Hijexx wrote:
If this comes to your state, not only should you say no, you should say HELL NO. Since when is it the State's place to give preventative STD vaccines to children?

They already require a litany of vaccines to attend public schools in most jurisdictions. Private schools typically also require the same vaccines. The purpose is generally to prevent outbreaks of various diseases in the public. The debate about whether or not the state should be involved in dealing with public health problems occured in the late 1800s.

As for STDs in general, I don't see why vaccines for STDs are any different than vaccines for other diseases. People's emotional hangups about sex shouldn't get in the way of solving real public health problems.

As for whether this specific medication should be required, you have to ask one question. Will the overall cost of distributing this vaccine be lower than the overall cost of the infections which would occur without this vaccine but will not occur with it, factoring all of the other costs and risks associated with having people take it. If the answer is yes, its probably a decent idea.

The people I'd look to for answers to that question aren't some blogger who is seriously misinterpreting several factors and doesn't understand the clinical trial process. Ask insurance companies. They don't bear all of the costs, so their position is not beyond being overruled, but they probably have the best understanding of the direct expenses. They'd be paying for the vaccines, and they'd be paying for the treatments. If they support this given that they'd be picking up the tab for it, I don't see why anyone else would oppose it.

You got a specific example of someone how wasn't sick who was quaranteened because of their lawful use of an exemption process to a public health law?

RE: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls