The Rice Thresher

Location: http://the.ricethresher.org/opinion/2007/02/09/hpv_vaccine_mandate

February 9, 2007 > Opinion > Perry deserves praise for HPV vaccine mandate

Perry deserves praise for HPV vaccine mandate

By Sarah Mitchell | Thresher staff

Texas Governor Rick Perry recently added the Human Papillomavirus vaccine to the list of mandated vaccinations for 11-and-12-year-old girls. Perry’s decision has caused an uproar, and Texans are wondering why our socially conservative governor would mandate a vaccine that protects against a sexually transmitted virus. Usual conservative allies have become Perry’s opponents, calling this move a promotion of premarital sex.

Perhaps Perry istaking a small step to compensate for the failure to provide comprehensive sex education in public schools. Or maybe he is finally acknowledging the reality that over 90 percent of the population has premarital sex.

Whatever his reasons, I applaud Perry for his decision. Vaccinating girls early is critical because the vaccine is most effective when received before engaging in any sexual activity. When people consider which STDs they have to worry about when engaging in risky sex, HPV is often the last one to come to mind. If this were a vaccine that prevented AIDS, chlamydia, gonorrhea, and any number of other harmful STDs all wrapped into one, I could understand the argument that it promotes promiscuity and risky sexual behavior.

However, even those 10 percent who do abstain from premarital sex are at risk for contracting HPV. Even if a woman chooses to wait until marriage, what if her partner has not made the same choice and is a carrier of one or more strains of HPV? Even if both partners have abstained, it is possible (although rare) in some cases for some strains of HPV to be transmitted from mother to child, including the strains this vaccine prevents against.

While this vaccine is not a guarantee against cancer, it has the potential to prevent cancer for a great number of people. It is thought that the strains of HPV against which this vaccine protects cause about 70 percent of all cervical cancers. Why would parents want their children to be at risk for cancer when a vaccine is available?

Also, no matter how hard a parent tries to influence their children’s decisions, many will still engage in sexual activity in their teens. I would even propose giving the vaccine to children at the very earliest age it has been approved for — nine years old — to truly cover all children before they become sexually active. As difficult as it is for parents to terms with the decisions their children are making, good parenting covers all the possible actions children might take.

And what makes the vaccine even more important is that even the best sexual education and most perfect safe sex cannot protect against HPV. According to an article on the Mayo Clinic Web site, women who use condoms during sex still have a 30 percent chance to contract HPV. When practicing safe sex is not enough to really protect against HPV, the vaccine is the only logical option. Why subject women to cancer they do not have to experience?

Furthermore, this mandate will also serve to drive down the cost of this expensive vaccination, and health insurance providers will have to subsidize it.

Perry’s HPV mandate not only takes a realistic stance towards cancer prevention, it makes a life-saving vaccine affordable and available for all women, regardless of their family’s economic status.

Sarah Mitchell is a Hanszen College sophomore and payroll manager.

End of article

Back to top