I also have a friend whose son was fine until he got a round of vaccine and promptly began to exhibit strange behaviors that were ultimately diagnosed as autism. She believes it was the themerasol.

Jesus christ… *facepalm*

Of course, in 15 years, we will have done enough follow up studies that we can weigh the long-term side effects against the benefit of avoiding these strains of HPV, and, hopefully, find that Gardasil is doing a huge amount of good, and not so much evil. Then, make it compulsory. However, if we discover that 10% of women who are vaccinated have liver failure within 5 years, then we wipe our brow and breathe a sigh of relief that it wasn’t compulsory. Unfortunately, only the cranks’ kids benefit, but at least we avoid a strong backlash against the very concept of public health initiatives.

I also have a friend whose son was fine until he got a round of vaccine and promptly began to exhibit strange behaviors that were ultimately diagnosed as autism. She believes it was the themerasol.

I question ALL chemicals. I question the use of plastics because of the estrogen-mimicking effects. I won’t buy milk that isn’t organic because of bovine growth hormone and antibiotic presence.

Either I’m a crank for questioning ALL of these things, or else Gardasil is fair game for suspicion as well.

Oh, p.s., I’m writing this from inside a FEMA trailer, which, we know now, may be causing cancer and asthma because of the formadehyde used in the pressed board. I’m not making that up - even FEMA finally admits it. So, really, we don’t know what ANY chemicals may do to us, especially when one considers the overall body burden.

I’m pretty sure the writer isn’t quite right about “conscience clause” law here in Canada; several provinces impose specific duties to inform and refer on medical practitioners. NB just isn’t one of them. And since NB has piss-poor medical services by Canadian standards, it’s entirely possible for women to get stuck in situations where the only doctors they can realistically see are anti-choice.

Technically, just laying hand on someone to get their attention or to move them aside in a crowd, is a assault, but it is not. …if the laying hand was applied roughly, someone faceplanted and needed stitches, definitely assault.

The law is against the maiming of any persons, which includes women, but what counts as maiming?

http://www.cjc-ccm.gc.ca/english/lawyers.asp?selMenu=301268
Where allegation is “maim”:
To “maim” means to cripple, mutilate or disable.

…generally interpreted as an injury, the result of which, is significant and cannot be undone.

There was a case in which a very pregnant woman was shot in the belly, the fetus took the bullet, shielding her organs, so while the pregnancy was terminated, the woman’s body recovered.

Ken Epp propose writing a right for the /fetus/, so the person who caused its termination would be held responsible for terminating the fetus, for violating the rights of the /fetus/. Ken Epp, is underhanded, he prose as comforting the women who have lost their pregnancies, but really, he’s dehumanizing them, it isn’t about what the women lost, because the women are just wombs, it’s the almighty cargo.

The person harmed when a pregnancy is forcibly terminated, is the woman, and that is enough. To say that her pain is not enough to persecute, is bullshit. Her pain alone is enough. An assault on a woman which resulted in the termination of her pregnancy, should be interpreted as an act of maiming because the result to her is significant and can not be undone.

I see no reason to think that evil slutopia is any sort of crank much less an anti-vaccination crank.

Believing that one vaccine is problematic, especially to give to children about to enter puberty does not make one an anti-vaccination crank.

Believing that we mistakenly entered Iraq does not make us terrorist sympathizers or cowards. I would have hoped you had learned that by now.

On the other hand, your belief in this unverified report of one particular doctor being representative of some sort of belief held by conservative doctors does call into question your ability to rationally understand and critique that which you read.

Because cervical cancer takes quite a long time to develop. This is why Amanda believes it is necessary to mandate vaccinations of an untested chemical into 9 year old girls. (Even though at other times she correctly agrees that we should keep the government off our body.) See evilslutopia’s amazingly great faq on gardasil for an eye opener.

Anyway, there is of course no evidence that doctors are refusing to provide pap smears for any women. There is at most one unverified report that one, just one, particular doctor is. The quote from the spokesman from Canadian’s for Choice makes absolutely no sense whatsoever since the “conscience clause” applies to pharmacists, not to doctors.