Replies

Gardasil. Mentioning that $6,000 isn't enough to be a bribe, given that you've taken in $30 million in campaign contributions, makes it look like you only accept LARGE bribes.

I'm not a Perry-bot (in-state tuition and related crud for illegals greatly bothers me)...
...but I take this far more of a statement that "at two hundredths of one percent of the campaign war chest, this contribution doesn't rise to the appearance of impropriety."

There are serious questions, not regarding the contribution, but the campaign manager helping out his old client by sticking the bill on the insurance companies, who we all have to pay for. And this is all mitigated by the fact that HPV can indeed be a problem.

But to say that Perry's retort is proof he's a whore is a couple of bridges too far.

But to say that Perry's retort is proof he's a whore is a couple of bridges too far.

A person innocent of influence peddling would not have dismissed the charges because they had "even bigger contributions elsewhere".

The response was pathognomonic for the pay-to-play mindset that is so ingrained, that pay-for-play is a mark of superiority over other state governments that don't do it out in the open.

Cheers!

Perry shed some light on the background of the Gardasil order in the prior debate.

He claimed there had been a bill passed aimed at cancers, cervical cancer in particular. I went looking and found that was absolutely true.

In 2005, HB 2475 said, "This bill requires the Department of State Health Services to develop a strategic plan to eliminate mortality from cervical cancer by the year 2015…" "The strategic plan must be developed and delivered to the governor and legislature no later than December 31, 2006."

Was the plan delivered to Perry? Yes it was.

A 47 page report (Acrobat PDF) called "Texas Cervical Cancer Strategic Plan," December 2006, by Texas Department of State Health Services in collaboration with The Texas Cancer Council was delivered.

Page 8, "Executive summary" Armed with this new HPV vaccine, we can achieve the moment when we know our goal — eliminating cervical cancer death and suffering — is in reach.

Page 20, "Access to Care" - "Women must have access to cervical cancer screening to eliminate cervical cancer in Texas. The National Cancer Institute reports that groups of women with high cervical cancer mortality:...

Tend not to have a usual source of health care, such as a family physician;
Have low income and education levels;
Are less likely to participate in regular cancer screenings and receive other preventive

… "Widespread vaccination is a key to reducing cervical cancer incidence in Texas"

He acted in the furtherance of the legislature's public health goals by ensuring the widest dissemination of and coverage for the vaccine.

The three shots included in Gardasil cost $360 (it's less today) which is not cheap for "low income" individuals most in need of it. Opt-out vaccines are covered by insurance, Medicaid and other programs. Opt-in vaccines not.

It's hard to look at that legislative priority going back years, that resulting report, the relative insignificance of the Merck donation to his war chest and not conclude this was an honest error of procedure, rather than corrupt intent.

It's long been a firestorm but from many different angles. There's the anti-vax types who can never be satisfied. There's those feeling the vaccine is somehow a moral judgement on their child's virtue. There's the thought the Texas governorship is a "weak" office and the legislature the strong so his action offended the balance of gov't in Texas. And there's the idea this is a super secret cabal to funnel tax dollars to Merck. It's hard for that last one to stick when the legislature had set the priorities it set and its report concluded what it concluded.