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.
How many other viral (not bacterial) infections are we having success against? I thought we were still amateurs in that area.
My son got chicken pox even though he had the vaccine.
Well, for starters, how about polio...?
Because the vaccine is most effective when administered to virgins. This isn't about childhood behavior, it's about the fact that any woman who has sex at any point in her life is potentially at risk of a preventable virus that could cause a cancer that will kill her.
But your grand daughters could get the vaccine without Perry's order.
Just because you didn't know about how to prevent HPV doesn't mean the rest of us don't know how to prevent it.
I think the decision needs to rest with the parents.
(Pardon my ignorance on our exact current status as virus-killers... but I recall being rather impressed that these microscopic monsters continue to baffle us, and I can't imagine any huge breakthroughs along those lines that would get by without some major coverage in the science journals.)
All are viral diseases protected against by vaccines.
No, that's the Salk vaccine. The newer, Sabin vaccine contains no live virus. As for saying "merely," I'd like to see you come up with a technological innovation anywhere near as brilliant or as transforming.
That's not exactly a discovery or technological advancement.
It isn't?
If that's all we have today for viruses, then clearly we are not yet very far along in combatting them.
Huh? Public health workers have completely eliminated smallpox from every country on the planet, and yet you say that we're not far along in combatting it?
Uh, that's the whole point of any vaccine -- to stimulate the immune system to destroy a vector. That's how all vaccines work, how all vaccines have to work.
Exactly. I would be very surprised if this was tested extensively on prepubescent girls to see if there are any developmental, or other side effects. I am not against the vaccination, I am against the government deciding what my is best for my daughter.
Where did anyone say the responsiblity didn't rest with the parents.....or that I didn't know how to prevent HPV....or that they couldn't get the vaccine without Gov. Perry...
Who said it was going to eliminate cervical cancer...but research indicates it could be a tremendous help in preventing it....
How did Perry get away with this? Executive orders can ONLY be issued in order to execute a valid law. What law did he use to justify this executive order? If he is just issuing arbitrary orders without enforcing an actual LAW, he is violating his oath of office and can expect his actions to be challenged in court. The governor is supposed to enforce the law, not make it.
My guess is that Texas law gives the governor the power to modify the list of available vaccines given to school children. These sort of detailed items are usually not written into law but are under the authority of various agencies to administer.
The parents can opt out. If the "opt out" procedure is a big hassle and involves a visit from children's services then you have a point, but that doesn't seem to be the case here.
How is giving the parents of the school children of Texas the option receiving this vaccination "taking away any children's childhood"?
The vaccine reportedly works much better in people that are younger. That doesn't mean that the children are having sex, it just means that they will be protected later in life when they do start.
I understand your point about vaccinating females for HPV before they become sexually active, but why vaccinate little girls a decade before they likely will be exposed to the virus? I guess what I was trying to say and didn't say very well was that I wouldn't want to have to explain to a little girl or the rest of the family why she was being forced to have a vaccination for a disease frequently associated (rightly or wrongly) with sexual promiscuity. If this vaccination is a good thing for every woman to have, there's plenty of time for it later.
Although I don't question your motives at all, I have a sick feeling that there may be more to this movement than disease prevention. Something just doesn't compute.
That is interesting and I could see how that would be used to justify Perry's actions. However, it sounds very questionable because if the governor is actually writing and modifying the list of legally required vaccinations, he would be effectively legislating and changing Texas law. This violates the idea that the legislature cannot delegate its constitutional legislative powers to other entities without a constitutional amendment. A reasoning which I believe the Texas Supreme Court has been fond of in the past.
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.