Posted on 02/06/2007 8:45:52 AM PST by Froufrou
Gov. Rick Perry stood firm Monday against a political firestorm ignited by his order that sixth-grade girls be inoculated against a sexually transmitted disease that can cause cervical cancer.
Social conservatives from Austin to Washington joined some state lawmakers in calling for Perry to reverse his executive order making Texas the first state to mandate the human papillomavirus vaccine for girls entering sixth grade in September 2008.
Several legislators expressed outrage that Perry circumvented the legislative process. Several bills had been filed to make the HPV shots mandatory for school enrollment.
"This needs closer examination. How much will it cost the state?" Senate Health and Human Services Committee Chairman Jane Nelson, R-Lewisville, said at a news conference.
"Most importantly, as a mother of four daughters I want to make sure our daughters' health is protected and parental rights are preserved."
Another senator, Glenn Hegar, R-Katy, said he'd file legislation to reverse Perry's order, which he said was not in the best interest of the state.
Parents will be able to opt their 11- and 12-year-old daughters out of the program, as they can for other required vaccines.
As speculation swirled about why Perry risked angering his conservative base, political observers said the governor is showing newfound independence and may be trying to raise his national profile as a potential vice presidential candidate.
The governor's spokesman also indicated that first lady Anita Perry's strong support for the vaccine might have played a role in the decision. A former nurse and the daughter of a doctor, Anita Perry works for an organization dealing with sexual assaults.
"I know they have discussed it, and it's something they both feel very strongly about," the spokesman, Robert Black, said.
In a statement, Perry addressed criticism that the vaccine could send a message that teenage sex is permissible.
"Providing the HPV vaccine doesn't promote sexual promiscuity any more than providing the Hepatitis B vaccine promotes drug use," he said.
"If the medical community developed a vaccine for lung cancer, would the same critics oppose it claiming it would encourage smoking?"
Perry's office said it would cost the state $29 million for its share of inoculating students who are uninsured or on government health programs. Federal funds also will be available for children on Medicaid or the Children's Health Insurance Program.
Federal health authorities last year recommended girls and young women get the vaccine, which prevents infection by four common strains of the HPV virus, which can cause cervical cancer years after infection.
Cervical cancer accounts for 3,700 deaths a year in the United States, including nearly 400 in Texas.
House Ways and Means Chairman Jim Keffer, R-Eastland, said he supports the vaccine but noted that other state legislatures have decided not to make it mandatory.
"What kind of deal was made?" asked Keffer, referring to comments by Cathie Adams, president of Texas Eagle Forum, that Perry's political ties with drug company Merck may have influenced the decision.
Perry's office has denied he was influenced by anything other than health concerns. His ex-chief of staff, Mike Toomey, is a lobbyist for Merck and Perry got $6,000 in contributions from the drug manufacturer's political action committee.
Black said Perry and Toomey never discussed the issue, and noted the Merck campaign contributions were relatively small.
"The governor is very pro-life, and he views this as protecting life," Black said. "The human race has never had an opportunity to prevent cancer. Not to pursue that opportunity, the governor believes that would be morally reprehensible."
Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst and House Speaker Tom Craddick both said Perry did not consult them. Craddick said he didn't have a position on the issue. Dewhurst said he would prefer a voluntary vaccination program.
GOP consultant Royal Masset said he thinks Perry wants to be considered as a national leader. Perry talked about international terrorism and immigration reform in his inaugural address.
"Health care is one of the most powerful issues we're going to be dealing with nationally," Masset said.
Meanwhile, a Christian group knocked the Texas governor in a Washington update mailed to supporters Monday.
Tony Perkins with Family Research Council said, "By commandeering this issue, Gov. Perry, who has championed family values, has only succeeded in arousing more mistrust."
people like you?
Are we talking about the same thing?
I'm talking about virus based diseases---
Polio etc.
"Also, part of proving that preventing infection by the vaccine is effective is that they were exposed during the time of the study. (sex)"
No, proving it would involve having sex with a man infected with HPV.
Not yet. I've been looking at other vaccines and the damage they've done. Unfortunately, I have to sign off for now. But I WILL check that next time that I get online.
I don't intend to put up with it. I know many here think I'm wrong. I hope that in the spirit of pioneering this involves they don't rush on out and get theirs while the jury is still out.
With all due respect, the only ones I've seen make that assertion are the PRO vaccination crowd. And they make it repeatedly. Almost as if they had a physiological fixation on the subject.
------------
So, with that in mind, I refuse to even remotely side with the anti's.
No one is guilty by association, and being cautious does not make one "anti vaccine", and "anti vaccine" does not, by default, make someone "pro cancer".
That's one of the most ludicrous rationalizations I've ever heard.
An even better use of the taxpayer's money would be to return it to the taxpayers. Not the school kids. Not the welfare recipients. The taxpayers.
If parents have a desire to get vaccines for THEIR kids, then they can pay for them.
Catch you later.
Must people don't realize that any event that happens during a study is considered an adverse event. Car accidents, bumped toes, stab wounds. So when they see these numbers they do not understand that.
Serious adverse events would for example be a hospitalization and a car accident which caused an admission (even related to a dui) would be an example. A child who climbs out of a high chair while Mom's back is turned and breaks its neck and dies would be a death due to a serious adverse event in a vaccine study, determined not to be vaccine related by the investigator.
Sounds awful and is, but it is also nothing to do with being in a study.
I hope I explained that clearly, almost me nappy time.
You're the one who argued that a girl being raised in a stable home wasn't as at risk either.
So I up your ludicrous and raise you a clueless.
I would so love to be wrong about my reservations. Love to.
But I don't see the sudden rush. They worked on this since 1995 and GSK is within a year of completing their vaccine. Who's to say theirs wont be better and wish we'd waited?
Have we clarified the virus vaccination thing?
Well yes, but the SEX part is the part that would not something to be perceived to have been encouraged by any rational Human being in a child and would have had to have occured to get sexual exposure with HPV.
Fair enough,
While I don't get the angst about this,
You'll understand when I pitch a fit and jump into it over a "Little Miss Pageant" thread ;)
You can't know that you will have waited for nothing, either, that it will have been a failure.
Its a judgement call and someone has to be first, either now or 5 years from now. So it might be your call to go or mine to wait, either way, we agree that it should not be mandatory at this stage.
I must say, it is very nice to have an intelligent discussion with someone on this subject.
Thank you!
Not sure I understand.
Since you brought it up, "Little Miss Pageant" stuff sickens me. Human dog and pony show. Revolting.
How very kind of you! It's not easy sometimes because I do have very, very strong feelings about this mandatory business. It makes me sick that I voted for that man.
I think you would enjoy Merck's website. They've got an HIV trial and something for seniors, I forget what, maybe it's a memory drug! LOL!
All I'm saying is on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being very strong feelings about,
I'd say you feel about a 10 against this.
I feel about a 7 for it with no feelings against. So you're three points ahead with the against driven.
HOWEVER, the pageant thing is a 10 for me, and I'll post.
I'm cooked. Well done.
All this criticism makes me wonder who folks expect to run the vaccine business? Politicians? They can't run the page program in the Senate and HOuse!
Outahere.
Yep.
Vaccines are the way for our life time for the prevention of virus related illness. Virus' are the frontier. AS you mentioned before the common cold has not been congered and yet folks aren't thrilled with this development. Don't get it.
I am thrilled with the Alzheimers vaccine research. There is also Parkinson's vaccine research as well as HIV. Just think, our kids may not have to face these things. There is also a vaccine for smoking!
I don't know who folks think find the cures and prevention for major diseases. They propably think its government.
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.