Michigan Votes Forum

Introduced in the Senate on September 12, 2006, to require the parents or guardian of every female child entering sixth grade in a public or nonpublic school to either have the child vaccinated with the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine, or sign a statement to the effect that he or she had received information schools would be required to distribute on the connection between HPV and cervical cancer, and had elected for the child not to receive the vaccine. The bill would also establish a child immunization advisory committee in the Department of Community Health, with members appointed by legislative leaders and the governor. The committee would review and make recommendations to the legislature on new vaccinations that should be mandated for children (with opt-out provisions for parents who object for reasons of conscience). The legislature then would have 45 days to approve or reject a recommendation. If there was no vote, the mandate-with-exceptions would go into effect

The vote was 36 in favor, 1 opposed and 1 not voting

(Senate Roll Call 720 at Senate Journal 85)

Click here to view bill details.

I am no pro at writing to government officials, but here is my attempt at swaying an opinion: Dear Senator *****, I recently read about Senate Bill 1416. In it, Sen. Hammerstrom and yourself, among others, have suggested that the government should require all 6th grade girls to receive an immunization against cervical cancer, which happens to be caused by the the sexually transmitted disease Human Papilloma Virus. I sincerely urge you to NOT promote this Bill. A government-mandated immunization for 6th grade girls for a disease that is spread only through sexual contact will be detrimental to our society and will only undermine the innate sense of reponsibility parents have for their children. Please let me explain... I am the parent of three young daughters. I take my responsibilities as a parent very seriously (as do the majority of parents), and feel it is my job as a mother to inform my daughters about the potential risks of becoming sexually active outside of marriage. I also feel it is my job to ensure that my daughters stay healthy. I do not need a government mandate to help me decide what is “best” for my daughters’ health and well-being. The young girls of our state do NOT need to be “protected” with this proposed legislation, which unfortunately assumes that all pre-teen girls will fall prey to our culture’s expectation that they will become sexually during their pre-teen and teenage years. The young girls of our state need to be assured by their parents, church communities, teachers and adult mentors that they have self-worth and should be saving the gift of their bodies for their life-partners. I have the following concerns regarding Senate Bill 1416: Why are representatives of the people (Republicans, no less) suggesting that parents are unable to be responsible for the well-being of their young daughters? Why are you not more concerned about preventing the sexual activity of young girls, versus just applying a “band-aid” to a larger social issue? Why do you feel it is the government's duty to invade my rights as a parent regarding the health care of my daughters? What right does the government have in requiring a medical procedure for a preventable disease that is caused by only by promiscuous behavior? Why does the government feel it would be best to remove one of the consequences of pre-marital sex? Has our culture become so desensitized to immorality that the government feels it can give blanket permission to our teenagers to engage in promiscuous and dangerous behavior by removing the consequences? I realize that there is a provision in the Bill that would allow parents to decline this immunization (just as there is a waiver form to decline all other immunizations in Michigan), yet how many parents in Michigan will know of this waiver form and exercise their rights as parents? Would our daughters not be better served by having parents who are dedicated to keeping the self-esteem of their daughters as high as possible and teaching their daughters how to resist our culture’s pressures to become sexually active at a young age? Thank you for this opportunity to share my opinion about Senate Bill 1416. Again, I urge you to speak out AGAINST this Bill and the action it proposes. In fact, is there a way to retract this Bill? I would be happy to speak with you, if you have any questions of me. I have included my contact information with this submission.

Senator Cherry asked and was granted unanimous consent to make a statement and moved that the statement be printed in the Journal. The motion prevailed. Senator Cherry's statement is as follows: I just rise to support this legislation and to say thank you to the Majority Floor Leader for all the work she has done on this. For those of you who do not know, Senator Hammerstrom has not just been a leader of this state, but a national leader on this issue. Mr.President, I look forward to the day when your granddaughter doesn't even have to worry about the incidence of cervical cancer. These bills, both of them, are the first steps in making sure that that happens. In addition to the vaccination process, we have to increase screening and education of screening. So, again, I want to commend the sponsor of this bill for all the work she has done on this issue.

Senator Hardiman's statement is as follows: I rise in support of Senate Bill No.1416 and the previous bill that was passed. When we mention the word "cancer," for many of us, it sends a horrible feeling to our emotions because we have been touched by this awful condition. If there are ways that we can prevent cervical cancer in women, we certainly want to do that. I do support this effort. I want to send my commendations also to the chairperson of Health Policy for bringing this issue forward and also for working with those who made some very wise amendments. I, too, have areas of concerns, one of which is that there be parental consent to this treatment, and the amendments made make this clear that there is parental consent. The second is, because of the nature of the condition we are treating, that there be a very proper message that is sent along with that. Amendments have been made to ensure that as well. So I wholeheartedly support it. Once again, I send my commendations to the good Senator who sponsored the legislation and to those who have helped to improve it.

Senator Cropsey's statement is as follows: I rise in support of this legislation and I wanted to give my rationale why. When I first took a look at this legislation a few days ago, I had a lot of serious red flags being raised in my own mind about it and I know in the minds of my constituents, one of them being very important to me, which was my wife. Also I've had people over the last weekend contacting me saying, "Hey, what on earth is going on here? How come the government is mandating this type of thing?" I think it is important for people to realize that the department could implement this vaccine under its current authority without any say at all by the Legislature. I took a look at the law. I have taken a look at the rules, and the fact is, when you get to things like measles, diphtheria and all the other things that we have vaccinations for, vaccinations are not mentioned in the law. Those different diseases are not mentioned in the law, I should say. Those diseases that we have vaccines for are mentioned in the administrative rules. So it is the administrative rules. The law gives the department the authority to add different things to what is being vaccinated for just by going through the administrative rules process. In talking with the sponsor of the legislation, it became very apparent to me that if you do amend the law, though, you get tremendous educational advantage that the public then becomes aware of it. Is the public becoming aware of this? You better believe it because if I have people asking me while I am out shaking hands in a parade of what's going on, the public is becoming aware of it. So it does have a tremendous educational value. What I see as the tremendously beneficial value, even though legally we wouldn't have to do this to have this new vaccine put it, I do think this legislation has tremendous value in the fact that the Legislature would have input in the messaging. Let's face it, on this vaccine there are very sensitive public policy questions that are being addressed and the proper messaging needs to be go out when the department comes out with the messaging. That is being set up by committee in which the Legislature has input in this committee and also when the committee comes up with its final recommendation, the Legislature by concurrent resolution could, if we say we don't like the way this messaging is going, we could stop it and tell them to go and redo it. So I do think this gives us a better handle in this important public policy arena to not just leave it up to the bureaucrats, but also have the elected officials who are supposed to represent the people of this state, which are those of us in the Senate and those in the House, to have some serious input into this whole question as it is being developed.

Senator Scott's statement is as follows: I rise in support of this bill and want to thank the Senator from the 17th District for introducing his legislation. We areboth members of Women In Government, and Women In Government have done a fantastic job with this cervical cancer. We have the Yellow Umbrella Tour. I think it was over a year or so ago, and there was a young lady who had suffered mightily from cervical cancer. Had we had this vaccine then, she would not have had to suffer. So I am just grateful for this new vaccine to help our young children. As it has been stated before, your grandchild and my granddaughter and others will not have to suffer because we have a choice now to take this vaccine. I am just grateful to be a part of this organization and we have worked so hard to deal with cervical cancer. Now with this vaccine, it's a wonder drug, I believe, for all these young girls. I thank you because there are so many young people who, through no fault of their own, because of all of the pedophiles we read about every day. It's because of that and so many other reasons that I am so grateful for this vaccine. Thank you, Mr.Lieutenant Governor, and I would like all of my colleagues to support this bill.

Senator Toy's statement is as follows: I rise today to talk about this issue. You know, across our state women are at risk, as we know it. This is good public policy. It may be a sensitive issue to some, but in my own family, we had this terrible disease hit, and let me tell you, when you watch somebody fade away from this terrible disease, it is a very serious matter, obviously. But to know that we have a vaccine that will someday give cure to this and will give cure that has proven, will certainly be a step forward in our society. So I think as we look at this--also with the Senator from the 20th District who has hospice experience and what he shared with us today is something that I can relate to very well. Hats off to Women In Government. I know that several of us are on their board of directors and this is a big issue for them. This state will be No.1 if we pass this kind of legislation, thanks to the Senator from the 17th District and her vision, compassion, and hard work on this very, very sensitive issue. But let the message go out that this will save lives and that there will also be a choice to this as to if they want the vaccine or not.

Senator Hammerstrom's statement is as follows: I want to thank my colleagues for supporting legislation today on the HPV vaccine. As the good doctor, Senator George from the 20th District, has stated, cervical cancer is a terrible disease, and as Senator Jacobs pointed out, it is a disease that is preventable. This new vaccine has proven to be 100 percent effective in safeguarding women from the two strains of the human papillomavirus that are responsible for 70 percent of cervical cancer cases. It is a major development in preventing cervical cancer. However, I would be remiss if I did not concur with Senator Cherry's remarks and point out that there are still 30percent of cancers that are caused by other strains of the human papillomavirus and even immunized women will still need regular screenings until such times medical advantages are also available to attack those strains as well. Again, I thank my colleagues for their support today. It is a huge step forward for young women in this state.

This 'comment' site is looking a lot like a political campaign to get the female vote. Do the taxpayers have a say in this proposal? I say we should hand out free condoms out to sixth graders also.

Just let the degenerates raise your kids and start them down the slippery slope in first grade.

"But to know that we have a vaccine that will someday give cure to this and will give cure that has proven, will certainly be a step forward in our society." This is a minor problem for promiscuous people. What about Aids? Syphillis? This is a feel good band aid that you folks are using to show us little people that you "care". BS. If you cared you would cut the size of government, cut taxes etc. You can't fool some of us sheeple and that scares you. Go get a real job. Maybe it's time for you to wean yourself off the public teat.

I find it hard to believe that you would not want your children vaccinated for every possible illness they could get. You are making the case that just because they get vaccinated they will have sex at an earlier age. Why wait? Should you also have waited until they got smallpox or polio to get the vaccine? I also have three daughters and I trust their judgement - mainly because we have taught them to use their own heads when making decisions. They are much beyond the "6th grade level" now however I would encourage them, require them if I could, to get the vaccine.

Immunizing my beautiful daughter to save her life just makes sense. It will be ok with me if YOU don't immunize your daughter. Your daughter may die of cancer and will be take out of the gene pool.

How can we, as parents, understand what is best for our childern? It is clear the Michigan Senate has asked this question and found the answer. Parents are not capable of making sound decissions. Therefore, the State will step in and control the family through the childern. The age of Consentual Sex in Michigan is 16 years of age. Senate Bill 1416 provides "safer" sex for minors 16 years of age. Should the parents teach abstenance the child can safely rebel because of state protection. The message sent by the Senate should be of great concern to all citizens.

sick and demented.I happen to think that a good way to keep my children safe is to teach morals and explain that the world is not some big gray area. There is an absolute right and wrong. Sixth graders that are sleeping with multiple partners for sure falls to the absolutly wrong side.

"The age of Consentual Sex in Michigan is 16 years of age" And there are many degenerate/liberal/democrat groups trying to lower this.

your "beautiful daughter" from Aids and all the other bad diseases? Maybe you should try to raise her instead of turning her over to the nanny state.

Why did Republicans vote for Senate Bill 1416? What is happening goes deeper than political affiliation. Former Conservative Republican

You have the right to have Your daughter vaccinated against STDs. You can take your duadghter to your family doctor. Why do we need a Law? I have different moral values than you do (your comments). I'm not forcing them on you. This is what Senate Bill 1416 is about.

Oh, you must be thinking about a government "by the people for the people". If we're going to do this right...let's License child birth. More income for the State. Then child birth becomes a privilege and that privilege could be taken away.

So what your saying is you want your daughters protected against STDs? You want my daughter protected against STDs? Why do you want my daughter protected against STDs?

she has a son that she raised with the same moral set. Oh Yeah,,she also wants government to be our nanny.

It scares the heck out of me. When someone asks me I steal Hannity's line and tell them I'm a Reagan Conservative. Can't tell the good guys from the bad guys anymore.

Thanks!

"You are making the case that just because they get vaccinated they will have sex at an earlier age. Why wait?" When you vaccinate against an std you are in essence condoning this behavior. "Should you also have waited until they got smallpox or polio to get the vaccine?" These are diseases that are not voluntary. You are comparing apples and oranges trying to make a case for telling all the good decent folks how to raise their kids. Very common leftist trickery.

That is the danger we face in a democratic...republic...I get so confused.

The "greater good" is a thought process. Knowledge is required to defete it. If it sounds good to the "uninformed" they (the left) stand a chance of winning. There is a difference between "I feel" and "I know". There is a difference between "the devil made me do it" and "personal responsibility". If we find cures for all STDs then sex is safe for every one. Throw caution to the wind!

can be described in four words. "free to" as opposed to "forced to".

"free to" as opposed to "forced to" So what your saying is this, in my home my daughters will not receive vaccinations for STDs and no action on my part is required. Similarly, if I needed financial help from the State I should contact them...opt-in.

what i'm saying is that, if this law passes, you will have to become active in politics if you want your daughters to "opt out" of being vaccinated. the current wave of liberal thinking advocates "forced to" as opposed to "free to".

won't recieve vaccinations in your home, but they most probably will in their school.

"what i'm saying is that, if this law passes, you will have to become active in politics if you want your daughters to "opt out" of being vaccinated" What do you propose? I ask the question in all seriousness.

if, for whatever reason, you decide TO get your daughters vaccinated, then by all means, do it. if, on the other hand, you decide for whatever reason to NOT get your daughters vaccinated, you should NOT HAVE TO. this law would try and force this on you and your daughters. i'm not against vaccination against diseases, i AM against being FORCED to be vaccinated against diseases that can be avoided by simply not engaging in sex.

that the government get out of our lives. They should fix roads and run fire departments. Even the police departments need to be downsized since they have become nothing more than revenue generators for the cities and the imperial state government. The parents can raise their children. We don't need a bunch of political hacks pandering to the government school educated masses for more votes so they can keep their do nothing jobs. The problem with this is that the government idoctrination centers, oops I mean schools have done a fine job of turning out non thinking sheeple over the last 50 years. Between this and all the old hippies that refuse to grow up (one even made it to the white house in the 90's) half the country does nothing but look for handouts to decide who they vote for.

"what i'm saying is that, if this law passes, you will have to become active in politics if you want your daughters to "opt out" of being vaccinated What do you propose? I ask the question in all seriousness." What is happening in the legislature goes beyond STD vaccination legislation. I have been in contact with my senator and representative. For the record, I had to inform them of Michigan Law on a closely related subject. I do have my represenative's cell phone number. My actions to date have been...useless. What does my vote in November accomplish? To put the same people back in? What recoarse do I have against this current legislation? The best I can hope for is one more person will understand my arguement. That being, it is better to "opt-in". That way both sides are covered with out offending the other. When you're sick you go to the doctor. I hope you feel better but what business is it of mine? My question to you involved "political action". What can I do that I haven't already done?

Doesn't get us any where does it?

Want to have fun ask the next 10 people you see if we live in a democracy or a republic. Another way to have fun is at tax time ask 10 people how much tax they paid. About 7 out of ten will say "I didn't pay anything, I got money coming back". "Let me control the textbooks and I will control the state." -- Adolph Hitler I think it is working.

Look at the vote. It's not just the left. It IS Republicans folks!

Be Very Afraid. Must be something in the water.

"Be Very Afraid. Must be something in the water." A person I know fears the Christian Right is taking over the government. Claiming to be a Bible reading Christian, I look around and say "it ain't so". Until recently I called myself a Conservative Republican. Then I looked around and saw liberals in republican clothing. When senate bill 1416 was announced I heard "deafening silence" from the churchs (must be that tax-exempt status thing). It's not in the water...it's in the mind!