The HPV vaccine and the road to the White House
Categories: Teens & tweens, Health & safety
In February, Texas Governor Rick Perry signed a controversial executive order mandating the HPV vaccine for girls entering the sixth grade. Yesterday, the Texas House of Representatives voted to overturn the order. Perry came under fire from conservative groups who claimed that his advocacy of the vaccine was the equivalent of encouraging preteen girls to have sex, and from parents who questioned the safety of the new vaccine. The governor responded to these criticisms by saying that "Providing the HPV vaccine doesn't promote sexual promiscuity any more than providing the Hepatitis B vaccine promotes drug use. . . . If the medical community developed a vaccine for lung cancer, would the same critics oppose it claiming it would encourage smoking?" Many questioned why Perry would risk losing the support of his conservative constituents, while others speculated that he was gunning for a Republican Vice Presidential nomination.
On Sunday, the New Mexico state House approved a similar bill requiring HPV vaccines for girls entering sixth grade. Governor Bill Richardson has said that he will sign the bill, most likely by the end of this week; the new law will go into effect 90 days after the adjournment of the legislature. "It's a public health issue, and I believe it's an important step," Richardson said Monday. "New Mexico has always been progressive on these issues. ... We've got to find ways for young women to be protected." Richardson has announced that he will seek the Democratic nomination for President.
In California, a bill requiring the vaccine was pulled this week after concerns were raised in a committee hearing. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, "The list of concerns included a lack of information on how parents can choose to not have their daughters vaccinated; how to pay the $360-per-patient cost; and whether it's a good idea to require a drug that was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration less than a year ago."
Mainstream media constantly remind us that parents, particularly mothers, are politically uninformed. When I have written about this at my own blog, readers have said, "Who has time for politics when there are diapers to change and dinner to make and laundry to fold?" There seems to be a pervasive sense that many political issues, and the discussion that surrounds them, are completely removed from the reality of our everyday lives. Stories like the firing of eight Federal prosecutors or the Scooter Libby trial don't necessarily strike a chord with people who are intensely focused on potty training and preschool and Little League.
But the HPV vaccine is all about our children, and about the place of government in the raising of our children. I am fascinated by this debate, not because I have any vested interest in the vaccine (I have boys, so this isn't a health issue that I will have to face as a parent) but because I am not sure how to read the politics of the discussion. Bill Richardson is seeking the nation's highest office; Rick Perry may want to be the second in command. Both have chosen to take what is an undeniably controversial stand on this particular issue, and I wonder what they are hoping to gain from it. Clearly, they are both positioning themselves as leaders with a vested interest in promoting and protecting the health of young women in this country, but that position is not one that parents are welcoming with open arms. But they do have parents talking and participating, and I wonder if perhaps that was the real goal.
On Sunday, the New Mexico state House approved a similar bill requiring HPV vaccines for girls entering sixth grade. Governor Bill Richardson has said that he will sign the bill, most likely by the end of this week; the new law will go into effect 90 days after the adjournment of the legislature. "It's a public health issue, and I believe it's an important step," Richardson said Monday. "New Mexico has always been progressive on these issues. ... We've got to find ways for young women to be protected." Richardson has announced that he will seek the Democratic nomination for President.
In California, a bill requiring the vaccine was pulled this week after concerns were raised in a committee hearing. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, "The list of concerns included a lack of information on how parents can choose to not have their daughters vaccinated; how to pay the $360-per-patient cost; and whether it's a good idea to require a drug that was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration less than a year ago."
Mainstream media constantly remind us that parents, particularly mothers, are politically uninformed. When I have written about this at my own blog, readers have said, "Who has time for politics when there are diapers to change and dinner to make and laundry to fold?" There seems to be a pervasive sense that many political issues, and the discussion that surrounds them, are completely removed from the reality of our everyday lives. Stories like the firing of eight Federal prosecutors or the Scooter Libby trial don't necessarily strike a chord with people who are intensely focused on potty training and preschool and Little League.
But the HPV vaccine is all about our children, and about the place of government in the raising of our children. I am fascinated by this debate, not because I have any vested interest in the vaccine (I have boys, so this isn't a health issue that I will have to face as a parent) but because I am not sure how to read the politics of the discussion. Bill Richardson is seeking the nation's highest office; Rick Perry may want to be the second in command. Both have chosen to take what is an undeniably controversial stand on this particular issue, and I wonder what they are hoping to gain from it. Clearly, they are both positioning themselves as leaders with a vested interest in promoting and protecting the health of young women in this country, but that position is not one that parents are welcoming with open arms. But they do have parents talking and participating, and I wonder if perhaps that was the real goal.
Recent Posts
- Weekend Fun and Games (7/03/2009)
- Kids and Extracurriculars - When Do You Let Them Quit? (7/03/2009)
- Twitter Follow Friday on ParentDish! (7/03/2009)
- Lush Lashes (7/03/2009)
- Abigail Breslin Makes $13 a Week (7/03/2009)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Kimberly 3-15-2007 @ 5:20PM
" (I have boys, so this isn't a health issue that I will have to face as a parent)"
How do you think those girls are getting hpv? Toilet seats?
True, your boys don't have cervixes and therefore are not at risk for cervical cancer, but they *are* every bit as at risk for an hpv infection as my daughters.
Reply
daring one 3-16-2007 @ 2:14AM
Whether you plan to enshroud your children in abstinence or sign them up with a pimp when they turn 14, I don't see the harm in protecting them against possible infection. Even those who plan to have sex only with a single spouse/partner run the risk of contracting STDs from that partner.
Reply
Jennie 3-16-2007 @ 1:33PM
I echo Kimberly. While I think it's great that there is now a vaccine and wish it were available when I was younger, the distribution seems extremely one sided.
Reply