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.
"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."
So, your opposition is that you can get this from EVIL, SINFUL, SEX, as opposed to "innocently."
Yes, by all means, let's let evil sluts die! It's the punishment of heaven!
"Potentially deadly airborne illnesses are one thing. A sexually-transmitted virus is something else."
Yes, evil sluts deserve to die. I understand your position.
OK,
I amend it to "Anyone who has sex deserves to die!"
Absurdity is not argument.
Uh, you can opt out if you want. It isn't mandatory.
I have merely reduced the argument made here to its ridulousness end.
The only meaningful distiction between this vaccine and, say, the polio vaccine, is the sexual component.
If you are against all mandated vaccines for whatever reason, that is one thing (and a position I respect, but disagree with).
If you are aginst this vaccine, in particular, that is another.
Since you brought it up, what about the possibility that the vaccines we have in place won't be strong enough someday down the road? If some of these diseases return, like TB? It happens with antibiotics all the time.
Should we really keep giving kids these vaccines in a time when we hardly ever see the pathogen?
Answer? We have to because THE BORDERS ARE STILL WIDE OPEN.
Yeah, if you don't get your 11 year old this vaccine right away, you may be signing her death warrant!
/
You're sounding as hysterical as a confused leftie on this.
Hi, welcome to the conversation. Your faith(?) has not been mandated/ordered/dictated to take this vaccine. You can opt out, the state is required to let you out.
especially since this is the FIRST TIME I have ever heard there was such a vaccine...
It was approved last June, and has been a big topic of discussion on FreeRepublic, in the literature, and less so in the MSM. Keep your ears open, medicine is an interesting and important field.
on top of that, it has not gone through the years of study.
It's gone through over five years of study in over 20,000 humans, almost all of whom have gone on to live healthy lives. In fact, the test group that received Gardasil had more live (and healthy!) births than did the placebo group. I don't think the difference is statistically significant, but it may indicate an unforeseen benefit to the unborn.
Ive been very lucky that my daughter had no adverse reacions to vaccines before,
Not really; serious adverse effects from vaccinations are extremely rare. There's no luck involved in surviving a vaccination regimen.
HE DOES NOT GET TO TELL ME WHAT TO DO WITH MY DAUGHTER!
He's not. He's giving the public school system instructions on who they may and may not enroll. And he's giving you an easy way around that policy.
Smeg him!
If this were another website, I'd assume you were a gimmick poster. But I'm not so sure.
"The trans-tex corridor is the worst liberal boondoogle in Texas history."
At least we agree on that!!! Boondoggle? Isn't that Grandma's word? ;o)
You really need to rethink your life. I will pray for you.
BTW I am somewhat familiar with early, unmarried pregnancy as I have an adopted son and daughter and my wife and I worked many years as volunteers at DePelcian Faith Home in Houston.
I have not addressed anything about the foster-care test. I am talking about the state-wide program.
To repeat a previous post:
I have merely reduced the argument made here to its ridulousness end.
The only meaningful distiction between this vaccine and, say, the polio vaccine, is the sexual component.
If you are against all mandated vaccines for whatever reason, that is one thing (and a position I respect, but disagree with).
If you are aginst this vaccine, in particular, that is another.
And what happens if it turns out to be the next aspirin and is perfectly harmless and quite effective? What if it saves thousands of lives every year, reduces medical costs by a billion dollars, improves the cohesiveness of families, and allows more healthy children to be born?
You can cherry-pick examples of drugs having unforeseen adverse effects, especially if abused, and make it look like the entire pharmaceutical industry peddles nothing but snake oil. That would be dishonest. Most drugs that receive FDA approval are safe for their intended uses. This one has also gotten applause from ACIP. Is it possible that it could lead to something bad down the road? Certainly. Is it likely? Not very.
Follow the thread up, you'll understand.
I am fairly sure I remember you from Midland. You were clueless, then, too.
> Yeah, if you don't get your 11 year old this vaccine
> right away, you may be signing her death warrant!
Your attempt at sarcasm notwithstanding: Yes.
The vaccine is only effective if it is received before exposure to the virus.
When is your daughter going to start having sex?
I think I also remember you. You were an uneducated bully and I pounded your face in the dirt at Fannin Elementary and you ran home to your mother. I think I was in 3rd grade and you were 6th. Does your mom still dress you funny?
It was approved last June, and has been a big topic of discussion on FreeRepublic, in the literature, and less so in the MSM. Keep your ears open, medicine is an interesting and important field.
Duh! Why do you think Im PO'd?! I KNOW this particular vaccine has not gone through enough testing...
He's not. He's giving the public school system instructions on who they may and may not enroll. And he's giving you an easy way around that policy. HE ISSUED A STATE MANDATE REQUIRING THAT THIS BE FORCED ON SCHOOL CHILDREN PLAIN AND SIMPLE - WHAT PART OF "REQUIRED" DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?!
HE ISSUED A STATE MANDATE.
I DONT GIVE A F(*^(&T%^$^%&&%^&%!!!! DING DONG D**N IF HE LIMPWRISTED A CAVEAT -
I REPEAT: HE ISSUED A STATE MANDATE AGAINST THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS AND BY THAT LAW HAS SET UP THE PROTESTING PARENT FOR LEGAL ACTION AGAINST THEM
THIS IS WRONG!
I also dont give a ding dong d**n what all the doctor evidence says -
THIS IS WRONG!
GET THE PICTURE?!
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.