Posted on 02/02/2007 1:28:44 PM PST by YCTHouston
AUSTIN Gov. Rick Perry ordered today that schoolgirls in Texas must be vaccinated against the sexually transmitted virus that causes cervical cancer, making Texas the first state to require the shots.
The girls will have to get Merck & Co.'s new vaccine against strains of the human papillomavirus, or HPV, that are responsible for most cases of cervical cancer.
Merck is bankrolling efforts to pass laws in state legislatures across the country mandating it Gardasil vaccine for girls as young as 11 or 12. It doubled its lobbying budget in Texas and has funneled money through Women in Government, an advocacy group made up of female state legislators around the country.
Details of the order were not immediately available, but the governor's office confirmed to The Associated Press that he was signing the order and he would comment Friday afternoon.
Perry has several ties to Merck and Women in Government. One of the drug company's three lobbyists in Texas is Mike Toomey, his former chief of staff. His current chief of staff's mother-in-law, Texas Republican state Rep. Dianne White Delisi, is a state director for Women in Government.
Toomey was expected to be able to woo conservative legislators concerned about the requirement stepping on parent's rights and about signaling tacit approval of sexual activity to young girls. Delisi, as head of the House public health committee, which likely would have considered legislation filed by a Democratic member, also would have helped ease conservative opposition.
Perry also received $6,000 from Merck's political action committee during his re-election campaign.
It wasn't immediately clear how long the order would last and whether the legislation was still necessary. However it could have been difficult to muster support from lawmakers who champion abstinence education and parents' rights.
Perry, a conservative Christian who opposes abortion rights and stem-cell research using embryonic cells, counts on the religious right for his political base.
But he has said the cervical cancer vaccine is no different than the one that protects children against polio.
"If there are diseases in our society that are going to cost us large amounts of money, it just makes good economic sense, not to mention the health and well being of these individuals to have those vaccines available," he said.
Texas allows parents to opt out of inoculations by filing an affidavit stating that he or she objected to the vaccine for religious or philosophical reasons.
Even with such provisions, however, conservative groups say mandates take away parents' rights to be the primary medical decision maker for their children.
The federal government approved Gardasil in June, and a government advisory panel has recommended that all girls get the shots at 11 and 12, before they are likely to be sexually active.
The New Jersey-based drug company could generate billions in sales if Gardasil at $360 for the three-shot regimen were made mandatory across the country. Most insurance companies now cover the vaccine, which has been shown to have no serious side effects.
Merck spokeswoman Janet Skidmore would not say how much the company is spending on lobbyists or how much it has donated to Women in Government. Susan Crosby, the group's president, also declined to specify how much the drug company gave.
A top official from Merck's vaccine division sits on Women in Government's business council, and many of the bills around the country have been introduced by members of Women in Government.
"Tell me - has anybody ever given you genital warts by coughing on you? "
That's what my ex-girlfriend always claimed! (cue rimshot)
"Ordered? What happened to freedom to choose?"
Ahhh, but it's so much easier this way, skipping all that inneficiency of elected representatives. Just think of it as "streamlining democracy."
Since the vaccine works to prevent cancer of the cervix, it does seem to make more sense to vaccinate the girls.
If you had a little boy and little girl, which would you rather see vaccinated to prevent cervical cancer? The one with the cervix, or the one without?
You only need to vaccinate one.
Well if we were discussing MMR vaccine, I would agree with you. As it is, we are discussing a vaccine for a STD that can cause cancer.
Insurance companies will cover this- they will see the cost benefit analysis and probably end up doing it for free. I stopped counting my medical bills at 200,000.,it's way more now (see my post 148.) I have great insurance, but my oncologist is not in my system so I have some out of pocket.
Insurance companies never want to pay for treatment if they can avoid it.
From what I hear, they are testing a vaccine for boys now. When it comes out I will be going over all the relevent info and if it looks promising and good, he will get that shot along with all his other vaccines.
If this virus is at anywhere near the level they say it at (30 to 50% infection) what will it be for him in 15 years when he's 18? Will every person have this (if we do nothing) or will a much smaller percentage have this virus (if we use medical science to our advantage?)
I am saddened that so many people such a negative response to this-
the point is - you make your own choices, and let others make theirs. there shouldn't be an "opt out" clause on this, there should be an "opt in" clause.
It is not the vaccine itself that's the primary issue, it's who gets to decide. Clearly your experience leads you in one direction, and that's your right. But it's also the right of the next parent to decide for her own child without signing paperwork explaining why.
Normally, I would agree with you about this sort of thing, but the girls who are at the highest risk of this probably have parents who never would opt in. "Parents" is probably being generous, since dad might not well live there.
You're certainly smart enough to opt out if you think that's a great decision, but the default ought to be to get the vaccine.
I want my vote back.
And I'm concerned that so many people don't understand that if you say "no thanks", you don't have to do it.
It kind of makes the word "mandatory" a mockery.
This is the same reasoning that gets us sex ed for kindergardners. "Oh, we have to teach them all the facts early, some parents just won't take the responsibility." It's getting us schools that track our kids weight and body mass to be sure they aren't eating the wrong foods. "Oh, Janie, be sure to tell mom to give you more carrots and fewer cookies!"
It Takes a Village to take away the rights of responsible parents, because others "might not" be responsible.
Sorry :(
He's a different man since he got his big 39%
The girl could get HPV from a rape and women have gotten the disease from her husband. They could immunize the kids without mentioning what causes the disease;-)
My commie brother and his hippie wife won't give their kids immunizations, either.
That's probably okay as long as the rest of us do. They can freeload off the fact that we've drastically reduced the chance of infection by immunizing our kids.
If everyone took the attitude of my brother, we'd have headlines about the polio crisis and how it's the fault of the government.
Suit yourself. Nobody is forcing you to do anything.
DG, I don't agree that parents should have to "opt out," the decision should rest soley with them.
However, the biggest problem I have is that Perry did this by exuctive order, entirely bypassing the Legislature and any deliberative debate or citizen input. Think about it, we're having more discussion of the issue right here on this thread thany any of our elected representatives have had, and with just as much authority to do something about it.
Puck Ferry
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.