Clinton would strip PARENTAL RIGHTS? Read this now. And read my last post on Utah !

From Court Report Cover Story

Parental Rights: Why Now is the Time to Act

Want of foresight, unwillingness to act when action would be simple and effective, lack of clear thinking, confusion of counsel until the emergency comes, until self-preservation strikes its jarring gong—these are the features which constitute the endless repetition of history.—Winston Churchill, speech, House of Commons, May 2, 1935.i

Additional Resources

Michael Farris’ 2006 National Conference Speech: Protecting Parental Rights: Why It Should Be a Priority

The Onslaught of International Law: Can America Protect Parental Rights?

A Dangerous Path: Has America Abandoned Parental Rights?

This article is about the need to save parental rights. I use the story of the battle to save marriage solely as a cautionary tale. The threats to parental rights are real and growing. And we must face the fact that the right of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children is not explicitly written in the text of the Constitution. If we wish to preserve this right, it is my contention that now is the time to put parents’ rights into black and white—that is, to adopt an explicit constitutional amendment.

If we wait until the threat fully matures, we will have waited too long.

The History of Parental Rights Protection

We should start with the question: why did the Founders neglect to include parental rights in the text of the Constitution or Bill of Rights?

We must remember that the whole concept of a legally enforceable bill of rights was an innovative concept that was newly conceived in the American Republic. James Madison once remarked that a bill of rights was but a “parchment barrier”—that is, a paper tiger. Madison had witnessed invasions of religious liberty even after Virginia adopted religious freedom in its 1776 Bill of Rights. At the time, the view was that religious liberty was truly achieved in 1786 when a Virginia statute made this guarantee effective. This is completely backwards under our current legal theories. Constitutional provisions are more powerful than statutes. But in the Founding era, because the British system had no written constitution, the idea of a law higher than a statute was still a relatively novel idea. It was not until the U.S. Constitution was adopted as the “highest law of the land” that it became possible to have a bill of rights that was understood as a robust protection of our liberty.

Moreover, it was unimaginable that a socialistic state which purported to care for children over and against fit and willing parents would ever result from the state and national governments being created in the wake of our separation from Britain. No one would ever envision a form of government that pitted fit parents against the state over the right to make decisions concerning their children.

Thus, it was some time before a constitutional clash occurred between parents and the government over the right to raise children. It happened in Oregon in the 1920s, when the anti-Catholic bigotry of the era manifested itself in a law which banned all private education and demanded that children must be educated only in government schools.

It was reminiscent of a law in the era of King James which imposed a fine on parents who sent their children to “papist” colleges on the continent—there being only Anglican colleges in Britain at the time.

But this was a free America—not the tyrannical era of the Tudor monarchs. And free America, instead of telling parents that their children must attend a particular denomination’s schools, told them that they must present their children to the government for compulsory instruction.

The Supreme Court heard the case of Pierce v. Society of Sisters in 1925 and rendered an incredibly important decision that trumpeted this principle:

The fundamental theory of liberty upon which all governments in this Union repose excludes any general power of the State to standardize its children by forcing them to accept instruction from public teachers only. The child is not the mere creature of the State; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations.

While homeschoolers have both praised and relied upon this decision, we must recognize the basis on which the Supreme Court found parental rights to be a constitutionally protectable interest to be a bit thin. The legal principle used in Pierce was first announced in Meyer v. Nebraska. The Court announced that “those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men” were protected under the Due Process Clause. This historically grounded formula was eventually “refined” to protect the rights that are “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.” (The first use of this phrase was in the 1937 Supreme Court decision in Palko v. Connecticut.)

If implicit rights are tied to history, then there is a solid basis for determining what was a recognized right at a particular point in time. But when the discovery of “implicit rights” is simply left up to the personal opinions of Supreme Court justices, this theory becomes a vehicle which can be used by justices to impose their personal political opinions on an entire nation.

It is from this very doctrine that the Court invented the right to abortion in Roe v. Wade and the right to practice homosexuality in Lawrence v. Texas. Because the theory of implicit rights lost any connection with common law history, the legal footing for parental rights now stands on the same dubious foundation as the right to abortion and homosexuality.

The Current Supreme Court and Parental Rights

In the most recent parental rights decision by the Supreme Court (Troxel v. Granville), Justice Scalia made it clear that he is a political supporter of the concept of parental rights. He believes that this right is an inalienable human right and was included within the Ninth Amendment’s declaration of reserved rights. However, because parental rights are not explicitly stated in any constitutional language, Scalia voted to deny parental rights the status of an enforceable constitutional right.

Troxel v. Granville was a plurality decision with six separate opinions. None of these conflicting opinions commanded a clear majority. Two of the justices voting in favor of parental rights have now left the court. They have been replaced by John Roberts and Samuel Alito, who are reputed to share many of the legal views of Scalia. Whether Roberts and Alito think like Scalia remains to be seen. But it is beyond question that many young conservative legal scholars are trained to think just like Scalia on this point. His views are the mainstream among groups like the Federalist Society.

In short, Scalia believes that no right is protected unless it is expressly stated in the text of the Constitution.

The Troxel case dealt with the right of grandparents to demand visitation with their grandchildren over the objection of the children’s parents. Only four justices joined the main opinion of the Court, which held that parental rights were “fundamental,” meriting the highest level of constitutional protection. (Two of these, Rehnquist and O’Connor, are the justices who have since left the Court.) Justice Thomas wrote an opinion concurring in this result and emphasizing the same basic legal test.

Justice Souter wrote a separate opinion saying that parents have rights, but not fundamental rights. This means he holds a low view of parental rights.

As we already noted, Justice Scalia said that parental rights were not protected because they are not explicitly in the Constitution.

Justice Stevens held that parents do not have the right to override state legislative decisions of this nature—which is consistent with Stevens’ overall anti-tradition, anti-religious perspective.

Justice Kennedy believed that modern family life was too complicated to be run simply by parents and he advocated a “balanced” approach, which is consistent with Kennedy’s general anti-traditional theories.

Accordingly, we have only three current Supreme Court justices (including Thomas) who sided with a strong view of parental rights in this most recent decision. And two of these are among the most liberal members of the Court—Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Even if Alito and Roberts are both strong advocates of parental rights, we should not rest our confidence for the future of this country on a current five-to-four Supreme Court majority.

The Threat from the Left

In 2002, I published a novel, Forbid Them Not (Broadman & Holman), with the premise that a thinly-disguised Hillary Clinton had been elected president. The first act of her new administration was to secure the ratification of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). I do not claim the gift of prophecy, but there is a looming possibility that I may be proven right.

If this treaty becomes binding on the United States, the government would have the power to intervene in a child’s life “for the best interest of the child.” Currently, the government can intervene in this fashion only by going to court and proving that parents have been abusive or have neglected their children. (This standard also applies in divorce cases on the presumption that the family unit has been broken.) This means that whenever the UN-dominated social services system thought that your parental choices were not the best, the government would have the power to override your choices and protect your child from you. If this treaty becomes binding, all parents would have the same legal status as abusive parents, because the government would have the right to override every parental decision if it deemed the parent’s choice contrary to the child’s best interest.

Specifically, spanking would be banned under the express terms of the UNCRC. Moreover, children would be required to be taught in a religiously “tolerant manner”. (The American Bar Association, which supports the treaty, has already opined that teaching children that Jesus is the only way to God violates the spirit and meaning of the UNCRC.) The ability to homeschool one’s children would become not a right, but a UN-supervised activity that could be overturned if social services personnel believed that it would be “best” for your child to receive another form of education. These are not idle speculations, but the proven result of the UN’s own interpretation of the treaty as they have reviewed other nations’ compliance with the treaty’s provisions.

Here’s the difference: No other major nation in the world has a constitutional provision that makes a provision of a treaty automatically part of the “highest law of the land.” This is the Constitution’s Achilles heel. In every other nation, the UNCRC is a political liability—if ratified in America, it would be an enforceable and binding law.

Under existing Supreme Court precedent, a treaty cannot override an express provision of the U.S. Constitution. But a treaty can override a reserved right (Missouri v. Holland). And a treaty certainly can override either a state constitution or state statute. Parental rights are reserved (or implied) rights; they are not an express provision within the Constitution.

A ratified treaty would clearly threaten our longstanding constitutional recognition of the liberty to raise our children. Moreover, it would instantly override every legislative victory ever won for homeschooling.

A federal district court has already ruled, in two separate cases, that the UNCRC is binding on the United States under the doctrine of customary international law. The Supreme Court has also begun to use the UN Convention, not as binding authority, but as persuasive authority in interpreting the Constitution. For instance, in the recent case Roper v. Simmons, the Court enacted a new statute-like rule that no state may impose the death penalty on juveniles—based in part on the Court’s reading of this UN Convention.

The left does not believe in parental rights and has the legal and political mechanisms in place to fully eradicate this liberty.

What Do We Do?

What we don’t do is wait around for doomsday.

Listen to Winston Churchill once again: “Want of foresight, unwillingness to act when action would be simple and effective, lack of clear thinking, confusion of counsel until the emergency comes, until self-preservation strikes its jarring gong—these are the features which constitute the endless repetition of history.”

We need to act now, by an express constitutional amendment, to preserve the right of parents to direct and control the upbringing and education of their children.

While state laws and state constitutions are good ideas, they are utterly insufficient on their own because a treaty overrides all forms of state law—no matter if the treaty is actually ratified, or forced upon the nation by the courts through the doctrine of customary international law.

The only solution that works is a United States constitutional amendment. This stops all threats including treaties. Nothing else works in every case.

No interest group in America has ever achieved something this big, at least not since the Eighteenth Amendment enacted prohibition. But God blesses outnumbered people who stand for what is right. As homeschoolers, we have seen His blessing, protection, and victories over political adversaries that were considered overwhelming.

We will not succeed with a tepid plan for a partial victory.

There is no group in America as well situated, as well trained, or as strongly committed to parental liberty as homeschoolers. And we have allies. We need to raise the banner, create a plan for victory, and secure our place in history as the generation that placed the God-given right of parents into the category of expressly protected rights in the U.S. Constitution.

This may take a number of years. But we cannot wait until it is too late to start. Members of Congress will tell us that they are not ready to respond to protect parental rights until the threat is more advanced. We must not believe them. The issue of homosexual marriage is well advanced and they still do nothing.

Parental rights will be an urgent matter in Washington not when the UN Convention agents are at your door, but when sufficient Americans are at the doors of Congress, demanding protection now.

The time to fight is now. HSLDA is drafting a constitutional amendment and circulating it to friendly lawyers and organizations for review and comment. Once the text is done, we will find sponsors in the House and Senate. Achieving sponsorship, passage, and ratification will take an unbelievable effort from all of us and all of our allies. But we must not rest until the amendment becomes law.

Do not think this will be easy. This is the fight of our generation. We will be falsely accused of wanting to protect child abuse. We will be falsely accused of meddling unnecessarily with the sacred Constitution. But we cannot be daunted by such duplicity.

God has given us our children and our citizenship. We must use our citizenship now to make sure that our children will have the same rights as we do to raise the next generation in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.

Will you stand up now, or will you wait until it is too late?
http://www.hslda.org/parentalrights/default.asp

i Winston S. Churchill: His Complete Speeches, 1897-1963, ed. Robert Rhodes James (NY: Chelsea House Publishers, 1974), 6:5592.

Advertisements

Romney Teams w/ Blackwater?

 

Blackwater and Romney Team Up

 

By Steven Reynolds, The All Spin Zone
Posted on December 7, 2007, Printed on December 7, 2007
http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/http://allspinzone.com/wp//69974 /

This post, written by Steven Reynolds, originally appeared The All Spin Zone

Seems Mitt Romney is intimately tied in with the leadership at Blackwater. I’ve no idea how this connection came about, but he’s taking advice on substantial issues, like counterterrorism policy, from Blackwater’s #2 man, though, of course, Blackwater stands to benefit from any action Romney might take a President. Conflict? These are Republicans.

The interesting things you learn! Wow! This article in The Nation indicates you can buy onesies for a baby with the Blackwater USA logo on it. Just visit the Blackwater company store! We just bought several gifts for baby showers, and we didn’t even know about this. Missed opportunity — wouldn’t it look stylish on a baby girl?

But I digress. It seems Mitt Romney is closely aligned with Blackwater. That same article from The Nation notes that he uses Blackwater USA’s number two man Cofer Black as his senior counterterrorism advisor.

Meanwhile, Blackwater is deep in the camp of GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney. Cofer Black is Romney’s senior adviser on counterterrorism. At the recent CNN/YouTube debate, when Romney refused to call waterboarding torture, he said, “I’m not going to specify the specific means of what is and what is not torture so that the people that we capture will know what things we’re able to do and what things we’re not able to do. And I get that advice from Cofer Black, who is a person who was responsible for counterterrorism in the CIA for some thirty-five years.” That was an exaggeration of Black’s career at the CIA (he was there twenty-eight years and head of counterterrorism for only three), but a Romney presidency could make Blackwater’s business under Bush look like a church bake sale.

This seems a conflict of interest or something, and Romney is not just ignoring that conflict, but exploiting it. Cofer Black works in a business whose profits are intimately tied to how we conduct the “War on Terror,” thus all of his advice is a bit suspect. Sure, Cofer Black could be right in his analysis, but how would you ever know that his opinion on any issue is guided by integrity rather than by monied interest? Seems a serious judgement issue on Romney’s part, at least to me. It’s not like Blackwater has a reputation for integrity, after all.

Besides that onesie for your baby, in either pink or blue, you can buy child-sized hoodies in the Blackwater shop, and even a teddy bear. They do not offer diapers for your dog.

Steven Reynolds is a regular blogger for the All Spin Zone

© 2007 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/http://allspinzone.com/wp//69974/

BLITZER AND CNN LOOOVE CLINTON: (I smell a red flag)

OBAMA SUDDENLY LOOKING BETTER AND BETTER ?

Why Would Wolf Blitzer Want Hillary to Win?

 

By Manila Ryce, The Largest Minority
Posted on November 19, 2007, Printed on November 20, 2007
http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/http://www.jwharrison.com/blog//68325/

This post, written by Manila Ryce, originally appeared on The Largest Minority

In honor of the terrific job Wolf Blitzer and CNN did in moderating the most recent “debate” in Las Vegas, I thought I’d dig out this blast from the past.

In a recent episode of Hardball, Ed Schultz was asked why he thought Wolf would want Hillary to be elected president. One reason could be that she’s the most pro-war candidate who supports Israel’s ongoing occupation, ethnic cleansing, and oppression of the Palestinian people. Of course, “Hardball” is anything but, so you’re not allowed to say those sorts of things. As Clinton stated in the last debate, she favors security over freedom, just as the Zionists and Neocons do. Here’s one disgusting speech in which she declares her unconditional support for the inhumane practices of the Israeli government.

Blitzer himself is a former editor of AIPACs monthly publication, the “Near East Report”. It doesn’t look good when a network which claims to be “the most trusted name in news” hires a propagandist within such a powerful pro-Israeli organization to disseminate “objective journalism” to the American people. Hopefully, the following debate can offer some context to the abomination we saw just a few nights ago. Corporations such as Time Warner are pure tyrannies. It is in their best interest to crush democracy by limiting legitimate debate within our society. They too believe as Hillary does, that the importance of their security trumps the freedoms of the many.

The video to your right is from a forum in 1989 that was titled “The Intifada within the American, Israeli, Islamic Triangle”. Professor Norman Finkelstein (one of those heretical “self-hating Jews” like Chomsky and Zinn) consistently destroys Blitzer in a cool and concise way. Also, pay attention to the way Wolf speaks along with the false arguments he puts forth. You can just as easily picture his tired talking points coming out of the mouth of any mainstream American politician.

Manila Ryce is a regular blooger for The Largest Minority

© 2007 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/http://www.jwharrison.com/blog//68325/

Backwards Alphabet: Jesus Christ = 666

Here’s how to do it. Using the backwards alphabet – Z=1,  Y = 2, X= 3, etc.  NOW ADD THIS PHRASE:  WHICH NUMBER REPRESENTS JESUS CHRIST.  Here’s how to add it.

Assign the right number to the right letters. Write the phrase out across a piece of paper.

Write the numbers under the letters.  Now add them across ONE DIGIT AT A TIME. Like this:

W   H   I   C  H

4    19  18  24  19  

Add 1 digit at a time for a horizontal (h) read.

4 + 1 + 9 + 1 + 8  etc

Write your answer down.

Then add vertically, the way you normally would.

Now, add the h and the v together for your result.

This system is based on the CROSS NUMBER. (h and v)

Traditional numerology would have you add only vertically.

That was a great way to keep the truth from being seen.

You will find that the Backwards alphabet yeilds enormous

insight. Not only is it used, it is KEY.

Both alphabets work in tandem.  But don’t you find it interesting

that the regular alphabet does not result in:

WHICH NUMBER REPRESENTS JESUS CHRIST = 666.

There is a faction – as old as Moses and Abraham, who use

numbers – symbols and alphabets to communicate with each other.

  ADD “GOD”

The result – using the backwards alphabet is:   201223

THIS IS REALLY  2012 – 23

2012 YOU ALREADY KNOW ABOUT.

23 = BUSH  H

MORMON – using the backwards alphabet –  =

29 h  74 v  103  hv

This is the same exact string for JESUS when you use the

forward alphabet.

Have you seen enough. Listen to David Icke . Do it now for Gawd’s sakes.

YouTube – David Icke – Audio – Coast to Coast AM – March 2006

Listen to this entire series.

THERE IS NOTHING MORE IMPORTANT YOU WILL DO ON THIS DAY.

I work with a new numerology system. Everything he is saying ALIGNS with the numbers.

I am not a New Age freak. I am a normal person WITH A BRAIN.

If you can’t see what is taking place in our world, then you are in big trouble.

Listen to David’s series. He speaks the truth.

Stop being SHEEP !!!!!!!

Let me keep it simple. I have done the numbers on the follwing people and they all align with very dark energy and motive.

CLINTON

BUSH

CHENEY

ROMNEY

GUILAINI

GORE

If you vote for any of these people, it is over.

Did you know that the Mormons are running this country.  Go to www.207.net and read the Bio’s.

They have installed most of the cookies on my computer from nearly every website I have ever visited, to include DISNEY. The people at 207.net are Mormons. Mormons – at the top level of leadership, and maybe a few tiers down, appear to be simply free masons, with a new name.

JOHN SMITH LED THE 13 COLONIES.  JOSEPH SMITH LED THE 12 APOSTLES. 

I wish I had the time to post the numbers, but it’s all there.

The 888, 333, 555, 144, 153, 166, 112, 121, 151, 131, 116, 114, 113, 139, 176, 110, 111 and more and more. I have shared this with thousands of people. Few are listening.

Brent Scowcroft was Bush Sr. close advisor. He is a Mormon. Mormons appear to run NASA< BOING< THE INTERNET, and more.  You just don’t see it because it is hidden from you.

DO YOUR FREAKING HOMEWORK.

Listen to david.

Then, don’t get angry. Just get prepared.

Rove’s Numerology Aligned with USA and BUSH exactly

 K    a    r    l       R    o    v    e

11    1  18   12      18   15    22    5  =  39 H

102 V

39 H

____

141  HV

The covenant Abraham made with Lucifer for the birth of Isaac was in 2118.

Isaac born in 2117 when Abraham was 100 years old (intentionally). Abraham thought he was making an agreement with the God of Love, when it was the God Of Earth. Isaac was (imho) the first son of Lucifer in human form. Again, this is not something to be held against Israel. It was only a mistake. But, it was a whopper.

The Jesus Christ Numerology system is ILLUMINATING what really rules this earth plane. It shows me that the AntiChrist gained world power in 2000 in the body of George W. Bush, and that his task force includes powerful leaders in both political parties. Several are running for president. The mark of the beast is an ongoing mark and not something that happens all at once. The palms of each and every human being holds a mark of the Creator of this earth plane. You can dismiss this as foolishness if you want to. 🙂 Or, you can open your mind. Nothing you have been taught is true. Run the numbers yourselves. See how Rove’s 141 matches up below.

OTHER 141

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH  H

PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES  H

OTHER 102

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA  H

THE CHURCH OF CHRIST (first mormon church)

BUSH CHENEY GUILIANI   H

BUSH CHENEY CLINTON   H    (PC#  2220)

Remember that 111 is a antichrist signature.  222 is double 111.

SOLSTICE  V

NINE HUNDRED NINETY TWO  H   (Venus Transit  2012  PC# 992)

JOHN THE BAPTIST  H

OTHER 39

WICCA   V

ANGEL   V

MORONI   V

GUARDIAN  H

BONESMAN  H

FREEDOM  H

CAIN AND ABEL  H

VAMPIRE   H

SEVENS  H

THREES H

GEORGE  H

YALE   V

DIALATION  H

Dialation, Moroni, Sevens and  Bonesman are exact match at 39 h   84 v 

and 123  hv.   (google these names if you are not familiar)

123 can also be seen in this system as 12/3

What to do now?

No one running as a major presidential candidate is the remedy.

Not Clinton, Not Romney, not Guiliani.

JAMA STANDS AGAINST MANDATED HPV VACCINE

Medical journal sides with HPV scientist

 

CHICAGO — An editorial May 2 in what is considered the Bible of the medical profession vindicates a researcher who told this newspaper months ago that mandating the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine for young girls is “a great big public health experiment.”

The vaccine, Gardasil, offers protection against four of the more than 100 known HPVs, two of which scientists believe cause about 70 percent of cervical cancers.

Last week, The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) took a public stand against legislation to mandate this vaccine. The article, “Mandatory HPV Vaccination: Public Health vs. Private Wealth,” was co-authored by Chicago-based JAMA editor Dr. Catherine D. DeAngelis and Washington, D.C.’s Georgetown University professor Lawrence O. Gostin. Gostin specializes in public health law.

Declaring it unethical to rush into mandates, the authors accuse Gardasil’s manufacturer, Merck & Co., of putting profits ahead of the safety of the 2 million girls and women in the U.S. who, if it were mandated, would receive the vaccine before the long-term effectiveness and safety of it had been determined.

(This blog author believes there is a deeper evil than just money at work)

Pointing out that the Federal Drug Administration’s approval of the vaccine was conditional upon Merck agreeing to further test the safety and effectiveness of it, the JAMA article says, “Making the HPV vaccine mandatory contributes to long-standing parental concerns about the safety of school-based vaccinations.”

In fact, legislating the vaccine now “could have the unintended consequence of heightening parental and public apprehensions about (all) childhood vaccinations,” the article adds.

The article also questions how vaccine recipients would be compensated in the event of their suffering adverse effects from it, since some courts may determine that the manufacturer would not be liable if the states mandated it.

The article also admonishes Merck, which could rake in billions of dollars from a mandated vaccine, for financing efforts to persuade states and public officials to mandate it. “Private wealth should never trump public health,” the article says.

Vindicated

Until the JAMA article came out, Diane Harper, a physician, scientist and professor at Dartmouth University Medical School in New Hampshire, who spent 20 years studying the virus and helping to develop a vaccine for it, had stood virtually alone among her peers in denouncing efforts to mandate the vaccine.

When she first interviewed with this newspaper, she said she’d tried to convince major print and broadcast media to “tell the whole story” about the vaccine and why she, as a lead researcher on it, believes it is premature to mandate it.

“But no one would listen,” she said. She said she was speaking out with this newspaper because “it was the only one willing to listen to the whole story.”

Answering questions by e-mail, Gostin said he was aware of Harper’s concerns. (DeAngelis sent word through an aide that she was unavailable for an interview.) He and DeAngelis were motivated to write the editorial, Gostin said, because of the states’ rush to mandate the vaccine before all of the safety and effectiveness data were collected and analyzed.

In place of mandates, Gostin’s and DeAngelis’ JAMA article encourages public education about HPV and routine, voluntary vaccination as part of a comprehensive package aimed at preventing the infection. It also suggests that a young girl’s assent to being vaccinated is as essential as her parents’ consent.

“As for work with the states, it is important to stress that the vaccine is an important public health innovation, but it is necessary to move carefully and deliberately, taking a science-based approach,” Gostin said in his e-mail. “I think that mandatory vaccination has its place, but should be a last resort only if it is clear that it would be safe, effective and in the public’s interest. That standard has not yet been met with HPV vaccination.”

Relieved

Tuesday, Harper was at a national conference of gynecologists in San Diego when she learned of the JAMA article. Acknowledging that she’d experienced some backlash because of her views — but declining to go into specifics — Harper said she felt relieved and excited that a publication as prestigious as JAMA was basically vindicating her and validating her views.

“I’m glad we are starting to get clarification in our communications, and in understanding the details of points that need to be considered for this vaccination,” Harper said. “The Associated Press has consistently miswritten, and consistently reported information that was not accurate about HPV. I have gone to them in New Hampshire several times for corrections, and they did correct a couple of things, but the last time they were unresponsive.”

So many people had questioned her because of her non-politically-correct stance on the issue that there were times when it looked like even her research was being doubted, she said, which made her position even more troubling. However, she stood behind her convictions.

“There is a lot of colleagial pressure to conform to the message, and be united in the message,” she said. “But I think we are too early in our knowledge of information to have just one message.”

She reiterated that this is “a wonderful vaccine,” and that this is an exciting time for medicine in this area. Today, the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) is publishing some HPV articles that she co-authored, and that should help explain what this vaccine can and cannot do, she said.

“But there are things we still don’t know about this vaccine,” she said. “For one thing, it takes 129 women to be vaccinated to prevent one case of CIN 2/3 (a type of cervical cell dysplasia), and that is important for people to know. It will be interesting now that the JAMA article is out, and the NEJM articles about Gardasil are published, what the public understanding will be.”

For more on this story and to read past stories in the HPV vaccine series, go to http://kpcnews.com/online_features/hpv_vaccine/ on the KPC Media Group Web site.

Last modified: Friday, May 11, 2007 12:55 PM EDT