Michigan Votes Forum

Jenny, what a liar! Lawyer, Liar! I guess it fits!

Well the governor has not done anything to help Michigan.I think it's time for a change.I would sure trust a business man over a barbie want to be governor.

De Vos I think your great he will have my vote and many of my friends.Maybe you should go on the Autism web site and you tell me that any child in Michigan with a disability has gotten any help from Ms. Granholm.As far as the No child left behind ,one child is to many two leave behind and I have 5 children who have been left behind!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Big Thanks to NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND!!!GRANHOLM

I agree!!!!I agree!!!!!I agree!!!!!!!!Jenny!!!! Liar!!!!!!!Granholm!!!!!!!!Liar!!!!!

Great job fire her!!!!!!!!!Let's all get together and fire her!!!If we where in business and we were the boss we would have been fired along time ago!!!!!!!Some people just don't know what to do when put into a big important position!!!Jenny has shown she hasn't a clue how to run things!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

offering the HPV vaccine "at no cost to the public" is farce the taxpayers will foot the bill there are no real freebies from the government

either the government GIVES IT AWAY for free, or they MANDATE that you take the shot. what's the difference, we pay for it either way.

she promised that we'd all be "blown away". she's kept that one, she's blown away 100,000 jobs so far and counting. she promised that she'd "keep an eye on our wallets". well, she kept that one too, our taxes are STILL prohibitive, our business climate is the worst in the nation, and what businesses are here, only stay because of "incentives" that come out of our wallets. other than that, she hasn't kept any, nor has she done anything.

gives nothing away for free somebody always pays and that somebody is the taxpayer

we have to pay for the mandatory vaccine anyway. do you ENJOY having it forced down your throat?

When was the last time a rapist put on a condom before raping his victim? Did you know condoms are only 70% effective at preventing HPV transmission? Sexual promiscuity is not the only way to contract and STD. Rape is very very real. Rape is traumatic enough without the contraction of a deadly disease. Vaccinating your daughter will help save her life if, God forbid, she is raped. If I could afford it, I would get the vaccine. I am a college student who grew up in a very conservative religious community. I am finding out now that many of the girls I grew up with were raped at some point during high school. They never told anyone. To this day their parents have no idea. These were not promiscuous girls. They were raised in very loving Christian homes. One of them, at age 19 just got her first PAP exam. It came back abnormal. She'll find out in three months when she goes back to have it done again whether or not she has HPV. These girls deserved to have been protected against cervical cancer.

upon finding out that this vaccination was a GOOD thing, would probably make additional sacrifices to GET IT. that is IF it's a good thing. now, whether or not it's a good thing, the state seems to want to jam it down our throats, only allowing an "opt out" clause AFTER it's first amendment. that doesn't seem like they care too much about parental responsibility, or parent's ability to make educated choices.

Pretty weak. (1) The fact that a small minority may experience forced sexual contact does not, in my mind, justify the state foisting this innoculation intrusion thing upon everyone. (2) The possibility of contracting an HPV has got to be pretty far down on the list of concerns for a rape victim. Are you kidding me? C'mon, you didn't seriously put this out there as a legitimate argument, did you? Tell you what: Let's start by taking care of convicted rapists (see Capital Punishment thread) and provide the means for people to protect themselves (see either firearms related/duty to retreat threads). Maybe then we'll take a look at mandatory vaccinations of anticipatory victims. Cripes, society is shot to heck when we've gotten to the point that we're just too darn sophisticated, learned and pacified that we are philisophically unable to effectively confront the bad guys -- and then use that failure as a justification to "protect" citizens against the fallout by sticking a needle in their arm. "Gee, Suzie. Sorry, that you may face getting stabbed and/or shot and/or beaten to a pulp. Sorry that you may experience sexual molestation and violation. Sorry that you may end up pregnant and forced to carry your rapist's baby to term or go through the psycological pain of abortion. Sorry that you may be facing years of anguish and/or sorrow and/or regret. Sorry that we consider it unconscionable to permanently incapacitate the recidivist low-life deadbeats like the guy that attacked you and put you at risk for all of this. BUT -- the GOOD NEWS is that we've got this jim-dandy vaccination that may reduce the possibility that you'll develop a tumor in twenty years." Wonderful. Jim Arvada, CO

they DID seriously put forth THAT arguement. i think it falls into the "any excuse" column.

rant

You can't blame No Child Left Behind on Granholm. That was Federal legislation (yet another unfunded/underfunded mandate).

urcg urbkwg oxrlvej osqmjzhgk pkbrv pwbnzc rabm

Accountable for what? A myth about a talking snake? No thanks, I concur with the late Mark Twain; "You believe in a book that has talking animals, wizards, witches, demons, sticks turning into snakes, burning bushes, food falling from the sky, people walking on water, and all sorts of magical, absurd and primitive stories, and you say we are the ones that need help?"

the two have gone hand in hand for years. Both convince you that you're dirty, and that THEY havse the only soap that can make you clean.

Personally I"m tired of the misconception that so many christian parents have that GOOD parents' kids aren't going to be sexually active. This denies the fact that many kids from christian homes ( as well as other homes with concerned parents) DO indeed have sex and contract STDs. This vaccination is a simple way to protect your daughters from an STD that may or may not have symptoms but can have devastating effects in the future. It is not like we finish vaccinating your child and then say, there, NOW you're safe, go have fun. Someday you'll wake up to the fact that your little angels have every bit as much risk of early sexual activity as anyone elses. Wake up.

entirely until you want to have kids. NOW THAT IS PROGRESS. We could really accomplish something THEN. Took them long enough, jeez! And ALL health insurance should pay for THAT! Think of all the days of missed work or school we wouldn't have. This is like humans walking on the moon HUGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!

Go, Mark Twain!

Excellent cooperation:)

Another point you might want to consider in before you rule out giving your daughters the HPV vaccine is that the men your daughters marry might not be virgins. If so, then these men can pass HPV to your daughters and put them at risk for cervical cancer or gential warts (which this vaccine prevents). Just something else to consider. From a health care provider

why must this be MANDATED? if the vaccine is as great as you say, then people will stand in line to get it, and pay for the privelege. the opposition to this vaccine is NOT it's health benefits, but THE FACT that it's being MANDATED.

Rep. Elsenheimer, having reserved the right to explain his protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement: "Mr. Speaker and members of the House: I applaud the intent of this bill, particularly so with the addition of the Vander Veen amendment. I am the father of an 11 year old daughter. My wife and I may decide to have her receive the vaccine at some point in her future. The vaccine clearly shows great promise -- some have said it's miraculous. My no vote is premised upon a concern that government is rushing to 'correct a wrong' that can be handled easily through a personal family decision to vaccinate. There are times when government can and should mandate vaccination, for example, where failure to vaccinate may lead to airborne pathogenic disease. At this point, I do not see this issue raising to that level. I hope that parents across the state discuss whether or not to vaccinate their female children. My wife and I certainly will."

Rep. Zelenko, having reserved the right to explain her protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement: "Mr. Speaker and members of the House: I have 6 daughters and 6 granddaughters, I am very concerned about cervical cancer. I am not opposed to the FDA approval of the new drug. I am opposed to mandatory innoculation of young girls in an age group that was not extensively studied so soon after the FDA approval. Most of my concerns are taken from the Gardasil insert and study documents. Using the basis that the purpose of this mandate is the prevention of High Grade disease and encompasses CIN II-III (Cervical Intraepitheial Neoplasia---new growth within the layers of the cells. Ranges in severity from 1-.) and adenocarcinoma in situ (glandular cell that it is in place and has not spread) which are "immediate and necessary precursors" for squamous (flat and or surface) cells and adenocarcinoma of the cervix with the MAXIMUM of the follow up in any of the Gardasil studies is FOUR years. However, the time course from HPV to CIN III to invasive cancer averages between 8.1 to 12.6 years. So claiming this vaccine 'prevents cervical cancer', with the longest median study subject being only 4 years, is inconclusive. Furthermore, the vast majority of women clear/suppress the virus to levels not associated with CIN II or III and for most women this occurs promptly. The duration of HPV positivity (which is directly related to the likelihood of developing a high grade lesion or cervical cancer) is shorter, and the likelihood of clearance is higher, in younger women. Is vaccinating these children against HPV with a vaccine that is of unknown duration of efficacy only postpone their exposure to an age which they are less likely to clear the infection on their own and be subject to more severe disease? Gardasil insert states that the need for a booster is unknown. However, it has become more and more apparent in the last decade through reports in JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association) and the Lancet a British Medical Journal, that immunities from several vaccinations do not hold lifetime immunities and boosters are now recommended. Merck expects you to interpret their adult data to the immune response in children. If they were really interested in vaccine efficacy in children, should it not be studied properly in children? Currently, precancerous lesions are readily identifiable and treatable in the developed world. The data reported and advertised by Merck is based on world wide morbidity and mortality related to cervical cancer, not just US or State of Michigan. In addition, regular Pap tests and follow up can prevent most cases of cervical cancer. Pap tests detect changes in the cervix before they turn into cancer. Most cases of cervical cases diagnosed in the US have not have pap in 5or more years. I am concerned about the toxicity of the aluminum and borax in the vaccination, and the fact that the study does indicate that boys ages 9-15 were included in some aspects of the study. Where are those stats? Why not immunize the boys, too?"

Rep. Hood, having reserved the right to explain his protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement: "Mr. Speaker and members of the House: The reason That I voted on SB1416 is that I have concerns about the lack of studies that have been done on this vaccination and the effects that it could have. I want to make sure that in the process of saving lives, which is the most important issue, that we do not put any lives at risk. We must gather more data so that we don't do that. Once again, fighting cancer is a battle that we must all take a part of but we must be sure of how we do it."

Rep. Schuitmaker, having reserved the right to explain her protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement: "Mr. Speaker and members of the House: I believe the intent of this bill is important, particularly so with the addition of the amendment. I am the mother of an 8 year old daughter. I may decide to have her receive the vaccine at some point in her future. The vaccine clearly shows great promise, however, I am opposed to mandatory innoculation of young girls in an age group that was not extensively studied so soon after the FDA approval.Most of my concerns are taken from the Gardasil insert and study documents. Using the basis that the purpose of this mandate is the prevention of High Grade disease and encompasses CIN II-III (Cervical Intraepitheial Neoplasia---new growth within the layers of the cells. Ranges in severity from 1-.) and adenocarcinoma in situ (glandular cell that it is in place and has not spread) which are 'immediate and necessary precursors' for squamous (flat and or surface) cells and adenocarcinoma of the cervix with the MAXIMUM of the follow up in any of the Gardasil studies is FOUR years. However, the time course from HPV to CIN III to invasive cancer averages between 8.1 to 12.6 years. So claiming this vaccine 'prevents cervical cancer', with the longest median study subject being only 4 years, is inconclusive. Furthermore, the vast majority of women clear/suppress the virus to levels not associated with CIN II or III and for most women this occurs promptly. The duration of HPV positivity (which is directly related to the likelihood of developing a high grade lesion or cervical cancer) is shorter, and the likelihood of clearance is higher, in younger women. Gardasil insert states that the need for a booster is unknown. My no vote is premised upon a concern that government is rushing to 'correct a wrong' that can be handled easily through a personal family decision to vaccinate. There are times when government can and should mandate vaccination, for example, where failure to vaccinate may lead to airborne pathogenic disease. At this point, I do not see this issue raising to that level. I hope that parents across the state discuss whether or not to vaccinate."

Rep. Robertson, having reserved the right to explain his protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement: "Mr. Speaker and members of the House: While I recognize the potential benefit of this, or any vaccine, I cannot support the mandatory aspect of this bill. I believe this should be a matter of parental choice. Amendments were offered particularly the Drolet amendment which would have made the legislation better. Regrettably this amendment was defeated and the bill was weakened as a result. I am also uncomfortable with requiring the vaccine be given to children as young as age nine. Testimony in the Health Policy confirmed that there was no increased efficacy of the vaccine with younger recipients. For these reasons I opposed the passage of this legislation."

pzrmbed nojsycgkh qrlba qogdb gdlxhprt fvuw jbrtpxi

prbfyt subfmgz zsrtadfun wcultrqnh ynqje tqrcf vdqybhn

If 75% of women contract HPV by age 45, don't you think some of them are getting it from their life partner? The love of their life? The only man they've ever had intercourse with? The man who, because there is no test for HPV for men contracted it during his football years in highschool from the only other womman he's ever been intimate with, hish high school sweet heart. He may not have even had intercourse because as high schoolers we know that there are "other things" we can do that are just ask risky. We love too and we like intimacy too. 10th grade from MA

Let's punish our daughters for having sex. That's a great mentality. I'm sure her husband will be grateful when she looks upon his amazing beautiful body as dirty because her loving mother let her know that sex was bad. Thats great. Can you imagine a society where women denied men intimacy.

hell, most people i know are LIVING IT.

ok, let's punish our daughters for choosing to abstain from purely recreational sex before she gets married. and while we are at it, let's punish our SONS from doing the same thing. if more kids did a lot less "poking fun at people", we'd have lots less cases of cervical cancer. what aids did for the sexual revolution, h.p.v. might just do for those that just want to "dog around".

hey bev you need to be voted out of office ,and give back all the money you received from drug companies