The short answer is "no, that's not true," but a better answer is "it depends."
It depends on what you mean by "effectiveness."
The individual vaccinated obtains the benefit (immunity). They can be exposed, and they do not become infected. Their immunity does not depend on others being immunized.
But, looked at from the view of the entire public, and the workload on the health care system, it may be that high adoption by the herd is the desired/necessary effect.
-- The only reason people complain about the HPV vaccine is that people consider this a state licence to fornicate. --
One need only read a few threads, and find out this is false, a straw man argument, if you will. There are various reasons to object, even as simple as general principle of not liking being told what to do (and at the same time, willing to do it voluntarily).
-- The State is trying to headoff a wave of healthcare cost of treating cases of cancer in populations who cannot afford cancer treatment. --
Ahh, state-control of the medical industry. Now I see where you are coming from.
The state of Texas could subsidize the cost of the vaccine, give it away for free. This would make sense if it saves the state money in the long run.
Well, that’s the biggest bunch of bull crap I’ve ever heard. If the state of Texas is soooooooooooo concerned about healthcare costs, how about stop giving free healthcare to illegals. That’s a start. That line about healthcare is a laughable joke. Especially when the Perry camp tries to issue it. They are not IN THE LEAST concerned about healthcare costs. They prove it by forcing hospitals to treat illegals for non life threatening issues and not requiring the hospital to report illegals who come in....and giving them state version of “medicaid”.....so, Perry & Co. need to come up with a new line, cause that one doesn’t fly.