I wish I had more time to nail down the hypocrites on this bill... assuming I could. 

Many of them voted against this bill because of the alleged bureaucratic burden it placed on school admin.  Yet many of these some GOPpers turn around and reject that as reason to support HB1727 (the after-school clubs).

Slippery creatures, aren't they?

Did I say something wrong or did my comment disappear on its own?  I don't think I said anything out of line.  Apologies if that is not the case.

Journal of the AMA and WaPo:  More than one-third of American women are infected with human papillomavirus (HPV), which in rare cases can lead to cervical cancer, by the time they are 24 years old, according to a study [published March 1, 2007].

I believe their is over reaction here towards a 2007 survey. Surveys seem to have a way of being one sided and to react this fast is over reaction.

I do not know why Republicans voted NO but I know I would have voted NO. Who are these peole who believe they can take away parental authority. If they aree a bunch of Democrats then shame on you.

I have nothing against such a bill as long as the parents/students have a choice. To be able to opt out for religious reasons only is stupidity in its highest form.

Just what makes anyone who supports this bill believe they are GOD and can take away mans choice to behave accordingly to sensible laws. This is one case the ACLU should be all over to overthrow. And yes the Governor will get my email to amend this bill.

I didn't know the "opt-out" language was restricted to religious reasons.  That's not good.  Parents should be able to opt-out for any ol' damn reason they want.  I'll have to opt-out if this things turns out to cost me an arm and a leg.  I want my girls to have the shots, but I'll could be forced to have to wait till I can afford it.  Yikes!

i seriously don't get this statement:

Just what makes anyone who supports this bill believe they are GOD and can take away mans choice to behave accordingly to sensible laws

what does God have to do with this #1? and you say: take away man's choice ??? so you'd rather have your daughter die of cancer then?

Afer reading a story in the News and Advance it sounded like Kaine may amend the bill that parents can opt not to have their daughters get it for other then Religious reasons. And as I wrote the Gov., why make parents lie if they do not want their daughters to have the shot/vacine.

Second, I am sorry some one does not know that GOD gave me freedom to make my own choice, yet Government wants to take away that freedom of choice with laws.

Third, how can anyone assume this is a safe vacine and will not cause more problems then what it is intended to cure. Does anyone remember Viox. Suppose to be safe for many years till it was found to cause heart attacks.

Fourth, You are responsible for your own health and your childrens health. Doctors give advice and opinions but in the end you are responsible. Get second and third opinions on some thing so new.

Fifth, any drug/vacine so new and just approved and here some people are willing to be led like sheep to what may be a slaughter. Yes we have a 14 year old granddaughter and her mother is on the computer searching for any information she can find before she will allow her to submit to anything so new.

Caution never hurt anything.

to sound like I am preaching, but I find this quick reaction serious.

After initially supporting this bill, I've come to the conclusion that it is a bad one.

This was a rush to judgment, one made without all of the facts. I had hoped that Kaine would veto it.

I asked my family practioner about this vaccine last month.  I definitely want my girls (age 10 and 13) to have it.  I asked my doctor about how I could get it if by chance this bill didn't pass.  She said that I could get it, but that my insurance would probably not cover it (Anthem BC/BS) and she said it was like a $400 shot (it's actually 3 shots).  With its passage now, would I be correct to assume that because we are mandating that girls have it, that drug companies and insurance companies will get together to make sure that I'm not forced to have to pay $800 out-of-pocket for it for both my girls.  Now I know that Virginia will be obligated to provide this vaccine somehow to girls w/o insurance and perhaps depending how much out-of-pocket is involved to girls from low-income families.  I wouldn't qualify for either of these options.  But I don't trust drug companies and insurance companies not to try to make a killing off this and can't help but think that somebody else is going to pay big time for this.  I also know the vaccine is new and as time goes by the price will come down.  But will it come down enough to be inline with all the other required shots that my insurance company "gives" me for free, so to speak? 

Some oppose this bill on "religious" grounds, claiming that it could encourage promiscuity. I doubt that it would. Anyway, this type of vaccine is a reasonable protection for anyone who might ever have sex. I understand that people exposed to HPV may carry and spread the disease without knowing that they have it; the symptoms aren't always obvious, and the disease is a leading cause of uterine cancer. A virtuous "born-again" virgin could marry a "born-again" non-virgin, contract HPV, and wind up with cancer. It seems to me that the moral imperative for most religious and non-religious folks would be to protect against that possibility. 

No parent gets to "veto" any other vaccine or health procedure without a compelling reason.

The biggest problem with vaccines and other "mass" health care (like estrogen) is that it is often given without checking to see if the patient has any individualized "contra-indications" for the medicine. In other words, there is no attention to the individual: just stick out your arm.  But as long as it's indicated, the child must be treated, just as she would for any other diseaes, with any other vaccine.