Do you have a Daughter

[Marty]

Yesterday afternoon the state assembly voted to pass the controversial AB 16, a bill that will mandate the HPV vaccination for all 11 year-old girls in California. The bill also hands over legislative oversight of the mandatory vaccine approval process to a 15-member federal committee and a single unelected California official. Passed 47-29 with one Democrat crossing over to vote "no". The legislation now heads to the senate for committee hearings. In the last week alone more information is coming out about the dangerous nature of the inadequately tested HPV vaccine. CRI will continue our work to defeat this legislation that completely disregards parental rights and ends the accountability of the legislature.

Mandatory HPV Vaccine Bill Advances

Sacramento, 6/7/2007: Early this afternoon the state assembly voted to pass AB 16, the mandatory HPV vaccination bill. After heated debate over the dangers of the HPV vaccination and relinquishing legislative oversight to an unelected bureaucrat, the bill passed 44-28, with one Democrat crossing over to vote "no".

"It is terribly disappointing that the state assembly decided to force a dangerous, inadequately tested STD vaccine on 11 year-old girls," stated Karen England, Executive Director of Capitol Resource Institute.

Rising in opposition to AB 16 were seven legislators who boldly defended the health of young girls and the rights of parents. Assemblyman Ted Gaines, father of five daughters, described the awful experience for his family when one daughter had a bad reaction to a vaccine. He implored other lawmakers to respect the rights of parents in making such important health decisions for their children, especially when it comes to a vaccine for an STD.

Assemblyman Doug La Malfa, also a father of several daughters, described his wife's adamant opposition to a bill that would directly affect their children. The assemblyman stated that while everyone wants to end HPV and cervical cancer that desire should not trump parents' rights to care for their children. Assemblyman Martin Garrick expressed his belief that AB 16 "goes too far" and breaks with the traditional government decision to honor the judgment and discretion of parents.

Assemblyman Alan Nakanishi, a medical doctor, declared that he voted against the original version of the bill and would once again oppose it because "this has evolved from a bad bill to a worse bill."

Assemblyman Joel Anderson rose to ask questions of the author, including "If you really care about parental rights, why didn't you make this an opt-in?" The author of the bill did not answer the question.

Former co-author of the bill Assemblywoman Bonnie Garcia, who withdrew support after the bill was amended, expressed her dismay with the bill's total revamping of the vaccination approval process. She warned lawmakers against ceding their vaccination oversight to a single unelected, unaccountable official. She also cautioned that the legislature should "take its time" before introducing new chemicals, via vaccines, to children. One of the strongest opponents to AB 16 was Assemblywoman Audra Strickland, who courageously spoke out against the bill in committee hearings, raised several concerns about mandating the HPV vaccination while handing over power to an unaccountable official. She pointed out that the legislation failed to address girls with allergies to the vaccines, the fact that boys are the carriers of HPV, and that there are several documented cases of serious reactions to the vaccine. In addition, why should we hinge children's access to an education on whether they receive an STD vaccine? The assemblywoman declared that one can still be in favor of the vaccine while voting against mandating it for young girls.

"Proponents of this bill have argued that an opt-out provision should placate 'parental rights advocates'," stated Karen England. "However, an opt-out provision is simply the government telling me that they have taken away my parental rights and in order to regain them I must file an affidavit with the school. That is an appalling view of parental rights and displays a complete disregard for the sanctity of the family unit."

"We are encouraged that so many lawmakers recognized the danger of granting their oversight and decision-making powers to a federal bureaucracy in Washington, D.C.," stated Meredith Turney, Legislative Liaison for Capitol Resource Institute. "AB 16 specifically states that a single, unelected person shall approve all current and future recommendations of a 15-member committee unaccountable to the people of California. While we are disappointed the bill moves forward to the senate, we believe that senators and the governor will recognize the inherent dangers not only in the HPV vaccine, but in the flawed approval process AB 16 creates."

[Fishin' Dave]

Just wait, mandatory HIV vaccanations are next!

Buy guns now (boy I'm in a mood...)

[Dan McKenzie]

Hmm-we've had mandatory vaccinations in this country for years. Why wouldn't somone want to protect their child? Is it only because HPV is transmitted sexually? Do you think kids will choose to wait until they're 18 y.o. to become sexually active? If you have ever known anyone who had cervical cancer you wouldn't think twice about having your child protected against this disease. Or maybe you just think "your" child will be different, I wouldn't roll the dice on that.

[Marty]

"AB 16 requires that all California girls entering the 7th grade must receive a new vaccination that inoculates them from certain types of the human papillomavirus (HPV) that potentially develop into cervical cancer. Recent research suggests that this new vaccine can prevent cervical cancer that develops from HPV, a sexually transmitted disease (STD)".

"Proponents of the legislation argue that this type of cervical cancer is easily preventable and we should require all young girls to be inoculated for their own safety. The danger of AB 16 is that it requires parents to vaccinate their young daughters against a sexually transmitted disease, thus assuming that girls as young as 11 or 12 could be sexually active. It also assumes that the government, not parents, has the responsibility of caring for children’s health. Under current California law, most other required vaccinations are for easily communicable diseases, transmitted through casual contact, such as chicken pox or measles. HPV is transmitted through sexual, intimate contact alone."

"The HPV vaccine is welcome news to women concerned about cervical cancer. However, mandating that parents vaccinate their young daughters for an STD is not public policy that protects parental responsibility and authority. Supporters of AB 16 contend that even the most chaste young lady could contract HPV, and thus develop cervical cancer, if her husband has unknowingly transmitted HPV during intimate contact. But the choice to get this new vaccine is a decision best made by each individual family, not a legislator in Sacramento. Also, the HPV vaccination is a recent discovery and the long term effects are unknown. Thus far, it appears that the vaccination prevents only certain strands of HPV and other additional protection is necessary."

"Parents want what is best for their children and should be allowed to make the decision whether they want to vaccinate their daughters against an STD. Government should not command parents how to protect their daughters’ health against diseases acquired through sexual activity. Parents have the sole right to determine which immunizations they want for their children."

[Fishin' Dave]

Dan,

Everyone want's to protect their child.

Not everyone wants someone else dictating what is good or bad for their child. It is your child after all.

I for one am not having risky vaccinies forced upon me.

[bass smacker]

I have two girls and the oldist just got her first HPV shots
I don't like the gov. telling my what to do but when it comes to my kids health I want them to have every advatage they can get.
Face the facts your kids will have sex (gives me the willeys just typing it ) some as young as 12 mabye not your kid but theres always some. (not all parents are as invaled in there kids lives as us) If you think other wise your a fool.
I know i will get slamed for this but its my .02
ya it sucks that the Gov. is telling us to do it but i beleve its the best for the kids