Pro Choice, except for the 12-year-olds.

Don't sue me now, Gail... (you know how these entitled liberal women can be; see post below) but when Collins writes this in the NYT today:

About the vaccine. It’s been proved to be effective in reducing cervical cancer in sexually active women, and it apparently works best if you begin the shots around age 12. The intense opposition from the social right appears to be based on the idea that once the kids had the shots they’d be more likely to have sex. Or, in the convoluted and creepy words of Rick Santorum: “Unless Texas has a very progressive way of communicating diseases in their school by way of their curriculum, then there is no government purpose served for having little girls inoculated at the force and compulsion of the government.”

for good reason, she purposefully misses the point.

It's about Choice, Gail.
We think parents, not the government, should choose whether or not the risks of a new product on the medical market -- the HPV vaccine -- are strong enough not to vaccinate a 12-year-old child.

The parents, not the government, should be weighing those risks and costs and making the decision, not the government. The reason "it apparently works best" at the age of 12 is, sadly, some young girls become sexually active that early.

I trust that parents know their daughter best, better than the government, and know whether she is or isn't fooling around at risk of a penis transferring HPV into her cervix at such a young age. We don't use "lowest common denominator" standards to push a private medical product on those who might be more at risk from any side effects or vaccination complications than they are at penile transfer into their cervix, or throat, at age 12. (Please: don't tell me that children lie. Sure some do. But trust me, there are PLENTY of sexual virgins still at 12 years old, even throughout their teenage years. Says a lot about the libs that they can't acknowledge this very salient point.)

If you are going to be stupid about it, as so-called libertarian McArdle is, in taking the "why it should be mandatory" argument to the max (read the whole thing; it's laughable really based on assuming every 12-year-old girl is a ho... even the Catholic ones.) then just come out and admit it ladies, you're not really pro-choice in this medical matter.

You're selectively pro-choice, in medical matters that could determine life and death for a child, a living breathing one, not just a child-to-be.

If they could just come out and say that (which of course, they can't being that medical Choice -- the private relationship between a woman and her doctor, not the government -- is the foundation upon which abortion-on-demand is built in this country), we could be a lot more consistent in our medical and legal practices.

Sure, vaccinate your 12-year-old girl, if you are confident there will be found no side effects, like the medical community, later, did find with the hormone replacement thing for menopause, which some women unwisely chose for themselves, but don't make guinea pigs out of someone else's virgin 12-year-old because the government told you it was especially important not to allow private and personal choice in this matter.

Mandatory vaccination for sexually inactive 12-year-old children, over the advice/refusal of their parents?

Funny, if you didn't know the politics or the players behind it, you'd think that was something the liberal Collins would strongly be against, being pro-CHOICE and all...