To clarify my assessments for the good doctor: I am well aware that the Governor of Texas installed an option of parental exemption; my point was that this was understated. Arguments of this subject are very much portrayed as if the subjects themselves are adult. As we all know this is not the case, and I suppose reflective of a quid pro quo of cultural influence. As a Doctor, to suggest the idea of sexual limitation upon children as Christians bias comparable to militant Islam is ludicrous. Does not even the modern Hippocratic oath, antithetical of it’s origin as it may be, certify a prevention to treatment? ( Yes Mr. Adalja, I know the classic forbade even a knife) Now, before the servile left police flip on the bullhorns, is not the only guaranteed prevention abstinence? As illogical as it my seem, does not any doctor have a responsibility to report the truth to his fellow man, and in this instance children, and then continue? As Tanya from Pittsburgh candidly remarks vaccinating women and girls from cancer is common sense. O.K. My objective of choice remains the same, and my opinion of parent and child making this decision together yet is undeterred, only more consolidated with consideration that Gardasil may not protect all from cervical cancer. The allegation of ‘girls who don’t listen to their mommies deserve cancer’ is an imagined appraisal of my post, deceptive to the importance of honesty between parent and child, and a rerun of tactical propositioning to persuade reason into passion. Some adults may hold dear a vision of utopia as euphoric sexual stimuli complete with brothels and bestiality. As long as their shades are closed that’s fine with me, but when society must protect 11 year old little girls from STD’s by executive order, then we have a big problem. If this is an example of the morality commonly followed, call me 'superior' any day.