Big Girls Don’t Cry…They Take the HPV Shot?
By: Angela Riddle
Debate over mandatory vaccines is continuing in the face of the newest mandate - the human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccine. In fact, Angela Riddle (Regent Law 2010) lays out the case against this mandatory vaccine in her article "Big Girls Don’t Cry…They Take the HPV Shot?"
The HPV vaccine mandate has been a prominent and heated battle within states since 2006, particularly as the vaccine targets school vaccination requirements. In 2007, 24 states including Washington DC proposed legislation to mandate the HPV vaccine for school attendance. In October of 2009, 12 states proposed legislation or resolutions dealing with the HPV vaccine. The development of the HPV vaccination raises questions about whether the mandate of the vaccine for school age girls is constitutional when the contraction of the disease is behavioral in nature.
As a nation founded on the ideas of individual freedom and responsibility, America values personal liberty. As Angela Riddle states in her article, "The basic foundation of this idea is that nobody should be directly beholden to another person's irresponsible personal actions. Sadly, over the last two hundred years, this idea has been slowly losing ground to various decisions in courts and legislatures. It has instead come to be what the government considers to be in the best interest of public health, and personal responsibility is only an afterthought. The latest is the attempt by state legislatures to mandate the HPV vaccine for all school aged girls, which is a virus that only affects people who engage in a specific type of lifestyle."
Mandating a vaccine for a sexually transmitted disease could create new legal precedent, and Riddle shows how the hepatitis B vaccine mandate brought about the materialization of a new trend of mandatory vaccines. The issue still remains, however, whether behavioral drug vaccines meet the constitutional requirements of mandatory vaccines laid out by the Supreme Court. Government mandates of vaccines for behavioral based diseases increases the importance of religious exemptions. A case history of available exemptions reveals that issues have arisen regarding the use of religious exemptions. Such statutory provisions have not always been upheld, however, and have often been found to violate the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause. Most state immunization statutes are unclear about whether partial exemptions are permitted, while at least one specifically prohibits partial exemption.
Riddle is persuasive in her argument that there are less extreme solutions. If mandated, the HPV vaccine would become the most expensive mandatory vaccine to date. Instead a better solution would be to establish a parental opt in provision as part of the state’s immunization statute. As part of that, or as another possible solution, would be programs that provide funding for the education and administration of the vaccine.
Her article first discusses the constitutionality of mandatory vaccination. Section II then describes the Hepatitis B vaccine and whether it is a frontrunner for a mandatory HPV vaccine. Then her article outlines how religious exemptions have not been upheld and how some states may not allow partial exemptions even though some parents may rely on them. Finally, her article presents a better solution in state or federal programs in the form of a parental opt in provision as well as a funding initiative.
Read it here.
Working with the Center for Global Justice: 3L Reflections
-
By Anne Darby Keating 3L Reflections Working with the Center of Global
Justice during my time at Regent University School of Law has been such a
blessing...
As the parent of a daughter reading this article my defenses are raised! How dare the Government try to tell me I have to vaccinate my daughter because they expect that she will be sexually active. This goes to the heart of my inalienable right to parent my children as I see fit and requiring a vaccine like this seems more of a gender bias and behavior modifying remedy than a legitimate health concern. I think instead of implementing such a costly requirement states should be encouraging abstinence amongst teens and not taking a "oh the kids will have sex anyways" attitude.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Kara. Acquiring HPV is something you can prevent by practicing restraint. It not only infringes on a parent's inalienable right, but also religious freedoms. How will a parent be able to teach her daughter Christian values of abstinence, but then tell her that "we have to get you a vaccine just in case."
ReplyDeleteWhere does it end? Where are the rights of the parent? I already believe we vaccinate for far too many things. If you ever pause to read what are in the vaccines they give to babies, it may shock you! What is even more shocking are the possible side effects. I remember when I went to undergrad we had to get some sort of shot or sign a waiver. One possible side effect was DEATH!
ReplyDeleteThis is right up there with the new health care legislation. Americans must now purchase healthcare, or eventually will. Here, it is no different. I am sick of the government sticking their grubby, misguided, power hungry hands into our private lives. Some rights are inalienable, or were. I want to be able to vaccinate my future children with whatever vaccines me and my wife will feel are necessary, not what the government thinks are necessary. (I can understand certain vaccines for such things like small pox, etc can and should be mandatory, but things that one can prevent from staying abstinent until marriage should not be).
-Jonathan Growick
I find the thought that the government can require people to have a vaccine that has not been extensively tested, mildly concerning. Not only do mandatory vaccine requirements infringe on certain religious beliefs, they are a huge infringement on personal liberty, autonomy, and the fundamental rights of parents. One large reason that the government generally is for vaccines is because the pharmaceutical companies are often large donors to political campaigns. This might shed some light on why the government might be motivated to require private citizens to get a vaccine from a private company under the penalty of law. This is just another example of how corruption runs deep in government. This is not a political party specific problem either. Statewide elected officials in Virginia have been evidence of this problem. In light of the new healthcare bill, this should come as no surprise. The government is attempting to force private citizens to buy a service from either a private healthcare company, or, you can just buy it from the government… Well at least the corruption is a little clearer when the government forces you to buy their own product… I guess the politicians got tired of relying on contributions from the private sector…
ReplyDelete