THAT’S DEBATABLE:Improper injection?

A bill in the Assembly health committee, written by Assemblywomen Sally Lieber and Bonnie Garcia and carried by Assemblyman Edward Hernandez, would require girls entering seventh grade to be vaccinated against human papilloma virus, a sexually transmitted disease that can cause cervical cancer and genital warts. Is this an issue of improving public health through prevention, or is it inappropriate government meddling in parents’ decisions?

If this bill becomes law, my 10-year-old daughter would have to be vaccinated next year against a virus that can only be transmitted through sexual contact. This bill represents another infringement on parental rights and individual liberty.

It is true that the sexually transmitted HPV virus is a main cause of cervical cancer. But is big government’s erosion of our rights worth the benefit? Tragically, about 3,670 women will die from cervical cancer in the United States during 2007, about 453 of these deaths will be in California. For women, the risk of dying in a traffic accident is about five times higher; 10 times higher for breast cancer.

To meet this risk, this bill requires 11- or 12-year-old girls to be immunized with a vaccine that has not been tested long enough to ensure there are no unacceptable long-term side effects such as sterility or even contracting HPV. In addition, child development and mental health experts cite a high potential for emotional conflict caused by feelings of guilt because of the implication that sex beginning at age 11 is fine so long as one is “protected” with an HPV vaccination. Confirmed short-term side effects of the vaccination include fever, nausea, dizziness and difficulty breathing.

The HPV vaccine manufacturer, Merck, doubled its lobbying budget to convince lawmakers to pass bills mandating vaccinations. An HPV vaccine should be available, but it should not be mandated for children.

CHUCK DEVORE

Assemblyman (R-Newport Beach)

As a legislator, I don’t want to continue the trend in which government tries to dictate every aspect of people’s lives. Government should not be telling families how to care for their children — that is the role of parents. A decision like this should be made by parents in conjunction with their doctor, not by government decree.

An important aspect of this is the very real crisis we currently have in healthcare — prices are rising at an unsustainable rate, and it is getting harder and harder for people to get the appropriate access. Increasing government mandates will only add a larger burden to the system.

What government can do is ensure that the appropriate materials are available to parents so they can make informed decisions.

VAN TRAN

Assemblyman (R-Costa Mesa)

This anti-parent piece of legislation completely disregards parents’ rights to be involved in important medical and personal decisions affecting their children. The Legislature should not be attempting to fill the role of parent by mandating that young girls be vaccinated for a preventable disease. The purpose of public schools should be to educate children, not usurp the parental role of determining what is best for each child in every area.

TOM HARMAN

Senator (R-Huntington Beach)