Human papillomavirus vaccine; removes requirement for girls to receive immunization. (SB722)

Introduced By

Sen. Ken Cuccinelli (R-Fairfax)

Progress

Introduced
Passed Committee
Passed House
Passed Senate
Signed by Governor
Became Law

Description

Immunizations; human papillomavirus. Removes requirement that girls receive the human papillomavirus vaccine. Read the Bill »

Status

01/31/2008: Failed to Pass in Committee

History

DateAction
01/17/2008Presented and ordered printed 088755216
01/17/2008Referred to Committee on Education and Health
01/25/2008Impact statement from DPB (SB722)
01/31/2008Passed by indefinitely in Education and Health (12-Y 3-N) (see vote tally)

Duplicate Bills

The following bills are identical to this one: HB89.

Comments

Marsha Maines writes:

There's NO WAY IN HELL, I'm going to allow 'the government' to tell me to give MY Daughter anything that relates to HER reproductive system...yes, cervical cancer is bad. all cancer is bad.
I was mad enough at the 'school' giving dental hygiene ...I provide for my child. I don't NEED the school to brush my kids teeth!! The neglected kids probably needed it, but it shouldn't be administered through 'the school'..!!

R P McMurphy writes:

Once upon a time there was actually a political philosophy that held people had a basic right to make their own medical decisions, that the state must have an overwhelming public health concern before they could so interfere. Polio is an example. Perhaps even the way one kid could put a classroom to bed with measles is an example. But Gardasil does not meet this test. The use of Gardasil is an issue that should be decided between a person and their doctor, not our nanny state legislators.

This bill should be passed

Amy Liu writes:

Let the parent take care their girls's body. My girls should not be assumed by the government to be prostitutes. I take the requirement for girls to take this vaccine as an insult on my family value and my culture.

Tim McCormack writes:

Amy, it's more than a little inflammatory to say that the government is treating your daughters as prostitutes.

Teen sex is real. Cervical cancer is real. If they're going to get vaccinated, why take the risk that it is done in vain (i.e., too late)? Vaccinating at age 12 is a way of *ensuring* that teens are protected once they start sexual experimentation, which they will.

Frank McKinney writes:

Tim, sexaul experimentation is NOT inevitable as evidenced by the growing number of teens remaining abstinent.

There are still some unknowns about this vaccination and it has wisely been made voluntary in that parents can opt out for their children.

Alison Hymes writes:

1 in 4 U.S. female teenagers have an STD: http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ga8zWgMrgsda8IjHsRh4FvVjbT9QD8VBF4D00

Tim McCormack writes:

@Frank McKinney: Please point to a peer-reviewed study showing that successful abstinence is increasing.

I agree that parents should have a way to opt out, but I don't believe for an instant that teens aren't having sexual encounters.