Loading ...Christian girl refuses vaccination, could be forced from U.S.
flockwoodA Florida girl says she doesn’t need a vaccine that protects against a type of virus that is spread through sexual contact because she has pledged to refrain from having sex until marriage. Plus she worries about the drug’s potential side effects. If the girl objected to all vaccines on religious grounds, she could get a waiver. However, because she only objects to one shot on sort-of religious grounds, no waiver is available.
ABC has all the details.
One side note, there’s a strong argument for getting the vaccine, even if she’s taken one of those purity vows and even if she is absolutely 100 percent certain that she will fulfill the vow.
The vaccine guarantees that she won’t catch the virus from the man she eventually marries.
September 12th, 2009 at 1:03 pm
one in four women are sexually assaulted, and something like 80% of sexually active people show signs of HPV infection. sexually transmitted infections aren’t only spread to people who have sex willingly.
The idea that a vaccine somehow will make a girl promiscuous is so ridiculous.
September 12th, 2009 at 2:24 pm
In a way, this shows the limitations of our constitution. Because we have a specific guarantee of religious freedom in the first amendment, all someone has to do is yell “Jesus” at the top of their lungs and they have a constitutional claim. I am reading a pretty good biography of Justice William O. Douglas, the great civil libertarian on the Supreme Court, and he envisioned a right of privacy, which is admittedly not contained in the text of the constitution, but which he believed lived in its cracks and crevices, that would guarantee a person’s freedom from governmental intervention in their life absent a good cause (of course, we could all argue about what constitutes a good cause).
The concept was accepted, in a limited way, by the court as a whole, resulting in Griswold v. Connecticut, which provides that every adult has a right to contraceptives, and Roe v. Wade, the case legalizing abortion.
I don’t agree with this person’s decision, but I do agree that she should have the right to make her own decision about her own body, even if it’s a bad one.
September 12th, 2009 at 6:31 pm
I’m still not sold on this vaccine. There are to many incidents of side effects. I read the news release on this , it doesn’t give enough information, It’s sad that for 585 dollars she can appeal this ruling. Seems if she is a minor she shouldn’t have to pay.
This brings to mind, not to sure why autism is on the rise. It seems harder and harder to get a straight answer out of healthcare these days.
September 13th, 2009 at 10:39 am
From the ABC article:
“Since 2008, the government has required that female immigrants between the ages of 11 through 26 applying for permanent resident or refugee status receive Gardasil, which was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2006.”
This is a strange regulation. It’s understandable why the government can insist on immunizations against communicable diseases since that would protect the general public. But this immunization doesn’t seem to fall in the same category. This is exactly the kind of overreach that the Tea Party protesters should be howling about, except that the victim is a foreigner and the government regulation was caused by a CDC decision under a Republican President and the pharmaceutical companies stand to make a lot of money. Oh well.
I’m in favor of the vaccine, and my daughters got their shots last year. Personally I think that it’s nuts for folks to say that the vaccine will cause promiscuity or autism or whatever. But when government regulations butt up against personal religious beliefs, there should be a danged good reason before the state prevails.
September 13th, 2009 at 11:13 am
Jose, why does it have to be a religious belief? Don’t get me wrong; I agree fully with the provisions of the First Amendment that protect our freedom of religion. But shouldn’t we have the protection of the government for freedom of conscience generally?
I mean, what if this person was an atheist, and merely wanted to avoid the vaccine because she feared its health consequences? I suppose the point that I’m making is that she should be able to exercise her right to privacy whether or not she shouts “Jesus” in a crowded room. Again, I don’t agree with her decision, but the whole point of freedom is that we let people decide things differently than we would decide for them.
September 13th, 2009 at 1:00 pm
Agree fully, Comrade Caleb. I was thinking about this particular case and did not intend to limit to matters of religion.
September 13th, 2009 at 1:05 pm
I wonder if there are any incidents with the polio vaccine or rubella, ones that have been documented. If there are,would they be available to the public.
September 13th, 2009 at 6:31 pm
I wonder if this Gardasil generation grows up and has to deal with an increase in some sort of birth defects. It will be interesting to follow this for at least the next 10 years.
September 14th, 2009 at 1:09 pm
That’s a good question, perplexed. A dear friend of mine firmly believes that at least the MMR (measles, mumps, rubella)vaccine does cause autism and other conditions; I’m less than convinced. If there were any true scientific studies on it, they’d be available to the public, but I’m not sure there were any concerning the polio vaccine.
September 14th, 2009 at 3:17 pm
And Comrade Jose, I understand. Somehow my inner civil libertarian has been revived by this biography of Douglas.
September 14th, 2009 at 4:53 pm
Regarding free speech and personal freedom let us also recognize Justice Holmes and the “marketplace of ideas”. As I understand, individual rights are not valuable for their own sake but instead because they serve the greater good of the community and help to legitimize our civil system. That idea really took me aback but now I find it rather appealing.
September 15th, 2009 at 6:39 am
it really does not matter what or why this girl choose not to take this vaccine. Every American citizen should have the right to refuse medical treatment no matter the reason, and if we do not stand up in defense of the removal of personal liberties now then we will have no liberties to stand up for in the future.
September 15th, 2009 at 3:32 pm
“The vaccine guarantees that she won’t catch the virus from the man she eventually marries.:
Not true. The current vaccine only protects against some, not all, strains of HPV.
September 15th, 2009 at 3:36 pm
I think many of us agree with the sentiments but in the interest of journalistic accuracy we should acknowledge that the young woman is not an American citizen and, strictly speaking, the US is not forcing her to be vaccinated. (She just cannot remain in the US.) Non-citizen residents are guaranteed some of the same personal freedoms as citizens but not all.