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.
"Some conservatives and parents’ rights groups worry that requiring girls to get vaccinated against the sexually transmitted virus that causes cervical cancer would condone premarital sex and interfere with the way they raise their children."
I pulled this from msnbc.com for voltaire and najida as an example of 'some' of the arguements against the vaccine.
I never said they were MY arguements. In fact, it's hideously disgusting to me that the trend is more and more toward Ruth Bader Ginsberg's goal to reduce the age of consent to 12.
All things considered, I do not think cervical cancer represents a threat of such magnitude that it warrants Perry's action. And, the fact that Merck's competitor will have their vaccine ready within the year tells me this is a corporate ploy more than anything.
Meanie, as you pointed out, antibiotics destroy many times more pathogens.
Only a slave would see nothing wrong with forcing children to take part in a pharmaceutical experiment.
Perry and other "compassionate conservatives" should be booted from the party.
This is ridiculous!
"I'm pulling my hair out! "Let's just let the evil sluts DIE!""
Yes, aside from the usual anti-vaccine people --- whom I understand, but disagree with -- my parents were anti-vaccine people --- a product of doctor mistrust, thanks to my fahter's father living throgh Dachau --- it is pretty obvious that this is all about: "let them die; they deserve it because they had SEX."
BULLS**T!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Im INFURIATED that my faith as a citizen of this state and country has been MANDATED/ORDERED/DICTATED to take this vaccine...especially since this is the FIRST TIME I have ever heard there was such a vaccine...on top of that, it has not gone through the years of study. Ive been very lucky that my daughter had no adverse reacions to vaccines before, but just because Perry is worried about the spread of this particular Venereal Disease (and I believe a good reason why this has been occuring is because of an illegal population that is HIGHLY promiscuous and without any vaccine against ANYTHING - hello, DPT/whooping cough/tuberculosis !?!) and has had his pockets lined by Merck contributions - HE DOES NOT GET TO TELL ME WHAT TO DO WITH MY DAUGHTER! Smeg him!
Whatever.
I'm fed up and moving on from this thread.
Ping to 221, paragraph one. Obviously, something in the way I worded that caused some distress, for which I apologize.
"All things considered, I do not think cervical cancer represents a threat of such magnitude that it warrants Perry's action."
A perfectly defensible position.
Albeit one with which I respectfully disagree.
(And no, I can hardly be called a Gov. Goodhair fan. The trans-tex corridor is the worst liberal boondoogle in Texas history.)
I would rather see alot of kids having safe sex earlier and live, wouldn't you?
"We had a thousand teenagers die last week because they had unsafe sex, but at least they waited"
What the......???????
"HE DOES NOT GET TO TELL ME WHAT TO DO WITH MY DAUGHTER! Smeg him!"
As noted, there is a form generally available from the school nurse. Check the box that you "opt out."
It's not a huge imposition.
And good luck! Hope your choice doesn't cost your daughter(s) their lives!
Ah yes, the puerile, condescending approach. How typical.
Your objection was that the Gov. was "practising medicine." I gave another example of "practising medicine" as you defined it, which are quaranteen powers.
ROFLMAO!
First, I 'defined' nothing. I said a vaccine is a medical procedure. Anything that breaks the integrity of the skin is considered such.
Number two, if you can't tell the difference between the authority to impose a quarantine during an epidemic for the purpose of public safety and injecting children with an unproven vaccine that has not yet been officially recommended by the CDC, that's your problem, not mine.
BINGO! This is what it's all about--$$$$$$$$$. Perry doesn't give a hoot in hell about the health of young teenagers.
I have already suggest to every female in my family, youngest 19 so I am unaffected by this law, that they look into the shots. My mothers family includes a dozen doctors and doctors of dental surgery so I think we can work out the facts. My opposition is to government telling people to take the damn thing. If it prevented something you could catch by casual contact, polio, mumps, measles then great, otherwise butt out of my business.
Your CONSERVATIVE Neighbor
And what happens when this vaccine turns out to be Merck's new VIOXX? Who will pay off the settlements in the lawsuits?
That's right--the Texas taxpayers.
Hardly. Potentially deadly airborne illnesses are one thing. A sexually-transmitted virus is something else. If Merck wasn't agressively pushing this vaccine to politicians like Perry, no way would it be mandated for 11-12 year old girls. Perry couldn't get it through the legislature. It looks to me like corrupt government, and an unwarranted power grab by the state over young girls.
BTW your meanness may be due to try to pass as a conservative. Perhaps if you just admit what you are you will feel better. I know several liberals, a couple are fine people just uninformed and misguided.
Everyone who has sex outside of marriage deserves to die.
The End.
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.