To whom it may concern:
Please be advised that were our daughter to be of the appropriate age in Sept. 2008, she would NOT be receiving the recently mandated vaccine for a sexually transmitted disease. She’ll be a junior, then, not a sixth grader, so I guess it is a moot point as far as she is concerned.
But even if that were not the case, she does not engage in the kind of activity that leads to transmission of this disease.
For another, I am shocked that our governor would respond to something that is merely a clever marketing ploy by the drug’s manufacturer. This manufacturer is using underhanded means to get a state to require parents to purchase an unwanted, unneeded, questionable drug that costs $360. I hope the attorney general’s office investigates this unethical activity.
Further, this has been foisted upon us under false pretences. This is not a “cancer vaccine”—it is a vaccine to prevent a sexually transmitted disease. This, too, should be cause for an investigation by the attorney general.
Yes, from time to time there are public health concerns that might warrant requiring certain vaccinations, especially against those illnesses that can be transmitted through the sorts of contacts that children engage in during the typical school day.
This is most certainly not one of them.
So if we had to be, we would be opting out, for philosophical, religious, and any and all other reasons—starting with common sense.
But we still must register our displeasure and outrage with the deceptive way this unneeded requirement was foisted upon the parents and children of this state.