Gov. Rick Perry is taking heat from conservatives over his signing of a law mandating anti-HPV vaccinations for Texas girls, which shows how easy it is to run afoul of principles that can’t even stand alongside each other.
Either you don’t mind a robust role for government in people’s lives, or you do. Perry did a sensible thing--a progressive thing--by requiring the vaccinations, but what those on the right are complaining about is that his law included an opt-out for parents, rather than an opt-in. One would assume that only a minority of parents are so benighted that they would sacrifice their children’s health because of the belief that an HPV shot increases the likelihood of sexual promiscuity. Therefore, an opt-out makes more sense from a public health standpoint.
Furthermore, if government is too intrusive when it mandates a vaccination, why is it not too intrusive when it intervenes in a very personal decision about carrying a child to term, particularly when, in the latter case, we’re talking about females of all ages?
One could say, “Well, preventing abortion is a matter of saving a life.” Preventing a girl or woman from dying of cervical cancer is also a matter of saving a life. Is there a difference?
One can only conclude that those who want government to stay out of the decision to vaccinate, yet butt in when it comes to telling a woman what she can do with her fetus value the unborn more than the born.
Talk about inconsistency. No wonder Rick Perry got himself into a fix.