If You Are Bored By The Lull Here

Senator David Shafer has just uploaded a half dozen articles to his legislative blog, which has been dormant (just like us) for the last week. He addresses Sunday sales, the HPV vaccine mandate, zero based budgeting and his efforts to create a newborn umbilical cord blood bank.

17 comments

  1. bowersville says:

    The update of the blog is great!

    Mike Griffin? Is that don’t drink the Kool-aid Mike, defeated 3-1?

    Zero-based budget for a 1/4, good start, keep it up.

    Stem-cell research, you’re on the right road.

    HPV, you are correct, help us defeat the bill. Parents and physicians should be left to make the informed decision.

  2. Know Nothing says:

    The HPV vaccine should be mandated and those of you who disagree should note that your agenda to legislate morals will absolutely be noted.

    The facts of the case are simple: the Journal of Clinical Virology reports that about 1 in 2 women will be infected sometime in their lives. The only reason why you disagree with protecting your daughters is you fear they might one day have sex. The truth of the matter is that this drug will in no way increase the promiscuity of anyone. Any argument to the contrary will be riddled with fallacies.

    Long has the government mandated vaccines for diseases prevalent in society. Polio, Small Pox, and Measles have all been eradicated in the U.S. and most of the word due to immunization efforts.

    The only difference between these efforts and the resistance from the HPV vaccine is that you get HPV via sex.

    If there was a cure for AIDS (which there eventually will be) are you all still going to fight to keep that vaccine out of school? Unfortunately, you probably will.

    Reproductive health decisions should be left up to parents and physicians, but not public health decisions.

  3. Bull Moose says:

    I have gotten in trouble on this site for my position in regards to the vaccine for cervical cancer. So, let me preface my comments that they are not intended to be personally pointed toward anyone other than the issue at hand. They are not personal. With that said:

    I think it’s amazing that the HPV and Cervical Cancer Vaccine has taken on the context that it has.

    Think about it. Science has come to the point where we have a vaccine that offers hope against a form of cancer.

    While the rates of occurence for cervical cancer are lower than others, still, this is a huge step forward in terms of progress in the war against cancer.

    The issue here is that in order to truly be vaccinated from the disease and the cancer caused by it, you must be vaccinated prior to any sexual activity. That’s a very small issue in the big picture in the battle against cancer.

    I respectfully disagree with those against this mandatory vaccination. I would submit that some are using this as the first step to eliminating other life saving measures that are also mandatory.

    If this is able to be defeated, what’s next? Let’s eliminate life saving health screenings for diabetes, cancer, and heart disease?

    The data speaks loud and clear and that is that if you diagnose and are able to treat diseases earlier, you will not only save lives, but you will save money in the long run.

    Some in our state only see a small picture of this here though and think that by eliminating these life saving screenings, and preventing additional ones, it will lead to more affordable health insurance. That’s a short sighted and flawed vision.

    If you want to get serious about the issue, form a blue ribbon panel and have an open and honest discussion of doctors, nurses, patients, health insurance companies, and state policy makers. Let the data speak louder than the political rhetoric and let logic prevail over partisanship.

  4. Jeff Emanuel says:

    I have gotten in trouble on this site for my position in regards to the vaccine for cervical cancer.

    You could mislead a bit more, but it’d be extremely impressive. What you said was unthinking and incredibly insulting and appalling, and while it stemmed from your “position” on the issue, it had nothing to do with it directly. And you know it.

    Beyond that, what is it that makes people demand that government mandate something? Bull, if your entire comment above is true (outside the first clause, which demonstrably is not), then why would government need to make it mandatory? Why can’t folks look at this themselves and decide — why does government have to make them?

    To me, it comes down to this: either you believe that people are smart enough to make decisions for themselves, or you think that they’re far too stupid to know what’s best for them, and therefore need the benevolent, omniscient hand of government to legislate their lives.

    You clearly fall into the latter category. Personally, I think people can make their own decisions. Sorry — guess I need government to tell me that government needs to tell me things, because I must fall into the portion of the population which, to you, is too ignorant to know, well, anything. Good thing you don’t fit in there — must be nice to be so much wiser than the public at large.

    One question, though — if you, like government, are so much smarter than the public, why aren’t you in government? After all, that’s the only place for people who are legitimately smarter than the rest of us, isn’t it?

  5. The vaccine is actually for cervical cancer caused by certain types of HPV, not HPV itself. In some cases, HPV can be transmitted by nonsexual contact, but it only causes cancer when transmitted by vaginal intercourse.

    Polio, small pox, measles, mumps, etc. are all easily spread, mostly airborne diseases. That is why vaccination is mandated as a condition of school attendance.

    None of the public health groups which have recommended the new HPV vaccine, including the Centers for Disease Control, are advocating that it be made mandatory.

  6. Bull Moose says:

    Jeff, I went to your site in hopes of emailing you directly, but I did not find a link to send you an email. Thus, I will respond here.

    I have apologized to Erick. I did not know for one second his wife’s ordeal with cancer. And regardless, my comments were not targeted toward his own personal situation. To suggest such is proposterous and you know it.

    I speak from the heart on issues surrounding cancer. First, I am a cancer survivor. Secondly, at the time of my one year mark from surviving cancer, my aunt and cousin both were diagnosed with cancer and they are both now dead. I lost a best friend from cancer in January of 2005.

    I am actively involved with the American Cancer Society through advocacy and Relay For Life.

    I will do whatever it takes to advance the issues and causes to turn back the clock on cancer and I will make no apologies for that.

    Senator Shafer, why not call for a complete overhaul of Georgia’s health mandates and do so under the umbrella of a blue ribbon panel made up of doctors, nurses, patients, advocacy groups, insurance companies, and policymakers?

  7. Bull, the term “mandate” might be confusing you. Senate Bill 155 is not an “insurance mandate” requiring insurance companies to pay for the vaccine the way they are currently required to pay for pap screens, mammograms, etc. Instead, it mandates parents to pay for the vaccine in order for their daughters to be able to attend school.

    Most school mandated vaccines are for airborne or other easily spread diseases, and none of them are dicated by state law. Instead, state law directs the Department of Human Resources to decide what vaccines should be required.

    I do not dispute the value of this vaccine for women who are sexually active, but I agree with the Centers for Disease Control that it should not be mandated on 11 and 12 year olds as a condition of school attendance.

    I have written about the vaccine in more detail at my legislative blog:

    http://www.davidshafer.org/?p=86

  8. Bull Moose says:

    Senator Shafer, thank you for your clarification. You are correct, I was confused about the “mandate” nature of this.

    You articulated your position in an easy to understand manner that I do not think is coming across in the news as it relates to this issue.

  9. bowersville says:

    Mike Griffin is the “Don’t drink the kool-aid” candidate for the 29th house.

    Freeman may also be the “Don’t drink the kool-aid,” I don’t know.

    Griffin was defeated, 3-1, as the Republican nominee for the house.

    Surely Shafer isn’t putting any faith or credibility in Griffin.

    Griffin is looking for Alan Powell to run for the 10th congeressional district.

  10. bowersville says:

    Senator, I offer my compliments, you’re blog offers an opportunity for all to dissent, or agree.

    I assure you, your blog gives us a great opportunity to discuss our differences.

    And for that, I am at your service!

  11. Bull Moose says:

    I think that it’s rare that there are elected officials who make their constituents feel “validated” and that they seriously appreciate and listen to their ideas. I think that Shafer successfuly does that in a way that hasn’t quite been replicated so far in this state by any current elected officials.

  12. I would like to see Sen. Shafer’s stem cell bill addressed again and enacted. It is a good bill, has broad support and the payoff is legitimate effective research.

  13. Demonbeck says:

    Senator Shafer’s stem cell bill will enable important research to go on without the questionable practice of killing unborn children.

    I don’t see how anyone (pro-life or pro-choice) can oppose it.

Comments are closed.