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.
By Perry signing the order I think he takes the responsibilty away from the parents.
You said "I wasn't even aware of HPV or that there was a preventative measure to prevent this horrible disease before her diagnosis"
I don't think there is a need to thank Perry for anything.
Plus, if you wait until a girl is about 16-18 you can reasonably talk to her about the risks vs benefits of the vaccine. I don't think a 10 year can have that same conversation.
Personally, I would probably like to wait until my daughters are 18, and they can take charge of their own personal health.
You speak of that as if it is a bad thing, and that tells me everything I need to know about your politics.
I don't see the problem. If the Texas legislature passes a law that dictates that some state agency will be in charge of determining the list of vaccinations then there is no problem with the Governor altering that list via executive order as he is the ultimate head of the agencies.
The legislature mostly just provides the framework. If the governor did something unpopular then the legislature could overrule him by specifying the vaccinations.
...it's not giving them an option to take it. It orders them to take it and permits them to opt out only if their parents register a "conscientious objector" affadavit with the state.
The vaccine reportedly works much better in people that are younger.
That's a myth deriving from the desire of certain policymakers to give this vaccination before girls reach the age of sexual activity. The drug's testing found it effective well into adulthood though and it is recommended until age 26. There is absolutely no reason why they can't make it voluntary and give girls the option of deciding for themselves at 18.
The point is that Merck did not do adequate testing before marketing Vioxx and they haven't done adequate testing on girls of different ages for this vaccine. They have no idea what unhealthy effects there might be as a result of this vaccine on these females 10 or 20 years down the road. The name of the game is MONEY for drug companies and it always has been.
80%! OMG! But...but...if that's true, given all the doom and gloom being spread about this horrible virus' link to cancer, then 80% of American women are all going to get cervical cancer!
That's...let's see, 300 million Americans divided by two is 150 times 0.8 = 120 million cervical cancer cases that are just ripe to break out this year!
Returning to a reality for a moment, let's take your unusually high number of 80% and determine just how big of an "epidemic" this thing is. One can easily find that there were less than 10,000 cervical cancer cases in the United States last year. About 90% of those are HPV related, but for purposes of convenience let's use the 10,000 figure. Run that against the 120 million at risk and it turns out that less than 1 in 12,000 people who allegedly have contact with the genital warts virus according to your stats developed cancer last year. 40% of those less than 10,000 cases are fatal, reducing the number even further to about 1 in 30,000.
Don't get me wrong - cervical cancer is a horrible thing and I'm completely in favor of people who want to voluntarily take this vaccine to help prevent it, but those odds are pretty astounding. In no reasonable sense can it be called an epidemic in need of this drastic response proposed by Merck.
No, I speak of it as it is an almost impossible situation. How can a woman know for sure that her future husband is a virgin? How can a woman be 100% certain that a man won't stray outside the marriage?
David gave into temptation and even had a man killed. Are you saying you have a better relationship with God than David?
You're just not being realistic. The bottom line is that if this vaccine works as advertised then it will save lives. The parents still have a choice to opt out.
Why make it law that this vaccination is required? This should be a decision made by parents with the advice of their childs' physician. I do not need an elected official, with ties to the manufacturer of the drug, telling me that my children must have it, even if I have the ability to opt out. If the shot is truly optional, then there is no need for the legal 'requirement.' The drug companies know that most parents will get a letter from the school saying that there child needs to get a vaccination and they will comply with no questions asked.
I do agree with you there. It seems to be a huge conflict of interest that a drug company can lobby the government to put their drug on a vaccination list.
To be fair though, I can understand it too. Vaccination drugs are tricky for drug companies because they can cost billions in R&D and then if they work, all of the socialists in the world want them given away for free.
If you vaccinate 12 year olds systematically, you vaccinate a large percentage of the female population before they've become sexually active. It's an arbitrary age, but it's one that's intended to cover the largest potential pool of women. It doesn't matter if your kid loses her virginity at 13 or 30 -- she'll be protected.
The only way mass vaccination makes sense is if it's administered as a standard at a set age. You could set the standard at 17 instead of 12, but the only result would be that more women would become infected with HPV.
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.
Then don't. For one, many women who have had only one sexual partner contract HPV. For another, do you really think if your kid got the cholera vaccine (no longer routinely administered) you'd feel you had to go through lengths to explain that cholera is contracted by drinking water contaminated with a diseased person's feces? I think you could probably find a creative, and less disgusting way to express the need for the vaccination.
If their relationship is built on a strong moral foundation, trust will suffice.
David gave into temptation and even had a man killed. Are you saying you have a better relationship with God than David?
That's a false (and very patronizing) analogy. I have never attempted to cast myself along side David for comparison, nor has anyone else on this thread. Seriously, you remind me of the New York Times editorial page types who bash Christian morality on every single day of the year then trot out the "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" line every time a death penalty case comes up.
It is not "unrealistic" to expect higher moral standards from our children than the media espouses. By suggesting otherwise you are missing the problem entirely and basing your assessment of this vaccine on an artificial and perverse standard of judgement rooted not in ethical reasoning but rather its abdication to the Age of Clinton.
If you think your kids are at risk, then by all means let them take this vaccine. But don't assume that everybody else's kid is either (a) a slut or (b) destined to marry a slut. Contrary to popular culture's expectations, most of them are not.
When given the choice, I'll always side with better fathering over the government nanny.
The exact same thing could be said about AIDS, herpes, or any other STD if the other person has it. But that's a non-issue. If you sleep with somebody who has a venereal disease, chances are you're gonna get it too. Nobody disputes that. In fact it is common sense that unfortunately some people learn about the hard way.
The answer is not to force-vaccinate everybody on the off chance that they might contract STDs one day. The answer is to teach children basic morality and thus significantly reduce their risk of ever coming into contact with one of these horrible diseases.
Yeah, because "trust" will repel the HPV virus. Look, parents are the last to know about the misdeeds of their kids and spouses are the last to know about the misdeeds of their spouses.
I'm not saying the behavior is something to be praised but, come on, let's be realistic here.
It's a vaccine for a virus that is sexually transmitted. If it is shown to be effective and safe then what is the problem? The government isn't forcing you to take it - anyone can opt out.
You don't want it - fine. Calling anyone who would take it a slut or a whore is just bizarre.
The government's purpose isn't to teach morality and the government isn't forcing anyone to take the vaccine.
Why is the idea that each child's parents teach them morality and the government will make available vaccine for HPV to those who want it, such a bad idea in your mind?
Once a 'rat...always a 'rat IMHO.
If the trust is genuine, meaning both parties are being honest, then neither will have HPV in the first place so repelling it is a non-issue.
Look, parents are the last to know about the misdeeds of their kids
Correction: BAD parents are the last to know about the misdeeds of their kids
and spouses are the last to know about the misdeeds of their spouses.
Correction: Spouses in bad and untrusting relationships are the last to know about the misdeeds of their spouses.
It's a vaccine for a virus that is sexually transmitted. If it is shown to be effective and safe then what is the problem? The government isn't forcing you to take it - anyone can opt out.
I can think of three major problems.
1. Waste of taxdollars on a treatment for a very rare, low incidence disease that results in rare cases from another disease that is itself a product of a lifestyle choice.
2. Opting out automatically puts the burden on parents and forces them to fill out a legal affadavit seeking permission to get an exemption.
3. The vaccine is brand new and its long term side effects have not been fully documented.
Yes it is, and yes they are. Morality is the basis of the law, and the government is the law in matters such as these. While the government should not indoctrinate people with morality, it is the fundamental tenet of a good society that its laws be consistent with sound moral principles. A law that mandates STD vaccines presumes the abundance of a lifestyle that spreads STDs, thereby conflicting with sound moral principles.
The notion that this vaccine is not forced is similarly a myth. It is forced unless you go through the legal process to obtain an exemption for your children. You are required to actively seek and obtain the exemption by the route prescribed in a government affadavit. Simply saying "no" will not exempt you, thus it is not true consent.
Why is the idea that each child's parents teach them morality and the government will make available vaccine for HPV to those who want it, such a bad idea in your mind?
You are arguing a strawman, and I suspect intentionally so. I have NEVER once suggested that simply making the vaccine available is a "bad idea" and defy you to show otherwise. I simply object to the government requiring school children to take it.
My allergist/immunologist told me that vaccines are only 80% effective in creating immunity.
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.