Some people feel that vaccines given early protect their children from diseases later in life. They maintain that immunization allows the immune system to become prepared.

This may be true in some vaccines, but the promotion and use of Gardasil against HPV (a sexually transmitted disease) is a different ball game. Especially since the drug company Merck and Planned Parenthood want to start giving this vaccine to 9-year-olds!

Dr. Diane Harper, a physician and medical scientist at Dartmouth Medical School, rejects the Merck ad campaign promoting Gardasil. She says it’s worded so that people only hear, “‘This is a vaccine that protects me from all cervical cancer’ . . . and that’s wrong.”

Apparently, she has very serious questions regarding this drug as to its safety. “Giving it to 11-year-olds is a great big health experiment,” she warned. Also, in clinical trials, some girls’ immunity to HPV wore off just three years after they received the Gardasil series of shots. So why the push for even 9-year-olds?

The National Vaccine Information Center (a vaccine-safety nonprofit) compared Gardasil to the meningitis vaccine, since both are given to the same age group. Gardasil’s reported side effects were 30 times higher and prompted over 5,000 emergency room visits. That information, together with reported cases of permanent disability and deaths, makes opposition to Gardasil by concerned parents even more crucial.

Our young people are being treated like guinea pigs while Merck and Planned Parenthood are raking in the dough. And no matter how many letters are written in behalf of this unholy alliance, their veneer of respectability is disappearing.

Pat Truman

Hallowell

 

One-man graffiti crusade hardly worth front page

 

A front-page article because one man is upset about work-crew markings on the pavement? (Press Herald, April 1). Don’t you have anything better to do? Doesn’t he?

David Moltz

Portland

 

Teens need full access without parents’ OK

 

As a pediatrician in Maine, I feel compelled to respond to the two recent bills limiting minors’ ability to obtain contraceptive medications and treatment for mental health and substance abuse without a parent’s consent. The consequences of these bills are dangerous and far-reaching.

In an ideal world, a discussion about delaying sex, reducing the frequency of sex and sexual partners, and about contraceptive options would occur between a parent and a child. These discussions have been shown to be effective in preventing unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases.

However, many children do not live in ideal situations. The next best option for many teens is to discuss this with a trusted physician.

To ban that discussion and the ability of the teen to obtain contraception will not reduce teenage sexual activity. Instead, it will almost certainly cause teen pregnancy and abortion rates to rise in Maine.

Likewise, the bill requiring parental consent for mental health and substance abuse help only reduces protections for our children and families. Again, the ideal situation would be one where parents are involved and the parent and child have an open relationship to discuss these problems. However, many teens facing these issues come from situations where involving the parents may, in fact, make it more difficult for teens to obtain assistance.

To support this bill is to give up on our children who are brave enough to ask for help when they could not receive that help at home. These bills leave Maine families weaker, and force our children to face some of life’s most challenging situations alone.

Andrew Tenenbaum

Pediatrician, University Health Care for Kids

Portland

 

Hard-won child labor laws should not be dismantled

 

Going to school was not an option for my Franco-American grandmother because of her family’s decision to send her to work. Born in 1897, she worked in the textile mills from a very early age and could have easily been a model for one of Dorothea Lange’s photos of child laborers. My grandmother then worked her entire life to ensure her children, including my father, had a different experience.

While my father was encouraged to hold part-time jobs, it was not at the expense of his childhood or education. He did the same for me and my brothers and sister.

I value the experiences I had as a teen worker, but I am most grateful for laws that protected me, including rules against long hours and late nights that guarded against the risks faced by my grandmother’s generation.

Any attempt to dismantle child labor laws that limit work hours during school, or pay a lower wage to those under 20, should be opposed in honor of those who worked to protect and encourage children, rather than exploit them.

Susan Lavigne

Portland

 

Money spent on public art not always wise investment

 

Gov. LePage’s decision to remove the mural from the Department of Labor has created much controversy and comment. Lost in the furor is the expense — approximately $60,000 of taxpayer money — that was spent to create a painting that Portland editorial writer Greg Kesich admits is “a painting that few Mainers had ever even seen before last week.”

There are numerous other examples of government excess in support of the arts community. A striking example is the Maine Turnpike Authority’s purchase of William Wegman prints of Weimaraner dogs to decorate the visitor rest areas on the turnpike to the tune of $102,000.

Add to that all the money that is spent by the Maine Percent for Art Program — $913,657 for the years 2009-2011. This program requires that a percentage of the budget for all public-building construction projects be spent on art.

These are difficult economic times in which the allocation of declining tax dollars must be thoroughly scrutinized. At the risk of upsetting labor activists, Weimaraner owners and the arts community, now may be the appropriate time to have a serious discussion of setting government spending priorities.

Terry Walters

Hollis