Magnifisyncopathological

On March 9th, Andrew Sullivan was thrilled to see "Glenn Reynolds' libertarian side" on the matter of the Patriot Act. Specifically, the Instapundit agreed with Dave Kopel's statement: "If I were in Congress, I would have voted against the Patriot Act and its re-authorization."

And that is nice and great.

However, just one day later we were faced with this:

STEVEN GROOPMAN writes that HPV vaccine should be mandatory:

Since the disease is so common, many fail to bring it up with their partners. Those who refrain from intercourse can still get HPV from other sexual activities. And even those who remain fully abstinent until marriage could contract it from their spouses. In short, HPV is a significant public health threat. It therefore isn't enough to back the vaccine's "availability"; one has to support the strongest possible steps to inoculate the entire population.

Ramesh Ponnuru says he "makes a strong case." I agree. It's appalling that some people would oppose this simply because they're afraid that it might encourage people to have more sex.

Yeah, that's a dumb reason to oppose a vaccine that is probably a good bet. But if that's a weak argument, how about engaging a more important one?

Such as: it is wrong to drug someone against their or their guardian's will.

From Groopman's article:

Instead of campaigning aggressively against the vaccine, Christian groups have adopted a subtler rhetorical strategy: saying simply that they favor "choice"--that is, allowing parents to decide whether the vaccine or abstinence is right for their children. This strategy is no less pernicious for being polite. And it could go a long way towards undermining the vaccine's potential benefits.

I get the feeling Groopman is being a tad snarky on the "choice" thing because the children themselves aren't really the ones making the choice.

At the same time, these groups pointedly oppose the vaccine becoming mandatory. "Because parents have an inherent right to be the primary educator and decision maker regarding their children's health, we would oppose any measures to legally require the vaccination or to coerce parents into authorizing it," said the Family Research Council. Focus on the Family "opposes mandatory HPV vaccinations for entry into public school. The decision of whether to vaccinate a minor against this or other sexually transmitted infections should remain with the child's parent or guardian." And the Christian Medical & Dental Associations believe the vaccination should "absolutely remain a choice, not a requirement."

I won't get into this for I don't have the time, but I don't think parents are the virtual slave masters of the children they create and certainly not until some arbitrary age like 18 years old.

But social conservatives have it wrong.

You'd expect a counter argument to the conservatives' rights-based custodial approach...but like a good pragmatist, Groopman is primarily concerned about the effectiveness of the means:

To effectively combat cervical cancer, the HPV vaccine should be mandatory--or as close to mandatory as such things can be. In practice, this would mean adding the vaccine to the roster of immunizations that states require before students can enroll in school--a list that includes inoculations against other public health threats such as Hepatitis B, which also can be transmitted sexually.

His emphasis. Now get this:

It therefore isn't enough to back the vaccine's "availability"; one has to support the strongest possible steps to inoculate the entire population.

My emphasis.

Does Professor Reynolds agree with that? He did take the time to quote it in his post. Did he even pause to consider what it means? I suppose not...perhaps if it were embedded in the Patriot Act then he'd think twice...ya know, that nasty "extremely overbroad" bit of state work fucking with our lives and all.

Then there's the mandatory, absolutely classic statist emotional extortion:

"I don't think anyone wants to stop a cancer vaccine," says Alan Kaye, chairman of the National Cervical Cancer Coalition. If only he were right.

Copyright 2006, The New Republic

*SIGH* Oh, dear. How DO these heartless ideologues live with themselves, opposing a cancer vaccine! *TSK TSK* They must really hate long happy cancer-free lives. Shame!

Ideally, Groopman would have families enslaved to the state, but he'll settle for forcing them out of or away from public schools until they agree with his demands.

Yeah, Reynolds and Ponnuru, go ahead and endorse this bullshit.

And remember that having a "libertarian side" means that you are an inconsistent defender of individual freedom who will willingly sacrifice some in order to save many.