccine will work for boys, as well. That will be important since HPV can also cause penile and anal cancer.

Edited to add: Apparently, the Texas order allows parents to file an affidavit objecting to the vaccine as a way to opt-out. I don't have a problem with that.

1.)Is it a valid argument that children who are vaccinated will be encouraged to recklessly engage in sexual behavior?

I suppose it is possible that there is somebody, somewhere, who is foolish enough to think that this vaccine is a license to engage in risky sexual behavior. There is, after all, no limit to human stupidity. However, such a person is probably going to engage in risky behavior anyway. So, the argument is moot.

2.)Should the HPV shot be required for all students? Why or why not?

I would not make it absolutely mandatory. However, I would require parents or guardians who object to the vaccine to fill out written, witnessed forms stating that they are making the decision to decline the vaccine, and that they accept full legal responsibility for the consequences. Such a document should point out, in clear language, that the vaccine is safe and effective, and those who decline should be required to sign a statement acknowledging that this has been explained to them. My personal opinion would be that such parents are acting even more foolishly than people who engage in risky sexual behavior, except for those very rare cases when there is an important medical reason to avoid the vaccine (such as a severely compromised immune system.)

(As a side issue, although I am a very strong supporter of this vaccine, I'm a little taken aback by the decision of the governor of the state to declare it to be mandatory without going through the state legislature. Does anybody know if this is a "normal" practice in Texas politics?)

Girls between the ages of 12 and 22? Are you KIDDING ME?

The problem with "sex education" as the NEA and our public schools teach it to kids is that it DOES encourage "wanton sexual behavior". Why? Because it uses a position of authority to legitimize an action that their parents should be telling them is WRONG for a large variety of reasons. I'm all for teaching kids about the "facts of life" and think it's equally critical to teach them about the massive responsibility that goes along with how they use their bodies (for sex and just about everything else).

But, the public schools can't teach "values" even when religion is stripped away because someone might be offended that their hedonistic and sexually irresponsible point of view isn't properly represented.

It's bad enough that young kids are bombarded with irresponsible and inappropriate sexual images via every form of mass media. At least SOMEONE should be telling them that it's a bad idea for them to run off and follow their natural urges. There is ZERO justification for a 12 year old kid (or a a 17 year old kid in my opinion) having sex. Of course, "some" will. But why open up the floodgates by saying, tacitly, that it's perfectly ok? What's next? Telling them, tacitly, that drug use is ok too and we'll just get them pre-registered for rehab as a public health issue?

On to the HPV vaccine. How much is known about it? What are the side effects? The schools can't give a kid an aspirin and now they want to MANDATE a vaccination?

This is an issue for a family's private doctor, not the school system. I can't believe that the governor of Texas, a decent Republican would consider this. Oh yeah... Perry IS an Aggie. I understand now.....

Finally, our public schools should get out of the sex business and back into the business of math, science, history, geography, and the proper reading and writing of our nation's language. Otherwise, we all better learn to speak Chinese and like Currie.

1.)Is it a valid argument that children who are vaccinated will be encouraged to recklessly engage in sexual behavior?

I brought this up in a debate some time ago. My opinion is the same – it is absolutely a specious argument that children will “engage in sexual behavior” as a result of getting this vaccination. Focus on the Family ought to focus on the human beings in families instead of applying their religious dogma to an absolutely amazing advance in the fight against cancer. Does giving a child a flu vaccine make them run out and have sick people sneeze in their faces? Of course not.

2.)Should the HPV shot be required for all students? Why or why not?

I like the idea, but I’m sure there are those moronic parents out there who are more concerned about their religion and fear of sex than their daughter’s present and future health. I notice that much (most?) of the hubbub is coming from MEN. Though it galls me, I think parents should have the right to opt their daughters out of getting the vaccine, but at the same time they should also waive any and all rights to lawsuits resulting from the daughter getting HPV/cervical cancer in the future. Come to think of it, it would be a good idea if it was written in the contract that the daughter have the right to sue her parents for not allowing her to get the vaccine, if she is so inclined. I also think health insurance rates should be set higher for those women whose families opted them out. After all, it’s only fair.

Please. That is ludicrous. How is giving a vaccine against a life-threatening disease promoting sexual behavior?

Nope, it doesn't. The stark contrast in required immunizations and the HPV vaccine is that those required by law include diseases that can be spread by being in "normally acceptable" classroom contact with each other.

Polio, for instance, doesn't require a back room liason to contract. This is why measles, mumps, and rubella are vaccinated in US schools. HPV, while a very dangerous disease, can't be contracted by standing next to Billy in the Lunch line.

If it were MY decision, I'd allow girls to get it FREE or nearly free. Allow them to get it subsidized by the state, and maybe even allow them to get it without parental consent. Heck, if a girl can get an abortion in the US without her parents, why not a vaccine? I could see why a young HS girl wouldn't want to speak to her parents about this. It might insinuate guilt or admit activity that they would rather not discuss. Frankly, the issue would still be exposure. If they fail to get it, then contract HPV, it's possible that they'd be subjected to the virus and contract cervical cancer.

However- Vermillion, it's not like sitting in Calculus next to Billy who has HPV is going to cause harm, so your logic is marginally flawed. The idea of mandating a vaccine for a disease that isn't contracted without assuming personal risk goes against all civil rights notions I can think of. It's kind of funny to see liberals jumping on board the "make it mandatory" ship really. I think it might stem from the idea that sexual liberty is partially at stake here. I dunno. However, I would love to see it NOT be mandatory, yet readily available.

No, LH, I'm not KIDDING YOU. When you read my post, where did you get the idea I was advocating sex for 12 year olds? I was passing on medical information from an experienced and knowledgeable family practitioner whom I happen to be married to. Indeed, this is the recommended age range for GETTING THE VACCINE. Girls should be getting this vaccine BEFORE they ever have sex. The reason for the broad range is, if you have a daughter between these ages - though legally it should probably be 12-18 - you should get this vaccine for her. And what, do you think the doc who gives it to her will say "there ya go little sweetie, now you can run along and have as much sex as you want!" No, the girl is more likely to be told that the vaccine helps prevent forms of cancer she could possible develop later in life.

Since sex education curricula is determined at the level of individual school boards, it is quite varied throughout the nation, and is not something decided by the NEA. And I fail to see that sex education promotes sexuality.

I know you have children, as do I, but perhaps you haven't studied this enough, I'll help you out: teenagers have sex. They've been having sex since we were walking on two legs and they will continue to have sex until our species is extinct. Look, I don't want my daughters (now 10 and 13) having sex until they are at least... 40. But of course that's not realistic. Statistically, the odds favor both of them having sex before they are married. As such I want them to know as much as possible about birth control, and about the consequences of unprotected sex.

In fact, most sex ed courses, unlike your wild assumptions about promoting sex, are exactly that. How else would you teach it? The facts of life, man. Sex is no joke! It can have serious consequences! Here are the diseases you can catch! Do you really want to have a baby at 15?!? One of these diseases can lead to cancer, but thankfully there is a vaccine now. If you DO decide to have sex, please please please protect yourself. You should not be embarrassed to ask for birth control.

Parents who engender an environment in which their children would never dare ask for a birth control prescription are shooting themselves in the foot, because their's are the children most likely to then have unsafe sex. Because here's the truth, I'll say it again - they will have sex! Abstinence education doesn't work. "Values" education doesn't work. There is nothing that will stop teenagers from sexual discovery.

My mom grew up in a small midwestern farming community in the 1950s. She was one of the few in her class to not be pregnant by the time she graduated. This was in a religious, "value" oriented area.



Apart from another typical anti-liberal aside, it's refreshing to be able to agree with you, Aevans. This is not something kids will contract at school, so there is no reason it should be mandatory for attendance. At the same time, it should be strongly encouraged by all health professionals and all parents. Oh and given this philosophical stance on civil rights and personal risk, perhaps you ought to rethink your position on gay marriage?

I'm puzzled about how gay marriage and a vaccine against a disease correlate, but possibly you'll enlighten me. It's not a civil rights stance, but rather a good sense argument. I believe that this is alot like the flu shot supported by our state for the elderly and kids. Basically, the flu is a very dangerous (obviously not as dangerous as cancer, but more so than HPV) disease for a large part of our population. We realize the value of fighting it proactively. HPV could and will become (considering its rate of infection) more of a problem every passing year.

I see the argument against not promoting sex, and using HPV as a scare tactic, but you're right about kids and sex. Frankly, I think it's more prevalent now than ever... naturally as society becomes more accepting of sexual liberty and less ashamed of pre-marital children, etc. The issue in America, from my perspective, is that there are still a large number of parents that might not allow kids to take this without consent. This could end up being a huge court case. It SHOULDN'T be mandatory, but maybe we could make an age of consent that allows kids to get it without parental approval. Maybe 16? Heck, if a kid can drive a car 90mph down the interstate without their parents in the car, why not get a vaccine? I see why a kid, even with reasonable parents might not want to take the form home. It's a strange conversation. If they could go to the school and pay $10-15 for this it might be practical.

1.)Is it a valid argument that children who are vaccinated will be encouraged to recklessly engage in sexual behavior?

No. There are so many other reasons not to engage recklessly in sexual behavior. I don't think this one even enters a child's mind. "Oh, I shouldn't have sex because I might get HPV."

2.)Should the HPV shot be required for all students? Why or why not?

No. I think it should be offered voluntarily and should be offered for free. This isn't like the measles or chicken pox or anything like that.

Why not? That's the CDC's recommended age for receiving the shot. Could you name a group other than women who are between those ages to receive the shot?



Interesting assertion, though I'd like to point out that the TEA has had nothing to do with this. If you click on the Texas Education Association's website, you won't find any "activism" or lobbying for the vaccine. Likewise, if you do a quick search like I did of the NEA's website, you find nothing about what you claim is deep involvement on the part of the education association or public schools. On top of that, could you provide evidence(i.e.-a study) that clearly shows that the HPV vaccine would lead to an increase in promiscuity? We have why you think that would be the case, what we are lacking is the evidence.




Hmmmm, I don't think the argument is in any way connected to mass media and the likes of Hollywood, though that would make a good thread that you should start.



Schools can give aspirin, on that point, you are incorrect. In my own school district, parents sign a permission form.

Plenty is "known" about it. Once again, from the CDC:



The evidence is pretty solid as to it's benefits. That is why it's rather puzzling that such an effective vaccine would face such stiff opposition.



This is also a matter of public safety and our mutual concern for our fellow citizen's health. We mandate vaccines already and we do so for a reason-if you don't, bad things happen such as outbreaks. It is common sense that we'd want to shut down any cancer related disease as much as humanly possible. To oppose such efforts on the basis of a private belief system dressed up and hidden behind the pretense of "governmental interference," obfuscates the main point-lives will be saved.

1.)Is it a valid argument that children who are vaccinated will be encouraged to recklessly engage in sexual behavior?

Is it valid? Not at all, but that won't stop it from being made. It is easily avoided with sex education and stressing the truth about why to be safe when you have sex.

2.)Should the HPV shot be required for all students? Why or why not?

If it is proven effective with little to no harmful side effects then I do not see why it shouldn't be. My understanding of HPV is limited, but the little I do know is that it is currently more prevalent in our youth and that if untreated it causes cervical cancer. A little shot that can protect from cancer is a no brainer for me.

As far as requiring it for all students I am not sure it should be up to the state. The cities and towns may want too deal with this since this, as has been pointed out here, is not a disease transmitted in school.