One of the things that stood out to me in the first article was the focus on HPV as a women's health issue (like breast cancer), as it was used as a justification for the vaccination to be compulsory for girls of middle school age. (However, the problem is compounded by so many interest groups, from the government to special interest organizations, that the support for it is varied.) What I found interesting, in addition to the economic concerns that other people have pointed out, is the argument made about the transmissibility of HPV: chiefly the rationale that because it isn't "casually transmissible", it requires less protection against it. This brought me back to the idea of HPV as solely a women's issue; if others (like family members and the close community surrounding an individual) are impacted by a woman's diagnosis, isn't this much more than just a women's health concern?

Regarding the mammogram article, despite whatever basis the new guidelines have to make their decisions, I feel that the new recommendations made seem to fall short of the adequate protection and assurance that women deserve. It is also counterintuitive in a sense because it is better to be prepared early on than to face the consequences much later.