Re: Fwd: Merck lobbies states to require cervical-cancervaccine for schoolgirls

[Guest guest]

Tom,

Unfurtunately, lots of girls don't have the blessing of having a caring

father like you, so what about them? What about the unfortunate child who gets

sexually abused, raped, or who just falls for the " girls gone wild " culture.

And, my friend, no matter how good a father you are, today, when a kid is a

block away from home, it might as well be 1,000 miles away.

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. We live in a society where

everything is turned

upside down. I have, in my career as a lawyer and as a paramedic, seen far

too much. I have seen 10 year old mothers. I have seen church going

parents who were astounded to learn that their daughter was pregnant. I

remember

one father who told me that his daughter COULD NOT be pregnant as we rolled her

into L & D, and shortly after that she delivered a healthy baby boy. He still

couldn't believe it until the nurse told him that there were only two women

in that delivery room, and one of them had a baby, and it sure wasn't her.

The problem is larger than that of one family's approach. It is a public

health problem. It is not a political issue, or should not be. Cervical

cancer may be preventable with this vaccine. How can we, as a society, not

address it in terms of the social costs of lack of prevention?

We can spend a billion dollars a week in Iraq, so why can't we spend a tiny

little bit of money, in comparison, to save the lives of our daughters?

BTW, wonder where that 12 billion that's unaccounted for went? It sure

didn't go for vaccinations.

Gene G.

>

> Don't forget this is a vaccine for a sexually transmitted disease. I don't

> think a 12 yoa girl needs it. Later after puberty and the possibility is

> discussed about whether or not going to be sexually promiscuous is discussed.

I

> have a 12 yoa and she won't get it until she is older and knows the risks of

> sex outside of marriage.

>

> Tom LeNeveu

> Paramedic

> Fort Worth Texas

>

> Re: [texa

>

> Shall we remove the requirement for the other vaccinations as well???

>

> Do not forget that parents can opt out if they so choose. Personally,

> it seems like a very good thing. If my daughter were still that young,

> she damn sure would get it.

>

> Dick - FF/EMT-B

> Celina Fire Department

>

>

[Guest guest]

Connie,

You're not suggesting that OUR GOVERNOR might have had other than strictly

humanitarian reasons for issuing his executive order, are you?

GAWD! I'm SHOCKED. SHOCKED, I TELL YOU!

GG

>

> Please. Gov. passed this as an executive order.

> IOW, he didn't want to go through the scrutiny of

> having his many ties to Merck called into question.

> While cervical cancer is a terrible disease (one that

> someone I am close to is fighting) it is NOT an

> emergency. That is what an executive order is

> supposed to be for, to stave off emergencies when

> there is no time to convene the Legislature (which is

> currently in session). For this to come from a Guv

> that has slashed healthcare for millions of children

> in Texas is hypocritical at best. If is so

> worried about the sexual health of the daughters of

> Texas, perhaps he could use his substantial influence

> and have actual sex ed come back, rather than teaching

> abstinence.

>

> He has financial ties to the phamacutical company that

> stands to profit billions off his lone executive

> order. He has done nothing to help the uninsured

> children of our state. Now, he wants to force parents

> to immunize their daughters with a relatively new

> immunization against a disease that can't be

> transmitted through casual daily contact (all the

> other immunizations are for diseases that can be

> passed on the playground.. pass

>

> Don't get me completely wrong. I think this

> immunization is a medical breakthrough that has the

> potential to make cervical cancer a very rare if not

> eradicated disease. As a woman and a friend of women,

> that is nothing short of greatness. But for a

> politician to try to mandate it ON HIS OWN because

> that very company donated $6000 to his re-election,

> and has cut funding for sick kids across the state is

> beyond anything I am willing to swallow.

>

> I would almost bet that he waited until Molly Ivins

> was dead before he pulled this. She would have gone

> to town with this...

>

> Connie

>

> P.S. I personally think it is very poor form to

> question someone's parenting skills over this. There

> are two sides, eh?

>

> --- Lala wrote:

>

> > No offense Tom, but who are you trying to kid?

> > *sigh*

> > The Hep B vaccine saves lives, the polio vaccine

> > saves lives, the HPV vaccine saves lives. Whether it

> > " promotes premarital sex " is a PARENTING ISSUE, and

> > those that try to pass it off on Gov. or

> > whoever else are not good parents.

> > If you and your daughter are going to discuss all

> > those issues, I applaud you for being such an

> > excellent father, and being so involved in your

> > daughter's life. But let's face it, not all parents

> > are like that (unfortunately) are like that (unfor

> > like you, we wouldn't be seeing 10 year olds having

> > kids.

> > Protecting people from their own stupidity sucks,

> > but sometimes ya gotta do it.

> > Tanner EMT-B

> >

> > Tom LeNeveu <emsleneveu@sbcglobaemsle> wrote:

> > Don't forget this is a vaccine for a

> > sexually transmitted disease. I don't think a 12 yoa

> > girl needs it. Later after puberty and the

> > possibility is discussed about whether or not going

> > to be sexually promiscuous is discussed. I have a 12

> > yoa and she won't get it until she is older and

> > knows the risks of sex outside of marriage.

> >

> > Tom LeNeveu

> > Paramedic

> > Fort Worth Texas

> >

> > Re: Fwd: Merck lobbies states

> > to require cervical-cancervacc to require cervica

> >

> > Shall we remove the requirement for the other

> > vaccinations as well???

> >

> > Do not forget that parents can opt out if they so

> > choose. Personally,

> > it seems like a very good thing. If my daughter were

> > still that young,

> > she damn sure would get it.

> >

> > Dick - FF/EMT-B

> > Celina Fire Department

> >

> > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> > removed]

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > ------------ -------- -------- --

> > The fish are biting.

> > Get more visitors on your site using Yahoo! Search

> > Marketing.

> >

> > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> > removed]

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

has it nailed! If you didn't read it the first time, read it now!

This is not about political, religious, moral, or ethical issues. It is

about disease prevention, and as medical professionals, we should think on those

lines.

GG

>

> Well, this is kind of scary. We are a group of " medical professionals " and

> the common thinking seems to be that the only issues are " sex outside of

> marriage " or with a " sexually promiscuous " daughter or " promoting premarital

> sex " . It kind of solidifies the thought that it SHOULD be mandated since if

> WE (as a majority) don't understand the problem, then the parent working at

> the grocery store or industrial plant definitely won't.

> The HPV is not contracted from premarital sex, nor is it contracted by being

> promiscuous. It is contracted by having unprotected sex with an infected

> partner. Whether this unprotected sex occurs before or after marriage is a

> non-issue. The issue is what the male partner did before. And if the male

> partner is infected with the HPV by whatever means and the female partner

> contracts it, there is a distinct possibility of her subsequently developing

> cervical cancer, which usually proves fatal.

> So even if your daughter " saves herself " for marriage and your new

> son-in-law says he has done the same.....that frat party with the stripper..

> " oh, I forgot about that one " can prove to be an untimely death for your

> daughter. Not to even mention rapes or other circumstances.

> Funded or unfunded...mandated or non-mandated. Funded or unfunded...mand Fun

> you can prevent a fatal illness in your child by getting a $360 vaccine....

> do it! I will!

>

> Chambers, LP, AAS

>

>

> -- Re: Fwd: Merck lobbies states to require

> cervical-cancervacc cervical-cancervacc

>

> I am not trying to kid anybody. No politician is going to tell me how to

> raise my kid. And giving a vaccine that is used for sexually transmitted

> illness is not a decision left up to someone not in my family. I have no

> problem with other vaccines. I have a problem with this one being forced on

> my daughter when there are other ways to prevent such problems.

>

> Tom LeNeveu

> Paramedic

> Fort Worth Texas

>

> Re: Fwd: Merck lobbies states to require

> cervical-cancervacc ine for schoolgirls

>

> Shall we remove the requirement for the other vaccinations as well???

>

> Do not forget that parents can opt out if they so choose. Personally,

> it seems like a very good thing. If my daughter were still that young,

> she damn sure would get it.

>

> Dick - FF/EMT-B

> Celina Fire Department

>

>

[Guest guest]

::::giggle::::

Sorry for going all political. I'm fresh off a face

to face debate over this. Fact is, the politics can't

be ignored. If I had a daughter in that age range, I

would sign the opt out, even though I probably would

have already had her immunized (after talking to docs

and getting their opinion on the safety of this drug).

I'm just onery that way sometimes...

Anyway, my apologies for calling our illustrious

leader names...

Connie

--- wegandy1938@... wrote:

> Connie,

>

> You're not suggesting that OUR GOVERNOR might have

> had other than strictly

> humanitarian reasons for issuing his executive

> order, are you?

>

> GAWD! I'm SHOCKED. SHOCKED, I TELL YOU!

>

> GG

> In a message dated 2/7/07 12:32:08 AM,

> traumasnob@... writes:

>

>

> >

> > Please. Gov. passed this as an executive

> order.

> > IOW, he didn't want to go through the scrutiny of

> > having his many ties to Merck called into

> question.

> > While cervical cancer is a terrible disease (one

> that

> > someone I am close to is fighting) it is NOT an

> > emergency. That is what an executive order is

> > supposed to be for, to stave off emergencies when

> > there is no time to convene the Legislature (which

> is

> > currently in session). For this to come from a Guv

> > that has slashed healthcare for millions of

> children

> > in Texas is hypocritical at best. If is so

> > worried about the sexual health of the daughters

> of

> > Texas, perhaps he could use his substantial

> influence

> > and have actual sex ed come back, rather than

> teaching

> > abstinence.

> >

> > He has financial ties to the phamacutical company

> that

> > stands to profit billions off his lone executive

> > order. He has done nothing to help the uninsured

> > children of our state. Now, he wants to force

> parents

> > to immunize their daughters with a relatively new

> > immunization against a disease that can't be

> > transmitted through casual daily contact (all the

> > other immunizations are for diseases that can be

> > passed on the playground.. pass

> >

> > Don't get me completely wrong. I think this

> > immunization is a medical breakthrough that has

> the

> > potential to make cervical cancer a very rare if

> not

> > eradicated disease. As a woman and a friend of

> women,

> > that is nothing short of greatness. But for a

> > politician to try to mandate it ON HIS OWN because

> > that very company donated $6000 to his

> re-election,

> > and has cut funding for sick kids across the state

> is

> > beyond anything I am willing to swallow.

> >

> > I would almost bet that he waited until Molly

> Ivins

> > was dead before he pulled this. She would have

> gone

> > to town with this...

> >

> > Connie

> >

> > P.S. I personally think it is very poor form to

> > question someone's parenting skills over this.

> There

> > are two sides, eh?

> >

> > --- Lala wrote:

> >

> > > No offense Tom, but who are you trying to kid?

> > > *sigh*

> > > The Hep B vaccine saves lives, the polio vaccine

> > > saves lives, the HPV vaccine saves lives.

> Whether it

> > > " promotes premarital sex " is a PARENTING ISSUE,

> and

> > > those that try to pass it off on Gov. or

> > > whoever else are not good parents.

> > > If you and your daughter are going to discuss

> all

> > > those issues, I applaud you for being such an

> > > excellent father, and being so involved in your

> > > daughter's life. But let's face it, not all

> parents

> > > are like that (unfortunately) are like that

> (unfor

> > > like you, we wouldn't be seeing 10 year olds

> having

> > > kids.

> > > Protecting people from their own stupidity

> sucks,

> > > but sometimes ya gotta do it.

> > > Tanner EMT-B

> > >

> > > Tom LeNeveu <emsleneveu@sbcglobaemsle> wrote:

> > > Don't forget this is a vaccine for a

> > > sexually transmitted disease. I don't think a 12

> yoa

> > > girl needs it. Later after puberty and the

> > > possibility is discussed about whether or not

> going

> > > to be sexually promiscuous is discussed. I have

> a 12

> > > yoa and she won't get it until she is older and

> > > knows the risks of sex outside of marriage.

> > >

> > > Tom LeNeveu

> > > Paramedic

> > > Fort Worth Texas

> > >

> > > Re: Fwd: Merck lobbies

> states

> > > to require cervical-cancervacc to require

> cervica

> > >

> > > Shall we remove the requirement for the other

> > > vaccinations as well???

> > >

> > > Do not forget that parents can opt out if they

> so

> > > choose. Personally,

> > > it seems like a very good thing. If my daughter

> were

> > > still that young,

> > > she damn sure would get it.

> > >

> > > Dick - FF/EMT-B

> > > Celina Fire Department

> > >

> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> > > removed]

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > ------------ -------- -------- --

> > > The fish are biting.

> > > Get more visitors on your site using Yahoo!

> Search

> > > Marketing.

> > >

> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> > > removed]

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

[Guest guest]

I am the other way around, I would probably opt in if in fact the evidence

showed that the vaccine was safe. I would rather be able to 'opt in' than be

required to have to 'opt out'.

Hatfield FF/EMT-P

www.canyonlakefire-ems.org

Reply-To: texasems-l

Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 23:12:23 -0800 (PST)

>If I had a daughter in that age range, I

>would sign the opt out,

________________________________________________________________

Sent via the WebMail system at Neopolis.net

[Guest guest]

Heehee, but it was just getting fun!

I also apologize for calling our fearless leader anything less than Goodhair.

-

connie mundell wrote:

::::giggle::::

Sorry for going all political. I'm fresh off a face

to face debate over this. Fact is, the politics can't

be ignored. If I had a daughter in that age range, I

would sign the opt out, even though I probably would

have already had her immunized (after talking to docs

and getting their opinion on the safety of this drug).

I'm just onery that way sometimes...

Anyway, my apologies for calling our illustrious

leader names...

Connie

--- wegandy1938@... wrote:

> Connie,

>

> You're not suggesting that OUR GOVERNOR might have

> had other than strictly

> humanitarian reasons for issuing his executive

> order, are you?

>

> GAWD! I'm SHOCKED. SHOCKED, I TELL YOU!

>

> GG

> In a message dated 2/7/07 12:32:08 AM,

> traumasnob@... writes:

>

>

> >

> > Please. Gov. passed this as an executive

> order.

> > IOW, he didn't want to go through the scrutiny of

> > having his many ties to Merck called into

> question.

> > While cervical cancer is a terrible disease (one

> that

> > someone I am close to is fighting) it is NOT an

> > emergency. That is what an executive order is

> > supposed to be for, to stave off emergencies when

> > there is no time to convene the Legislature (which

> is

> > currently in session). For this to come from a Guv

> > that has slashed healthcare for millions of

> children

> > in Texas is hypocritical at best. If is so

> > worried about the sexual health of the daughters

> of

> > Texas, perhaps he could use his substantial

> influence

> > and have actual sex ed come back, rather than

> teaching

> > abstinence.

> >

> > He has financial ties to the phamacutical company

> that

> > stands to profit billions off his lone executive

> > order. He has done nothing to help the uninsured

> > children of our state. Now, he wants to force

> parents

> > to immunize their daughters with a relatively new

> > immunization against a disease that can't be

> > transmitted through casual daily contact (all the

> > other immunizations are for diseases that can be

> > passed on the playground.. pass

> >

> > Don't get me completely wrong. I think this

> > immunization is a medical breakthrough that has

> the

> > potential to make cervical cancer a very rare if

> not

> > eradicated disease. As a woman and a friend of

> women,

> > that is nothing short of greatness. But for a

> > politician to try to mandate it ON HIS OWN because

> > that very company donated $6000 to his

> re-election,

> > and has cut funding for sick kids across the state

> is

> > beyond anything I am willing to swallow.

> >

> > I would almost bet that he waited until Molly

> Ivins

> > was dead before he pulled this. She would have

> gone

> > to town with this...

> >

> > Connie

> >

> > P.S. I personally think it is very poor form to

> > question someone's parenting skills over this.

> There

> > are two sides, eh?

> >

> > --- Lala wrote:

> >

> > > No offense Tom, but who are you trying to kid?

> > > *sigh*

> > > The Hep B vaccine saves lives, the polio vaccine

> > > saves lives, the HPV vaccine saves lives.

> Whether it

> > > " promotes premarital sex " is a PARENTING ISSUE,

> and

> > > those that try to pass it off on Gov. or

> > > whoever else are not good parents.

> > > If you and your daughter are going to discuss

> all

> > > those issues, I applaud you for being such an

> > > excellent father, and being so involved in your

> > > daughter's life. But let's face it, not all

> parents

> > > are like that (unfortunately) are like that

> (unfor

> > > like you, we wouldn't be seeing 10 year olds

> having

> > > kids.

> > > Protecting people from their own stupidity

> sucks,

> > > but sometimes ya gotta do it.

> > > Tanner EMT-B

> > >

> > > Tom LeNeveu <emsleneveu@sbcglobaemsle> wrote:

> > > Don't forget this is a vaccine for a

> > > sexually transmitted disease. I don't think a 12

> yoa

> > > girl needs it. Later after puberty and the

> > > possibility is discussed about whether or not

> going

> > > to be sexually promiscuous is discussed. I have

> a 12

> > > yoa and she won't get it until she is older and

> > > knows the risks of sex outside of marriage.

> > >

> > > Tom LeNeveu

> > > Paramedic

> > > Fort Worth Texas

> > >

> > > Re: Fwd: Merck lobbies

> states

> > > to require cervical-cancervacc to require

> cervica

> > >

> > > Shall we remove the requirement for the other

> > > vaccinations as well???

> > >

> > > Do not forget that parents can opt out if they

> so

> > > choose. Personally,

> > > it seems like a very good thing. If my daughter

> were

> > > still that young,

> > > she damn sure would get it.

> > >

> > > Dick - FF/EMT-B

> > > Celina Fire Department

> > >

> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> > > removed]

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > ------------ -------- -------- --

> > > The fish are biting.

> > > Get more visitors on your site using Yahoo!

> Search

> > > Marketing.

> > >

> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> > > removed]

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >