No, you heard right. In their approaches to distributing the new human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine, Massachusetts has taken a laissez-faire approach while Texas has taken on the mantle of the nanny state. While both states have demonstrated an admirable commitment to the health of young women in supporting the vaccine, Gov. Deval L. Patrick ’78 has rightly decided to let people make their own health decisions.

Fifty percent of sexually active adults are affected by HPV, making it the most common disease transmitted through sexual contact. In women, HPV can develop without warning into cervical cancer, a disease which claims nearly 4,000 American lives each year. The new vaccine is an invaluable resource for public health.

Patrick has wisely allocated approximately $11 million in his state budget to making the vaccine available to all girls in the state between the ages of nine and 18. In doing so, he has broken down the financial barriers that might prevent some girls from obtaining the vaccine. This model of allowing each individual to decide whether to vaccinate should be followed by Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who has erred in requiring the vaccination of schoolgirls ages 11 to 12.

Perry’s policy intrudes on individual autonomy. Most vaccinations that are required of all children that attend public school protect against highly contagious diseases like measles and mumps that can be spread with relative ease. HPV, on the other hand, is transmitted through sexual contact alone. While the government has a responsibility to protect public health in requiring vaccinations for dangerous and contagious diseases, forcing HPV vaccination upon women is wrong.

Perry’s decision may have been made in the spirit of safety, but it intrudes upon the rights of women to make decisions about their personal sexual health. Nevertheless, the vaccine will, as Perry points out, save lives, and we hope that all women should make the choice to get it. To that end, states should undertake publicity campaigns to inform women of the insidious risk of HPV and to show them how logical obtaining the vaccine is. The ultimate choice, however, should be made by the individual, not the state.

Some of Perry’s detractors have argued against his order for a different reason, suggesting that the vaccine will reduce perceived risk involved in premarital sex for young people and encourage what they perceive as destructive behavior. This argument is specious and moralistic; the opportunity to quash cervical cancer and other diseases far overrides the puritanical tendencies of a small contingent of the population.

While the Texas example represents governmental overreaching, the impetus behind it is admirable. We hope that more states will find the middle ground and follow Patrick’s lead in educating the public about the medical benefits of this exciting new vaccine and in making the vaccine accessible to all.