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.
With no repercussions.
I never had vaccinations until I got the German measles, which nearly killed me, and is why I think non-vaccine people are idiots (my parents also changed their tune, post-illness).
"Many states stipulate that if you are going to opt out for religous reasons, you must opt out of all vaccines. You cannot selectively opt out of certain ones."
Not Texas. The regulation is above.
That said, all that does is make a person pay privately for the ones they want --- as opposed to getting them free fromt the school nurse.
The epidemic-quaranteen and other powers of the Governor are not at issue here.
I just gave the quaranteen powers as other example of the "govenor practising medicine" which was your objection.
Huh?
I see many females under 13 years every month who've been sexually 'inducted'....via rape, molestation or incest. It's not a case of promiscuity, it's simply the world is a rough place form most kids these days. And you can call the vaccine whatever you want, but I won't damn a child to death because of you.
And how in the world did you bring illegals into this!?! You're just another One Note Wanda singing a different song.
As I said:
The REAL reason so many Holier-than-thou Freepers have their panties in a wad about this is they THINK their little ones will never sin and dance great joy at the thought of EVIL SINNERS dying a miserable death --- getting what they deserve --- for the sin of premarital sex.
Secondly, it is being ordered to repay a drug company for supporting a political campaign!
If Texans had a vote on this, that might be a bit different, though I still don't favor forcing this on girls simply because they attend government schools.
All of my children got their vaccinations with our doctor, not some government educator at public school.
"as opposed to getting them free fromt the school nurse."
Free? Are you a socialist as well as a nanny-stater? Who pays for these "free" injections? Merck?
I assume that the pro-abortion slogan of "Get your laws off my body" doesn't apply anymore.
Oh, give me a break.
I no where advocated socialism -- merely addressed the effect of selective opt-out of vaccines (e.g., yes to measles, no to HPV), which is (in such states): no free shots.
The fact that you called me a socialist proves you are not interested in the issue, but merely arguing for the sake of argument.
I have no time for that kind of silliness.
This is being forced on children to repay a donation to a political campaign or campaigns.
This is also being done by government fiat - I also disagreed with the Supreme's fiat that government can take one person's property and give it to another, to make more tax dollars.
Are our children now the same as our homes and businesses, free for the government to take and do what they will with them.
For God's sake, wake up, this is not only government telling each and every parent of a female child, who is unfortunate enough to be in publik skool, that vaccinations will be forced upon them, not even by their own doctor's advice, after informed consent, AND they will be forced to pay for the vaccinations through their own taxes.
Where are your priorities - this is all being done in the name of "for the children" - Hillary Style!
Yeah, whatever.
If this wasn't a vaccine for a sexually-transmitted disease, it would be a non-issue, just like the MMR shots.
Fantasyland? My bright, healthy nephew "died" from a "safe" DPT shot. He began having seizures immediately after the shot. Lost all his speech, and now at the age of 23, he functions at the level of a 3-4 year old.
You can tell your daughters whatever you want. We know that a good number of them, regardless of their parents values, convictions, and guidance, will be sexually adventurous as they grow older.
Then opt out.
May your daughters be sinless, as be their husbands.
The REAL reason so many Holier-than-thou Freepers have their panties in a wad about this is they THINK their little ones will never sin and dance great joy at the thought of EVIL SINNERS dying a miserable death --- getting what they deserve --- for the sin of premarital sex.
You might be right for some, but that has nothing to do with my objection.
I don't think that the governor ought to have the right to override parental objections and order preventative medical treatment on children. Couple that with the financial ties to the company providing the medicine and it sure seems like a combination of executive power grab and cronyism.
I think the vaccine is a good idea. But I don't think that the state has the right to impose every good idea on its citizens.
Read my very first post,
we are saying the same thing.
I don't think it should be forced,
but I for one would have females in my care getting it.
That's all.
Your nephew is truely a tradgedy. And such extremely rare cases do occur, but Diphtheria (DPT) is a very serious bacterial disease that can make a person unable to breathe, cause paralysis, or even heart failure.
About 10% of the people who get diphtheria die from it. Before the DPT shot was introduced, 17,000 children died in a single year in the United States alone in a diphtheria epidemic. Over the last several years, only a very few cases of diphtheria have been reported in the United States. In 1988 there were zero cases. This is primarily because most children have had shots to protect them. Diphtheria isn't gone, but most children are ready for it if they are exposed.
17,000 deaths vs. a very rare few? Do the math.
"I don't think that the governor ought to have the right to override parental objections and order preventative medical treatment on children."
Me neither.
Fortunately, the governor has no power to override parential objections. The statute that does give him power has a very specific opt-out provision just for such parental objections.
All one has to do is visit a pre-1950's cemetary and count the chilren's graves.
Oh well, like you said, if it wasn't about sex, no one would notice ;)
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.