Saturday, February 03, 2007

Where are the pro-choice advocates on the HPV vaccination issue?

In the debate on mandatory HPV vaccinations for middle school girls on KET last Monday night, I pointed out the strange position I felt myself in advocating the pro-choice position on the issue in a debate against Kathy Stein, who talks about nothing but choice when it comes to the abortion issue. In other words, Stein is pro-choice on abortion, but anti-choice on the matter of HPV vaccinations.

What is it about liberals that causes this? Why are they libertarians when it comes to abortion, but the most extreme kind of socialists when it comes to other health issues? They are for choice in the case of abortion because we don't want the government to have "control of women's bodies". But when the issue is HPV vaccinations, all of a sudden, government control of women's bodies is no problem.


Anonymous said...

Mr. Cothran, You would probably consider me a "liberal."

I am a registered democrat, pro-democracy, pro-taxation to help support the under privileged, pro-labor, pro-American, and pro-Constitution.

I do not believe that in a democracy - the government should pass laws telling us what religion, school, doctor, job, or medical choices we should make.

Government should not address any disease in legislation UNLESS and ONLY UNLESS the disease is communicable at school.

You see not all liberals choose pro-choice like a cafeteria plan. Most of us do not want the government to ignore our country's democratic system which is laid out in our Constitution for any and all situations.

While I am certain Kathy Stein has every good intention in wanting to help combat cervical cancer - it is not the role of government to make medical decisions for us or our children.

I believe that Ms. Stein has unintentionally not realizing the Constitutional infringement from this bill. I think she was so excited about the potential of this drug that she let her own desires cloud her true democratic beliefs.

I have hope that Ms. Stein will "see the light" on this issue and voluntarily take the bill of the floor and that she will continue to be an advocate for a democratic system of government - one where government does not interfere with our inalienable rights to privacy .

Anonymous said...

Mr. Cothran,

Is there any way you could check to see if Ms. Stein has any financial or personal gain if Merck gets to inject our daughters 3 times each with this vaccine that has every potential of CAUSING cancer, infertility, birth defects and God knows what else.

I hate to say this, but it seems to me the ONLY reason any RATIONAL person would want to FORCE via opt-in or opt-out for this potentiall RISKY DRUG - is if they have a financial or personal gain.

Also, Stein's bill would violate the rights to privacy guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution.

Stein is telling lies to the public about the drugs abilities, hiding the risks SHE KNOWS exist from the public, violating the Constitution -- hmm... is there a financial gain for her?

I hope you look into that and report back on your blog.


Anonymous said...

By the way, if Stein does have a personal gain by introducing HB 143 then Stein would be in violation of Ky. Constitution Section 57 if she sponsors and votes on the bill.

She is prohibited under Ky. Const. Section 57 to withhold any personal or private gain she may have and also prohibited from voting or sponsoring a bill where she has a private or personal gain.