Posted on 02/05/2007 7:13:36 AM PST by Froufrou
Bypassing the Legislature altogether, Republican Gov. Rick Perry issued an order Friday making Texas the first state to require that schoolgirls get vaccinated against the sexually transmitted virus that can cause cervical cancer.
By using an executive order, Perry sidestepped opposition in the Legislature from conservatives and parents-rights groups who fear such a requirement would seem to condone premarital sex and interfere with the way Texans raise their children.
Beginning in September 2008, girls entering the sixth grade -- meaning, generally, girls ages 11 and 12 -- will have to receive Gardasil, Merck & Co.'s new vaccine against strains of the human papillomavirus, or HPV.
Perry also directed state health authorities to make the vaccine available free to girls 9 to 18 who are uninsured or whose insurance does not cover vaccines. In addition, he ordered that Medicaid offer Gardasil to women ages 19 to 21.
Perry, a conservative Christian who opposes abortion 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 from the one that protects children against polio.
"The HPV vaccine provides us with an incredible opportunity to effectively target and prevent cervical cancer," Perry said.
Merck is bankrolling efforts to pass state laws across the country mandating Gardasil 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.
Perry has ties to Merck and Women in Government. One of the drug company's three lobbyists in Texas is Mike Toomey, Perry's 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.
The governor also received $6,000 from Merck's political action committee during his re-election campaign.
The order is effective until Perry or a successor changes it, and the Legislature has no authority to repeal it, said Perry spokeswoman Krista Moody. Moody said the Texas Constitution permits the governor to order other members of the executive branch to adopt rules like this one.
Texas allows parents to opt out of inoculations by filing affidavits objecting to vaccines on religious or philosophical reasons. Even with such provisions, however, conservative groups say such requirements interfere with parents' rights to make medical decisions for their children.
"for the rest of the throw away girls, lets try and save a few."
I understand your frustration, but one of the big arguements against the vaccine is that the extra protection may make for more early sex.
I don't care what you think.
The Second Amendment is not a right; it is a restriction upon the government. The only reason it exists is because the representatives of the people voted it into existence. Some people think it shouldn't exist; fortunately wiser people have made it constitutional law. Some people think Texans shouldn't be vaccinated; the duly-elected government of Texas, operating under its constitution, the legislation of its representatives, and its governor, disagrees.
Regarding Tango and Tangle, they are still looking for the mechanism by which HPV causes cancer, and the reasons why some people get cancer who don't have HPV and vice versa. They do not question the fact that certain HPV variants are a carcinogenic. I don't think anyone does -- not seriously, anyway.
From the JNCI paper:
We demonstrated in this population of mostly young women with either equivocal or mildly abnormal cervical cytology that having a baseline, prevalent HPV16 infection (HPV16+) was associated with a very high absolute risk of [severe dysplasia or invasive carcinoma] over a 2-year period, a fivefold greater risk than the collective risk attributable to other prevalent oncogenic HPV type infections. ... Of note, six of the seven women (median age = 36 years) diagnosed as having cancer were HPV16+.
It is noteworthy that women who were HPV negative by either HPV test had low, although nonzero, risk of ≥CIN3 over 2 years and that women with either ASCUS or LSILs who were negative by both tests had an approximately 1% risk of [severe dysplasia or invasive carcinoma] over 2 years (data not shown). We suggest that this residual risk for precancer is attributable to failure of cervical cell sampling, false-negative test results, or incident disease. These data highlight that no test or combination of tests will provide perfect negative reassurance for cervical precancer or cancer.
From the JCM paper:
The oncogenic potential of the human papillomavirus (HPV) early genes E6 and E7 is well established. ... The presence of human papillomavirus (HPV) infection in the majority of cases of cervical neoplasia has been considered evidence of an etiological role of HPV in cervical cancer. The association is strong, consistent, and specific to a limited number of viral types (2, 5, 32, 46).
It is universally acknowledged that HPV is not the sole cause of cervical cancer, but greatly increases the risk. You seem to be arguing that because it is not the sole cause -- or because not everyone with HPV gets cancer -- then anti-HPV measures are not anti-cancer measures. Is that right? It looks like you're caught in one of those forest/trees things.
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that seventy percent of wumps are associated with widget washing. Everyone washes a widget at some point at another, but only a few of them get wumps. Those that do get it suffer greatly, then they die. Of people with wumps, seventy percent have been washing widgets. And although widgets are devilishly complex little things, widgeologists have made great inroads into learning how, exactly, they cause wumps. (A wumpogenic protein was discovered that deactivates the antiwump genes of the unlucky victim.) Building on this research, Werck, a great American corporation, discovers Wardasil, which wards off those widgets that cause wumps. They perform a trial with over 20,000 participants, and determine that it's over 98% effective in protecting even the most zealous widget-washer from wumps. Would you then say that Wardasil is not a true wump ward, based on the imperfect (although universally accepted) understanding of widgets, or do you just have issues with the washers?
> one of the big arguements against the vaccine is that the
> extra protection may make for more early sex
How, exactly, is that supposed to work in a world where probably only a small minority of girls and young women are even aware of the link between HPV and cervical cancer?
> one of the big arguements against the vaccine is that the
> extra protection may make for more early sex
How, exactly, is that supposed to work in a world where probably only a small minority of girls and young women are even aware of the link between HPV and cervical cancer?
> one of the big arguements against the vaccine is that the
> extra protection may make for more early sex
How, exactly, is that supposed to work in a world where probably only a small minority of girls and young women are even aware of the link between HPV and cervical cancer?
That is what I have read, yes.
And a 20% "virgin rate" is probably accurate, just on gut feeling.
I'm talking about 8 year olds here.
Not 'early sex'. Not slutty hussies. Just little girls.
Who were used when they were at home, who get 'used' when they are placed, who are used some more at times. And yes, then they grow into promiscuous 13 year olds.
Geez.
Damn, I'm disgusted with this tread.
"Because if it was optional, your insurance company would not pay for it, while they have to pay for mandated vaccines.You must not be very conservative because you don't have a clue how business actually works."
Pretty sweet deal for Merck. Have the governor impose a mandate on all 11-12 year old girls in the state to be vaccinated against a sexually-transmitted disease, thereby forcing insurers to pay for it (and add it to our rates), and force any parent who objects file an affidavit with the state, expressing their objections.
That doesn't sound like "business" to me, it sounds like corrrupt government and socialized medicine.
I think they hit the five year mark last June, so this summer it will have been six years. After that, you should probably wait another six months or so for the data to be presented, if six years is really important to you.
"OH, so as long as someone else pays for it, it's OK?"
I said nothing remotely of the kind.
I am an employer. I own a company with several hundred employees. I, ME, will pay. I was trying to explain to you how the insurance system works.
But I see you know everything. So carry on.
20% sounds about right, and that's when I was in college a million years ago.
"I understand your frustration, but one of the big arguements against the vaccine is that the extra protection may make for more early sex."
Well, let's outlaw anti-biotics and make sex REALLY dangerous.
That'll put a stop to it!
See, your wrong AGAIN, I don't know everything. I do however know I don't need you or Perry or any other liberal / socialist Nanny Stater telling me what to do for my family.
"That doesn't sound like "business" to me, it sounds like corrrupt government and socialized medicine."
Then I hope you oppose all mandated vaccines on the same principled ground.
Vaccine programs work because if you get MOST people vaccined, it limits the pool of possible infected people --- even if the vaccine doesn't give 100% protection --- by protecting most people the "chain" of transmission is stopped.
The early polio vaccine was like this --- it only worked something like 85-90% of the time --- but by getting everyone vaccinated the 10-15% of the people on whom it didn't work were protected because there were so many less people to catch polio from.
Socialist? Maybe.
But in diseases at least, we humans are not islands.
Then opt out. The school nurse has the form. It's a check-the-box thing and the school has the notary for you.
Have fun betting your daughters and/or daughters-in-law lives!
And if they die, you'll still have that warm feeling of knowing you were RIGHT to tuck you into bed in your old age.
I'm pulling my hair out! "Let's just let the evil sluts DIE!"
OKey Dokey----
Ya'll first >:>
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.