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.
if HPV was not a sexually transmitted disease, everyone on here except a few would be cheering him
How long were the trials run that show that it's absolutely 100% effective in preventing the infection that is believed to cause the cancer? Or in preventing the cancer? And what about side-effects or other health related issues that might come up with the vaccine?
The issues are: the lies that it will cure cancer; that it is a cancer vaccine; the implication that it will take care of all cervical cancer; the exectutive order instead of proper legislative procedure; the fact that the manufacturer, who stands the most to gain from it, is pushing so hard to have it required; the fact that it's not communicable like TB, measles, mumps, chicken pox, polio and so is not the threat for an epidemic like those are; the fact that it's not being offered but ordered.
The objections are not that the vaccine was developed, nor the reason for it. The objections people are having is to being told that they have to have it or *opt out*, which doesn't work like they say it does; and that they are being lied to about parts of the situation, and that the governor is abusing his power.
You are also obviously missing the point most people here are making. There are lots of diseases that are not sexually transmitted that there are vaccines for and very few people are happy about being told that they have to get those. Most would likely do it anyway, but nobody is cheering on someone who bypasses legislative procedure to force on the public what the vaccine manufacturer is pushing him to force, except for those few liberals who think that the Brave New World is a wonderful thing and that what the governer did and how is did it is OK.
Otherwise, I doubt many would cheer him on.
Bingo. I think you hit the nail on the head.
The "worry" was a semi-sarcastic remark.
The CMDA is just about the most conservative group you could find. We discuss the ethics, and teach the science as well.
Dr. Rudd, for example, is one of the strong opponents against hormonal birth control that might, even with the slightest possibility, have post-fertilization effects.
The difference is dramatic. Because the influenza virus evolves so rapidly, the entire population would need to be vaccinated against the flu each year for a mass flu vaccination program to be effective. That's simply not practical. If one day vaccine production and distribution methods were to improve dramatically, then maybe I'd change my position. Regarding the HPV vaccine, just three injections will confer lifetime immunity for HPV. You don't have to immunize the entire population -- just get girls in early adolescence (say, age 12 for instance) and eventually cervical cancer will be almost entirely eliminated from humanity.
I haven't seen anyone claim it will cure cancer. Although I find the constant vaccine ads very annoying and turn them down, I do recall they say "It is not a cure for cervical cancer" and "It doesn't prevent all cases of cervical cancer" and they remind women that pap tests are still necessary. So I'm not sure where the "lie" part is.
Very true. Also the flu vaccines are only a best guess as to which strains of the flu will be circulating in any given year. An important distinction with regard to the HPV vaccine where they know the problematic strains.
Another factor is that these misguided folks are claiming that the vaccine -- which has been subject to numerous clinical trials -- is not safe, despite a grand total of zero reported serious adverse reactions anywhere in the world. At the same time, flu vaccines are actually quite dangerous, and every year do kill a small number of people. In the grand scheme of things, the number is small in relation to the number of lives saved, but the differential in risk is significant.
Forget the drug company connection ... I want to know how much money Perry got from the Home School Lobby because he did more with one signature to drive families to home school than all the bad schools put together.
Really? How many parents want to prevent their kids from being immunized against deadly, preventable diseases?
I am wondering about the "choice" issue because that position is for women to choose what to do with their bodies and requiring a girl to have a vaccine is not consistent with the choice position.
Where is NOW demanding a girl's right to choose?
Consistency, please!
It isn't, becuase it isn't about just one daughter, but all daughters. This is a public health question, and since women get infected without knowing it, they can also transmit the virus without knowing it. The simplest and most effective solution is simple eradication through mass vaccination.
Where is NOW demanding a girl's right to choose? Consistency, please!
I think you're confusing me with somebody else.
Our 37 year old daughter was just diagnosed with cervical cancer last week. I wasn't even aware of HPV or that there was a preventative measure to prevent this horrible disease before her diagnosis. Now my Grand Daughter's in all liklihood will not have to face this disease. Thanks Governor Perry....you did good.
Amazing how many people don't see how simple this all is. Perry, supposedly a conservative, is exceeding the bounds of his constitutional power here, because there is no public health justification for MANDATORY vaccinating against a venereal disease. Mandatory vaccination is an intrusion which can only be justified when an unvaccinated person represents a threat to the public in general; in the case of diseases that are only transmitted sexually, this is only true for rapists, bigamists, and other sexual criminals.
Clarifying my previous post -- I'm all for this vaccination as a voluntary matter for people planning to become sexually active. If I were a virgin about to marry a man who wasn't a virgin, I'd probably get the vaccination because HPV can be completely asymptomatic.
Exactly. The pro-vaccination folks (as if you can vaccinate against cancer - but who needs definitions) don't seem troubled in the least that this was done by fiat w/o any legislative or public input. Very strange, coming from "conservatives."
Btw, you've got a great screen name - wish it weren't such a contradiction in political debate.
Dominum vobiscum.
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.