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.
If you don't think a vaccination against getting cancer is a good thing, then forcing you to opt out, no matter how little effort that takes, is a bad thing.
If you think the program will prevent cancer, it's hard to understand why opting out is desirable, or why the program is not good. If you want to opt out and be unprotected against cancer, that's an option.
I don't see how having to say, "NO, I don't want my daughter to be protected against cancer" is that much of an imposition on parents who feel that way.
"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."
Remember what Lanny Davis said?
"Stroke of the pen, law of the land. Pretty cool."
At least the Clinton's overall political philosophy lined up with this type of action. Conservatives are supposed to be against this type of thing. Problem is, most of the conservatives in politics these days are actually big-gov't liberals.