http://www.suntimes.com/news/hart/271631,CST-EDT-hart25.article
February 25, 2007
BY BETSY HART
I sometimes find myself encouraging my like-minded conservative friends not to go believing this or that conspiracy theory. I think we can get a little overwrought, a little too fearful, over the government's, or the schools', or Hollywood's, latest ''attack'' on the family.
So when I heard initial reports that many states were considering mandating that a new vaccine that protects against a sexually transmitted disease be given to girls ages 11 and 12, I really didn't believe it. The vaccine, Gardasil, protects against human papilloma virus, which can lead to cervical cancer.
Then, a friend animatedly told me a pharmaceutical company was secretly pushing the mandates because it stood to make billions from the required vaccines. And I thought, ''Oh, good grief, here we go again.''
But sometimes, conspiracy theories really are true. In Illinois, the Legislature really is considering requiring that Gardasil be administered to all rising sixth-grade girls. Those not vaccinated would be barred from school, even though HPV is communicable only through sexual contact.
Yes, religious or medical exemptions would be allowed. But talk about being made to feel like a pariah.
Oh, guess what? Gardasil's maker, Merck, which has a monopoly on the vaccine, really was ''quietly funding the campaign, via a third party, to require 11- and 12-year-old girls to get the three-dose vaccine in order to attend school'' in 20 states, Chicago's Fox News Channel reported.
At $360 to vaccinate each child, it's no wonder. Merck was ''channeling money for its state-mandate campaign through Women in Government, an advocacy group made up of female state legislators across the country,'' as the Associated Press revealed and Fox reported.
I'd love to know more about that connection. But, in the wake of the controversy, Merck announced that it has suspended its lobbying efforts.
Well, I have a rising sixth-grade daughter, and whatever the state of Illinois ends up deciding, she won't be getting the vaccine. Here's why:
That same daughter recently came home talking about the anti-smoking campaign in her school. No cigarettes. Ever. I'm all for it.
So then, if a vaccine were invented that could largely protect children from getting one or two of the many serious diseases and chronic conditions caused by smoking cigarettes, would we say, ''So many kids are going to smoke whether we like it or not, let's mandate this vaccine for every child''?
Not an exact analogy, but imagine if Big Tobacco were secretly behind the move to mandate the vaccine so that it could ''safely'' sell lots more cigarettes. Somehow, I don't suppose the same people who advocate mandating the Gardasil vaccine would be for such a thing. I think most people would say that it's fine the vaccine is out there, and if some parents want their kids to get it, OK.
But for the government to mandate the expensive vaccine for children would be for Big Brother to reach past the parents and into the home, and seek to ''protect'' children -- in a way that doesn't really protect them at all.
Apparently, a lot of parents get that, even if our elites don't. And that's why I have a feeling that the uproar over mandating Gardasil is not going to die down until the state legislatures back down on mandating it.
