Legislation watch
Capitol Building

2008 House Bill 396 (Require immunization for human papillomavirus for certain children)

[Comments on this legislation] [Post new comment] [Text and Analysis] [Add to Watch List]
[Previous] [Next]

Most Recent Comments

1) HPV Vaccine [by sjacobs on February 21, 2008]
I am not a doctor, but if I understand this vaccine correctly it only protects against a few of the hundreds of strains of herpes. What is the risk you are subjecting these young girls? And more importantly, why?

From my point of view, you are simply encouraging these young people to have sex. Are we as a society waving the green flag at premarital sex and sex with multiple partners? Isn't that how HPV spreads in the first place. Isn't being afraid of "getting something" a reason for not having multiple partners. Are we encouraging people to have sex with everyone, whenever the mood hits. In my opinion this is morally wrong and should be discouraged. I don't think it is any of the State's business to medle with. If the parents want to give their kids the HPV vaccine, then that is something they will have to answer for. But I don't think the State should make that choice for them.
Reply

Line

2) 2008 House Bill 396 (Require immunization for human papillomavirus for certain children) [by admin on January 1, 2001]
Introduced in the House on January 29, 2008, to require immunization against human papillomavirus for school-age children and allow parents to opt-out

The vote was 56 in favor, 37 opposed and 6 not voting

(House Roll Call 0 at House Journal 0)

Click here to view bill details.
Reply

Line


View Full Conversation