Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Paul  Weyrich :: Townhall.com Columnist
Public Schools: Parental Rights in Jeopardy
by Paul Weyrich
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
With unemployment at 10.2%, what will happen by the end of Obama's first term?



One of the clearest measures of a society can be found in its public school system. For example, it is no accident that in totalitarian states, such as North Korea, what may be taught comes directly from the government. Children are indoctrinated early to believe their "Dear Leader" never is wrong even though many do not have enough food to eat. And in war-torn countries or those which are deeply divided by religious differences there are few, if any, functioning public schools.

By contrast the United States has a proud history of public education for all of its children. Or at least it did. I have watched as American public schools have gone from generally good to abysmal because of the many changes in our society and because of government meddling. From forced school- busing to classes taught in every language except English, to removing "Under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance, our State and Federal Governments have been butting into the business of local schools for more than 30 years and the schools are the worse for it.

One of the latest developments in public education is that schools believe they are the de facto parents of the children who attend them. With so many children living with only one parent or two parents who work, with who knows who looking after them, it is no wonder. Now some States are trying to require girls entering the sixth grade to be immunized against something called HPV (Human Papilloma Virus), a virus that only can be transmitted through sex and which causes certain kinds of cancer. What does that say about our public schools and about the state of our culture?

There are so many things wrong with the idea -- and the fact that the immunizations would be mandatory rather than voluntary -- that it is difficult to know where to begin. However, I shall try. First, the obvious: what do we know about the vaccine? We know it is made by Merck & Company, Inc., a very large pharmaceutical firm that has been busy hiring lobbyists and advertising the drug, called Gardasil (registered trademark), in magazines and on television. We know that immunization consists of a series of three shots at a cost of approximately $400.00 per child and that making the vaccine mandatory is a Merck goal. We know that Merck lobbyists have descended upon State capitals throughout the country and created a group called Women in Government, which has samples of the "correct" legislation posted on its website. And we know that the Federal Food and Drug Administration approved the vaccine late last year.

What we do not know is whether the vaccine is safe. There has been no long-term study as to the possible side effects of the vaccine - which include nausea, headaches and fevers -- and the few short-term studies were on college-age women, not the young girls the legislation is targeting. Unfortunately, many State legislatures appear to have little reluctance and are falling down like bowling pins, rushing to do Merck's bidding. Among many others, Kansas, South Carolina, Indiana and Colorado all either have bills pending or have already have approved the plan. The latest State to approve legislation to make the vaccine mandatory is the usually sensible State of Virginia, while Texas Governor Rick Perry -- who many believe has aspirations to higher office -- has just signed an executive order requiring the same thing.

Certainly, a vaccine that prevents any type of cancer is the sort of medical breakthrough for which many of us pray. The vaccine against HPV may yet prove to be safe but requiring vaccinations after so little research sets a dangerous precedent.

Of course, there are the obvious cultural and moral implications. What does it say about our society that eleven and twelve-year old girls might need protection against a virus which can infect them only if they are sexually active? Why on earth should young girls be given this vaccine? This sends the message that educators and parents and guardians simply don't care. More importantly, how do we as parents send a message to our children and grandchildren that they should stay abstinent until marriage when the schools require them to get vaccinations designed for the sexually active? It makes no sense at all. Gardasil (registered trademark) is not a vaccine for polio or even chicken pox, both of which were eventually - after several years of study and gradual introduction - required by law for all school-age children. The HPV virus cannot be spread through sneezing, coughing or playing with other children.

Finally, there is the matter of enacting any law that would force all children or all boys or all girls to be immunized. It should not be mandatory for anybody, adult or child, to get a vaccine for a disease that is not a public health threat. Such treatments always should be voluntary, yet over the last few decades it seems many things have come down from on high and citizens were just told, "Deal with it. It's the law." What happened to "Opting in" if you wish to go along with a program or a new technology or new medical treatment? When did we decide it was okay to force our citizens and their children to abide by new policies?

Let the parents decide whether or not their daughters should receive this vaccine. And only after there are more studies done on the vaccine itself, about which we know very little except one thing: we do know that a mandatory inoculation program costing $400 per child with approximately 2,000,000 girls in the appropriate age cohort (11-12) currently in the United States would equal an awful lot of money for a pharmaceutical company that is very much in favor of this legislation.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Paul M. Weyrich is the late Chairman and CEO of the Free Congress Research and Education Foundation.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Paul Weyrich's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.

Julie
*** "Good luck poking holes in the logic, as harmful as it might be to your sex life if passed" ***

Julie,

It is obvious that you believe that your plan is the way it should be. That is your opinion and you are welcome to it.

I can not poke holes in your logic because you are starting with a _VASTLY_ different set of axioms.

I have poked all sorts of holes in your plan. Holes due to legality. Holes due to unworkability. Holes due to lack of efficacy.
But you will not consider them.

You have created your own legal system. You have decided how people behave. You have decided how society works. You reject my comments because they do not comport with your world view.

You don't really want a discussion. You want a forum to complain and accuse those who do not believe as you.

You are entitled to your opinion.

Julie
Julie writes: Monday, February, 26, 2007 5:35 PM
You said
***"wjriii
You are the one who has not responded to the sense of a child/consensual sex license. The reason it would be so unpopular is the reason that many heteros don't use condoms- no one wants to have to discuss the obvious risks inherent in the behavior they're about to engage in." ***

I responded to your suggestion. Here's my response from Saturday, February, 24, 2007 10:12 PM

wjriii said
*** "I avoided responding to this because of the ridiculousness of such a measure. Jail time for violations? Get real. That is the last thing that Liberals will criminalize.

What difference would this this make? Even with a license, what will keep people to mouth the correct answers and then do what they want?

Are you going to send the police to enforce compliance? Get real.

This is just another opportunity for liberal social engineering." ***

Your response on Monday, February, 26, 2007 3:57 AM merely restates your original statement. You didn't answer any of my objections to your proposed solution.



Julie said
*** "Americans love having sex, but hate talking about it because it's so 'dirty'. There could be a 24-hour agency that provides brief information sessions to prospective sex partners, possibly even STD/HIV testing, and the laws could reflect that consenting adults are responsible for the children they create, meaning no legal abortions except in the case of rape." ***

I responded to your assertion that Americans don't talk about sex. From Saturday, February, 24, 2007 5:49 AM

wjriii said
*** "You call Americans "prudish" about sex. You can't tell that from the sexual content of movies, TV and music. It may be worse in Europe, but that doesn't change the fact. We have so sexualized our children at such a young age that they are losing their childhood." ***

All you argue is that Americans suppress sex. That we don't talk about it and it's "dirty". I responded that sex is commonly portrayed in society. How can sex be so "dirty" when it is everywhere? Yet you repeat your previous statement without responding to my answer. What is your response?



I responded to your assertion that your measures will enable the outlawing of abortions except in the case of rape.

Here it is from Saturday, February, 24, 2007 10:12 PM

wjriii said
*** "Also, feminist activists will _NEVER_ give up the absolute _RIGHT_ to abortion." ***

You made claim that this is part of your plan, or at least a side-benefit. I said that this is unworkable. You claimed it. Can you post any statement or opinion or anything from any feminist that they might give up abortion for any reason whatsoever?

If you are serious, show me how your plan of child/sex licenses is a realistic achievable solution.


Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.