Enter your email address to receive updates by email:

subscribe in a reader like my facebook page follow me on twitter Image Map
Podcast Message Line: 512-222-3389
Logos Catholic Bible Software

« Seen Any Sasquatch? | Main | Job Assistance For A Former Priest »

February 14, 2007



Without an amendment to expand the definition, an insurance company could, on the grounds of a prenatal test, cancel a woman's insurance--or encourage her to have an abortion because it doesn't want to pay for the costs of a special needs child with an illness or disability such as Down Syndrome.

You mean to say that Medical Providers would actually treat people so cruelly just to save a buck???

Hospital Dumps Paraplegic Homeless Man

Hollywood Presbyterian Medical Center is being investigated after witnesses saw one of their vans dump off a homeless paraplegic man on Skid Row. Witnesses wrote down the license plate and phone number on the van and called police.

The homeless man was left on the street with a soiled hospital gown and a torn colostomy bag. "I can't think of anything colder than that," said Detective Russ Long. "There was no mission around, no services. It's the worst area of Skid Row."

City officials have accused more than a dozen hospitals of dumping patients and criminals on Skid Row. Hospital officials have denied the allegations, but some said they had taken homeless patients to Skid Row service providers.

Hospital Dumps Paraplegic Homeless Man


This is one reason we opt out of all prenatal genetic testing. There are standard AFTER the baby is born that we can't opt out of, but we sure can before hand. And you should see the looks and comments we get when we opt out.


And this clause,
And to create a Genetic Nondiscrimination Study Commission,
sends chills down my back. March of Dimes does something similar, if I am not mistaken. And we know that although they do some good, they also INFORM parents of "high risk babies" of the option to abort. Don't like it one bit....

Mary Kay

This one will take a lot of prayer and letter writing as it was sponsored by Slaughter (that's her last name) who has a lot of political power.


Reminds me of the scary thought of another bill somewhere in the past month to have *mandatory* amniotic/genetic screening.

However this is just a reminder of how bad *cough*Evil*cough* insurance is. I'll continually pay you money just in case something goes bad. If something does go bad I'll only take a -part- of what I actualy need since you'll charge me more afterwards. Oh and if I have to switch for some reason, such as job or location, etc. you'd deny me the service becuase it was "pre-existing".


At a recent meeting of the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Advisory Committee (CLIAC), CMS officials announced that the agency decided not to publish a draft proposed rule on creating a genetic testing subspecialty. The reasons given for this decision included concerns raised by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) such as ethical, social, and legal issues related to the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA).

Judy Yost, director in the division of laboratory services at CMS, said that “CMS determined that there would not be CLIA genetic testing standards for the following reasons: a CLIA regulation would not resolve the problem that genetic tests are not currently FDA approved, and therefore not necessarily clinically validated. CLIA regulation would also not address the concern that there is currently no proficiency testing for such tests, since there are little or no proficiency testing materials available for these tests at this time. In addition, CMS has no data that indicate there are any more problems in genetic testing labs compared to labs performing other types of tests.”

In response to CMS’s decision, the Genetics and Public Policy Center, Public Citizen, and Genetic Alliance submitted a joint petition for rulemaking to CMS. According to the petition, better oversight of genetic testing laboratories by CMS is “critical to ensuring the quality of genetic testing in the United Sates,” and failure to provide it “poses a risk to the public’s health.”

“The promise of genetics to improve health and healthcare will not be realized unless laboratories performing genetic tests provide accurate and reliable test results,” the petitioners declared.


AnnonyMouse and Skygore -

For what it's worth, there are not any mandatory tests - pre or post birth - that can't be opted out of. If you refuse, you refuse...what can they do about it? The doctors aren't going strap a pregnant woman to the table to runs some tests. They aren't going to wrench a baby out of your arms and test it against your will. Malpractice insurance costs more than medical insurance.

Perhaps an insurance company might require the tests...but that's only if you want them to pay your medical costs. You can always opt to not be insured. You can refuse prenatal medical care. You can have a baby at home if you want.

I don't mean to sound sarcastic - so-called "mandatory" medical treatment just ticks me off. There are always options - some of them may not be so palatable, but sometimes there are lines that shouldn't be crossed even if a doctor or hospital or insurance company or government says it's mandatory.


For your information, some states do have a mandatory, not optional, post birth screening. And some people can't opt out, those requiring C-Sections.
The pre birth where we are are optional, but not the post. And the "prick" happens usually seconds after delivery. We are told the results if anything is wrong.


Actualy my point (which I admit wasn't clear) was that a bill in my state proposed to have mandatory *pre-natal* tesing. I declined to give the specific since it could have been six month to a year ago.

Tim J.

Things are getting scary. Isn't Texas trying to pass a law to reqire girls to be vaccinated against HPV? Not that vaccinations are bad per se, but isn't HPV mainly transmitted sexually?... an STD?

Dontcha figure the Planned Barrenhood types would love to someday make the Pill mandatory for teens?


Can anyone tell me why an insurance company will deny coverage to an entire family if someone NOT EVEN ON THE APPLICATION is pregnant and directly related to those applying? Or why I can't get insurance for myself and kids when my wife is pregnant even if she is not on the application? Or why an ambulance company would charge 18% interest on a bill?

I'm sure it has nothing to do with money.


Very sadly it's getting close to a Brave New World. This year my state just made it offical that all children 18 and under have free health insurance--provided they "fit" the application--and the next step they want is universal preschool i.e. ages 4-5.

Coincidentaly my city got two feet of snow in the past days, and its so bad that school busses cannot run. Yet the public schools are open and parents complain of why they should even try to use their cars when a four wheel drive truck can't get past. The reason, because for some children it is the only hot meal they have for the day since they are on goverment lunches. I'm sorry but they should have stuck with the 50 year old excuse of some kids rightfuly leave early to get to school and can't sit and wait to find out if its open, so that they have a safe place to stay at the end.

Everyone laughs when I say we (USonias) should have a massive emmigration to Canada or Baha California as permanet residents.

Kevin Jones

I am glad that somebody's looking out for these loopholes our semantic gymnastics about the unborn create. Too bad they didn't plug this one.


Not that vaccinations are bad per se, but isn't HPV mainly transmitted sexually?... an STD?

Yes, but your daughter can still be raped, can't she?

The best way to eliminate a disease is by vaccinating the entire population. If we vaccinate for measles, why wouldn't we vaccinate for HPV?


"Yes, but your daughter can still be raped, can't she?"

And you can be fatally shot, can't you? The best way to reduce this possibility is by having the entire population wear body armor. If we have police officers wear body armor, why wouldn't we have everybody wear it?


Uhhh, folks, don't mean to sound like a jerk here, but why is it everybody seems to be expressing such an aversion to vaccinations???

For the most part, the vaccines themselves for this particular purpose may only contain the protein coat of the subject virus so that an antibody response is generated.

I can't think of a vaccine that actually utilized live viruses (though, in the very, very distant past, it had been the case); but, if they do these days, they would be attenuated or heat-killed.

Esau, the HPV vaccination is for a sexually transmitted disease and only covers 4 of the 14 virus. It should not be mandated on little girls, like they are trying to do in Texas. That is one aversion. There should be no mandate for STD vaccinations.
Another possibility, is that aborted fetuses are used in some.

Esau, one more thing is that the HPV virus does not always cause cancer and sometimes you may have or "get" the virus and your own body can fight it off. It really sound to me that Merck is going to make some big change in all this mess.



Another possibility, is that aborted fetuses are used in some.

I'm familiar with the fact that it becomes difficult to grow vaccines like, for example, from animal cells (which could also turn up an adverse result in that they can carry animal viruses which could prove detrimental to humans) due to differences in certain cellular characteristics between human and animal cells; so in order to actually grow the vaccine, it has to be from human cells.

But, hasn't this been the case for several decades? I mean, much of the vaccines were derived according to this manner, right?

(I'm not speaking, of course, of the use of an aborted fetus, though.)

At any rate, isn't it now the case (at least, as regards certain particular vaccines), that we can utilize molecular technology in order to grow the vaccine without having to utilize living cells as we had resorted to in the past?

Sorry, I had not taken virology as part of my curriculum and, therefore, do not have an elaborate background in this.


Not to mention that girls who got the vaccine could suffer from arthritis because of it.


Not to mention that girls who got the vaccine could suffer from arthritis because of it.

All vaccines carry with them a certain danger -- especially since we are dealing with cell cultures here.

Not only is there the potential for severe side-effects but also, among other possibilities, the potential presence of pathogens as well.


Esau, you are right that we take our chances with the vaccinations. Me personally, would have no problem with vaccinating children. But I would for the HPV vaccination because it is purely for an STD. The reason I gave for aversion of the vaccinations because of aborted fetuses used was just that, my speculation. I know some have a real aversion to using anything like that.


Actually ~, you made several good points.

One in particular that I found notable:
only covers 4 of the 14 virus

It almost reminds me of the situation with the flu shots where it could only work if the one they're providing at the time of inoculation is actually the one that ends up infecting folks during the season!

And how many flu strains are there? Over 200 distinct strains?

Though, I do understand why the elderly and even children may need to have it due to their vulnerable condition.

Incidentally, I like your "~" name/handle.

It reminds me of the Pop Singer, Prince, during the time he was known as The Artist Formerly Known as Prince and was a symbol! ;^)

Red Cardigan

Esau, you might be interested in this website: http://www.cogforlife.org/

They have quite a bit of information on the use of human cells obtained through abortion which are used in vaccines.


Thank you, Red Cardigan!

I'll be sure to look it over.

God bless!


But I would for the HPV vaccination because it is purely for an STD.

But why? Why is the way that a disease is transmitted relivant to whether or not we vaccinate? If the HPV vaccine carries no greater risk than any other vaccine, why not mandate it like we mandate measles vaccines?

Are you seriously saying that should allow a disease that we know we can eliminate persist simply as a deterent against sex? Maybe you have another reason why STDs shouldn't be vaccinated against. I'm open to it. But if what I suggested is really the reason, you should look into your heart and realize how sick that is.

And you can be fatally shot, can't you? The best way to reduce this possibility is by having the entire population wear body armor. If we have police officers wear body armor, why wouldn't we have everybody wear it?

Wow. What a complete non-sequitur. 80% of women in this country will acquire HPV. 80% of people in this country do not get fatally shot.

I repeat, if mandatory vaccination is allowable, why shouldn't we do it for STDs?

John Redcorn

Maybe HIV was a punishment for the world's sins.


"Wow. What a complete non-sequitur."

I was "demonstrating absurdity by being absurd".


Michael, My comment for not vaccinating against HPV or STD had to do with it being mandated on young girls. That I do not agree with. Adults, fine. The HPV discussion had to do with what is going on in Texas and how they are trying to make it mandatory for young girls to be vaccinated. So in that case, no I would not agree with mandatory vaccinations. ~

J.R. Stoodley

I'm really surprised that anyone would find fault with vaccinating girls for HPV. It makes sense to me to do it before they could be sexually active so that you don't have to be labeled as a bad girl for deciding to get it.

Most cervical cancer is caused by HPV right? If your daughter ended up with cervical cancer, whether it was her fault or her husband's in his earlier life or whatever, I'm sure you would regret not getting her vaccinated if you had had the chance.

Also I really doubt any girl (or oops, woman) will go out and have more sex because she is vaccinated against one of many STDs.

J.R. Stoodley

Oh, I just thought of something (though I'm sure others have thought of it before me). Does it work on guys too? I'd think it would be a good idea to vaccinate boys as well. Less guys with HPV means less girls get infected.

Of course in this case I'm sure it would be harder to convince parents to vaccinate their son to protect his sexual partners if he ends up having more than one. Still, I think it would be a good idea.

Granted STDs, including deadly ones, may have something to do with God's justice but that is none of our business I think. We should go with the whole trying to prevent human suffering no matter what mistakes people have made thing.

ps the actual situation described in Jimmy's post is just sick. I have an uncle with down syndrome. This essentially denys that such people have any value, so they should be killed before they can "really" live. Sick.


Maybe you could do some more reading on the HPV on your own.

J.R. Stoodley

Do you think I've gotten something wrong?


Michael, My comment for not vaccinating against HPV or STD had to do with it being mandated on young girls. That I do not agree with. Adults, fine. The HPV discussion had to do with what is going on in Texas and how they are trying to make it mandatory for young girls to be vaccinated. So in that case, no I would not agree with mandatory vaccinations. ~

Again, I have to ask: why? If we mandate vaccinations of children for measles, why not for HPV? Do you know how many teenagers are sexually active? You may not like it, but it's a fact. And waiting until adulthood, particularly for HPV which seems to lose its efficacy after the early 20s, won't irradicate the disease.

Everything you have said suggest to me that you think it is perfectly appropriate to use the threat of a sexually transmitted disease as a deterent for pre-marital sex. But why would you sentence many young girls to an early death for a mistake they might make as a teenager? We have different punishments for younger offenders precisely because of their lack of judgement.

But I suppose it's ok to tell a young girl that she may be destined for cervical cancer because of a single lapse in judgement and that it could have been prevented easily and cost-effectively but it was more important to allow such suffering to keep other bad girls like her from messing up.


Well, Michael, when I teach young girls about chastity, I surely do not know what choice they will make as they grow up. When I teach about God's commandment, I surely would sound stupid if I said...but just in case you give in to fornication...wear a condom...have a vaccination.

Do I want them to contract the disease? Absolutely not. But I think that Merck has blown things out of porportion and I really do believe they have other motives (money) than the well being of CHILDREN.

So no, I would not/could not agree to the mandatory vaccination.

Now if you feel your daughter has very little selft control, is in situations where she COULD contract this, has been showing signs of promiscuity, then you and your wife are the judge of that, and you have other things to address than just the HPV virus.

Tim J.

Michael -

My objections to a required HPV vaccination are not in the SLIGHTEST bit related to ANY desire that the threat of contracting an STD be retained as a way of controlling teen behavior. Not even a teeny bit. That is a colossal straw man, so you will have to do better than that.

I am highly skeptical that the threat of STDs does much to alter behavior. Most kids just don't think that way. Some do, but many do not.

But it is not for the state to decide whether or not MY little girl ought to be protected from STDs IN THIS WAY, whether this means requiring vaccinations or supplying her with condoms against my wishes.

The education of my child regarding sexual behavior is MY business and MY responsibility. Deciding how best to protect her form STDs is my call. I vote for an open, straightforward and comprehensive education (that includes moral and spiritual dimensions) about sexual behavior, rather than handing out condoms or giving injections. In addition, I advocate a vigorous program of knowing where my kid is at all times, and when, and with whom.

How great a threat is HPV to public health? Does it rank anywhere near things like Polio, Measles, Rubella, Diptheria? What is the problem with a voluntary approach to this particular vaccine? Does this treatment hold any hope of virtually eradicating this disease, as was the aim of other compulsory vaccines?

Here's the thing. I see the state, again, worming its way into my kid's sex life. How is this different from handing out condoms at school? The purpose is the same. If this becomes compulsory, why not make The Pill compulsory for girls, starting at age 12?

From the perspective of the secular state, this would prevent a torrent of human misery (by preventing humans) and save a lot of money (far fewer welfare checks). Could not an argument very similar to that used to support the HPV vaccine be used to show that it is in the compelling interest of the state to prevent teen pregnancy by means of requiring girls to take The Pill (they're going to have sex, anyway)? If you think this is far fetched, I invite you to think on it some more.

If people are concerned that their child might have to deal with HPV at some point, they are free to get the vaccine, but making this a compulsory thing is stepping into my role as a parent - stepping between me and my child - in an area that is roiling with religious and moral issues.

Not to mention the fact that there is another compelling interest, here. That of the drug companies lobbying for this thing. Add to that the likelihood that we don't know the long-term effects of this vaccine.

I'm not even suggesting whether or not we, as a family, would consider letting our girl have the shot. I'm just saying, this is the parent's decision, and not the state's. Let them promote it, print posters, make their TV commercials... whatever, but don't tell me we are going to be compelled to do this by the power of the state. That is a bridge too far.


Amen, Tim. Let's remember those states whose leaders wanted to usurp parents' rights and be the ones to have the major hand in the raising of children: Nazi Germany and every communist country this world has had the misfortune to endure. "It Takes A Village To Raise A Child"? No, it takes Parents to raise a child; we've seen what kind of child-rearing the villages do.


Amen, Amen.


Just for your information,
A woman can develop cervical cancer from smoking.

I do not label people with cancer as "good girl"/"bad girl" either. They are a child of God who is suffering.



I do not know of your background but if you actually are knowledgeable of the biological implications of such methods as that pertaining to vaccination, depending on the manner in which the vaccine for HPV is made, I believe one would actually be subjecting one's child (or children) to unnecessary risk especially in the case where the vaccine's purpose is to deal with a virus that is transmitted sexually in nature.

Furthermore, that being the case, it would seem as if one was giving "license" to their children to commit acts of such nature since why else would a parent provide such a precautionary measure for their child's sake in the first place but to ensure safety in the case of an actual sexual act?


Further to my post above, please take a look at the following article:

No Law To Mandate Dangerous, Untested HPV Vaccine: Media hoax fools parents into thinking Merck shots are mandatory, big pharma laughs as obscene profits roll in

Tuesday, February 6, 2007

A media hoax has fooled parents in Texas and other areas of the country that the HPV vaccine, which experts have slammed as untested and has already been linked to dangerous side-effects, is now the law and young girls must take it. Merck Pharmaceuticals are set to capitalize on this fraud by making obscene profits from a crony deal with Governor Rick Perry, while children are put at risk.



You may think my argument is a strawman but I was replying to the person who goes by "~", who said he had no problems with mandatory vaccinations per se but said, and I quote, "But I would for the HPV vaccination because it is purely for an STD."

I can think of no other reason why, all things being equal, someone would be opposed to mandatory STD vaccination but not mandatory measles vaccination.

That said, I have reservations about Gardosil in particular but not vaccinations in general. I do believe that the fact that 80% of women will contract HPV warrents the consideration of mandatory vaccination. Comparing mandatory vaccination, however, to mandatory birth control is what you might refer to as a strawman. Vaccination as a way of eliminating infectious disease is well-established and well-practiced. Even for STDs. You cannot go to college, even if you are a minor, without a hep B vaccination.

Again, I understand your concerns about the validity of using this particular vaccine for this particular infectious disease and whether or not there is a risk/benefit ration low enough to warrent it. But if there is, I do not see how you can argue that the method by which an infectious disease is transmitted should have anything to do with whether or not we vaccinate our children.

I understand that sex is a touchy subject when it somes to parent/state relations. However, I don't understand how this is a religious/moral issue in the same way that giving out condoms is. We are talking about a simple, one-shot deal to stop a disease that can be fatal. I mean, it is possible that your daughter will end up getting HPV from her husband.

If a safe HIV vaccine is developed would you recommend vaccinating teens? HIV is still transmissable by non-sexual methods and a small amount of HIV-tainted blood gets into the transfusion pool.


" I mean, it is possible that your daughter will end up getting HPV from her husband."

You have a point and there are tests to determine this. And if both are virgins, the point would be moot, yes? Also, it is possible to contract the virus, and for you to fight it off without ever getting cervical cancer.

I would not mandate HIV vaccination either for children.

Also, can't you get Hep B from a drinking fountain?

There is a difference. The STD vaccinations should not be mandatory.

francis 03

I don't mind making vaccines mandatory. Illnesses are bad, no matter how you get them, and so I have a hard time thinking it's wrong to make people immune when there are no collateral moral problems.

What I take issue with is the urgency that some people feel about this. I think it's demeaning to human nature to act like STDs are the same kind of health threat as other diseases, and I think it's interfering with my rights as a parent to do so in regard to my own children. In the usual case where it doesn't harm the child, it's not something I'm going to take up arms about. But it still bothers me.

~, ideally every person would be a virgin on his or her wedding night. But as far as my own daughters are concerned, I want to teach them how to love and forgive people who aren't perfect-- and I have to admit that might include (gulp) marrying one of them. Of course vaccination would be an option if and when a woman makes this kind of decision, and I'd prefer if that approach were treated as valid.


My husband heard on the radio that researchers are realizing that Gardosil may be the next Thalidomide. If you remember Thalidomide was a drug used in Europe a long time ago to help women with morning sickness. Unfortunately, their children were born without limbs, or missing parts of limbs.
Researchers are finding that Gardosil can cause birth defects in their future children.
That fact alone would make me protest the vaccine.

The comments to this entry are closed.

January 2012

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31