The American Cancer Society estimated that in 2007, more than 3,600 women out of the more than 11,000 reported new cases will die from cervical cancer.

Now a new vaccine is on the market that can prevent against four types of HPV that cause 70 percent of the total cervical cancers and 90 percent of genital warts. This vaccine is a huge breakthrough for cancer research and prevention.

But when Gov. Rick Perry mandated that by 2008 all sixth-grade girls receive the vaccine, not everyone applauded him for taking governmental steps to prevent a type of cancer that kills women.

Instead, some saw Perry’s decision as a way for the government to replace parental rights, saying he is substituting parents’ decisions with government’s.

However large or small of an intrusion a vaccine interferes with parenting, a step to prevent cancer and save lives should not be criticized. The vaccine does have an opt-out if parents choose, so using the government control defense is shaky if an opt-out is available.

Others who disagree with Perry cite more religious reasons for not wanting the vaccine, saying it promotes promiscuity in young girls.

But does giving a sixthgrade girl a vaccine to prevent cancer and some STDs send that message? Here’s where the parenting some feel is being taken away can be put to use.

The notion that a sixth-grade girl will interpret receiving a three-shot series of vaccines as an excuse to have pre-marital sex is misguided. As adults, whether sexually active or not, we may think in those terms a sixth-grader will not make that connection.

A parent can say it is to prevent some forms of cancer and the child will understand.

Parents who may want to opt out, choosing to do so out of hope their daughter will not get HPV through pre-marital sex, can never be sure of that. The chance of anyone getting HPV is quite high if they are sexually active in any way. According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, sexually active people have a 50 percent chance of getting HPV at some point in their lives. While some forms of HPV go away naturally, others do not. HPV can be passed on to a partner without anyone knowing. Even if one partner enters a marriage without having sex, the chance for it to be passed on is still there.

Others against Perry say he is rushing into this decision without a sufficient amount of research to show long-term effects. While the vaccine has not shown if there will be need for a later booster shot, it has shown to be effective. Research has only been able to follow women for five years, but shows they are still protected.

According to the Centers for CDC and Prevention, of the 11,000 women who were tested worldwide, no serious side effects were shown.

If the HPV vaccine were for AIDS instead, many would be waiting in line who are now opposing Perry.

In a press statement, Perry defended himself by making similar points.

“Providing the HPV vaccine doesn’t promote sexual promiscuity anymore than providing the Hepatitis B vaccine promotes drug use. If the medical community developed a vaccine for lung cancer, would the same critics oppose it, claiming it would encourage smoking?” Perry said.

The numbers and implications may be different from AIDS to HPV, but the moral dilemmas are not. Despite what critics say, is not an ounce of prevention worth a pound of cure?

This vaccine is the ounce of prevention.