HPV Vaccine

I was watching a news piece this morning where two Texas legislators were debating the Governors decision to make HPV Vaccination mandatory for school age girls in the State of Texas. Personally, I applaud Governor Rick Perry for this effort and agree that an ounce of prevention is worth more than a pound of cure.

When it comes to Cervical Cancer, the type which the HPV Vaccine aims at reducing, the cost of diagnosis and treatment are, by far, higher than the estimated $360.00 price tag on the vaccination series. According to a 2005 Centers for Disease Control (CDC) report, nearly 4,000 women would die from Cervical Cancer and another 10,000 would be diagnosed in that year alone, resulting in an estimated $2 Billion cost.

As with Polio and Malaria before it, we are now equipped with a vaccine that has the potential to severely impact these numbers. Granted, the vaccine is not 100% effective in treating all sources of Cervical Cancer, it only deals with the Human Papillomavirus (HPV) which has been identified as one of the leading causes. So, why so much controversy over a potentially life saving vaccine?

The biggest issue at hand is the idea that vaccinating young girls (the recommended age is 5 years old) will be sort of permission for them to become sexually active. The thought process is somewhat like this:

1. HPV is generally a sexually transmitted virus.
2. Vaccinating girls against a sexually transmitted illness opens the door to "no consequence" sexual activity.
3. We, as adults, cannot allow this.

This is a quasi good point, except that those who follow it forget one important point. The same was said about sex education classes in school. I trully believe that parents need to think abut their kids more than about what may be difficult for them to discuss with them. It falls on the parent to teach their children the values necessary to resist the temptation to get involved in sex before they are mature enough to deal with the consequenses.

Up to now, there has been no such vaccine, however, teenagers continue to engage in sexual activity. Recent studies have shown that teen pregnancy has declined in the US. However, concurrent studies point to increased sexual activity in the teen age population. How do these studies reconcile?

We as a society have done an exellent job of scaring our kids away from preganancy. By showing them the financial responsibility involved and how having a child too early can affect them for the rest of their life, we have been able to get the message across to them. However, we have not taught them about sexuality. Our kids are now more at risk of contracting sexually transmitted diseases because they no longer "get involved" with a single partner, rather they "hook up" with multiple ones. This new trend comes as a result of our own teachings. The "don't limit your choices" lessons we give our children. They are now taking this to heart and applying it to their sexual exploration.

Teenage girls will no longer give up their much prized (according to parents) virginity. Instead, they are involved in other types of sexual activities, some which not even their parents would take part in themselves. We have made the protection of the hymen the ultimate goal, and our kids are doing it well. Is it any surprise that teen pregnancy has gone down? Not to me. So, how does this relate to the HPV vaccine?

It is obvoius, at least in my opinion, that a vaccine does not make the difference whether your child decides to have sex. This comes from your ability as a parent to instill in them a sense of what sex means and why it is to their advantage to wait. Even so, there is as much guarantee they will listen to you as there was for your parents. What did you do?

With this in mind, it would be irresponsible to withold this valuable vaccine based on poorly documented morality. Should the vaccine be kept from our kids, any death from Carvical Cancer that can be linked to HPV must be treated as negligent homicide. Let's stop debating about morality, after all, everyone has their own. Let's think about our children and their future. Let's wake up to the reality that WE are the parents, that it falls to US to teach and protect our kids and, most importantly, let's stop trying to block a good thing beacause of our own ineptitude in discussing sexuality with our children.

The Issue With The Budget

Returning to my post-State of the Union topics, I'll discuss my thoughts on the President's statement on balancing the budget. As I mentioned before, I believe that any time the government takes on this task, social services are hampered. They talk about reducing government spending, but truly, what does this translate to? Is this the best option?

Reducing social services in order to balance the budget is not the answer. What results is a multitude of people devoid of programs which are vital to their sustenance. However, managing these programs to reduce overspending and mishandling of funds may be the answer. I briefly touched on the fact that many people in our country abuse the federal assistance programs. For instance, the Welfare Program was established as a means to temporarily assist citizens who, due to the remnants of The Depression, needed monetary aid while they were able to get back on their feet. The program was never intended as a substitute for education and work. However, we are now raising the 3rd generation of Welfare dependants in this country. These same individuals also take advantage of programs like WIC, Food Stamps, etc. All meant to be used on a temporary basis. Auditing these programs is imperative to ensure proper compliance and control the associated costs.

Another area our government should be able to tap for funds are those individuals in the top 2% of the income bracket. These individuals should be taxed on their gross income and not on an adjusted, taxable income. This may sound like discrimination but is not. Consider all the tax shelter options available to these individuals. From multimillion dollar home tax deductions to overseas investment and accounts, they are able to keep a lot of money away from the government. Unfortunately, for most of us in the other 98%, our ability to safeguard our money is quite limited.

By increasing taxes on the "Super Rich" the government would be able to apply more funds to the task of balancing the budget. I will include our own politicians in this group. In 2001, the median household income in the US was $46,326 (See Chart). According to the University of Michigan Library, that same year, the President's salary was raised from $250,000 to $400,000.

If we consider the total salaries for The Congress and the Supreme Court, our politicians make more money per-capita than any average citizen ever will. Now, consider that most politicians live in a double income household, and that some of these households contain two such politicians, you can see that their household income is, by far, beyond what you or I will ever make. Because of this, I would suggest that our brave leaders and take one for the team and cut their salaries to match whatever the average household income is. The savings can be applied to the task of balancing the budget.

In summary, in order to effectively balance the US Budget, our government needs to properly manage the programs that are already in existence, tax those who have the means to provide more funds and, above all, stop talking out of the side of their mouths and look at themselves as a source of needed money for this task. Maybe then we can look at them and see a reflection of us, the average, hard working, not so well paid American.