Posted on 02/06/2007 8:46:59 AM PST by HuntsvilleTxVeteran
(AgapePress) -- A Texas pro-family group says Governor Rick Perry's executive order mandating HPV shots for schoolgirls entering sixth-grade not only usurps the authority of the State Legislature, but also the rights of parents. In addition, the American College of Pediatricians has recommended against the vaccine for young girls.
A conservative group in Texas is raising strong objections to Republican Governor Rick Perry's executive order mandating HPV shots for 11- and 12-year-old female students.
On Friday, Governor Perry signed an order that requires all Texas schoolgirls entering sixth grade to get Gardasil, Merck & Company's new vaccine against the Human Papilloma Virus, beginning in the fall of 2008. Perry says the vaccine gives Texas "an incredible opportunity to effectively target and prevent cervical cancer."
Perry's office contacted Texas Eagle Forum president Cathie Adams Wednesday and urged her to support the vaccination requirement, but she vowed to do everything in her power to defeat it. Adams explains her refusal. "He's replacing parents' rights with state's rights," she comments. "He's also usurping the authority of the State Legislature."
And there's more, says the Texas Eagle Forum leader. "We have a strong voice that has already said this is not a good vaccine for little girls," she says; "it's the American College of Pediatricians, who strongly opposes requiring students to have the HPV vaccine." Governor Perry, who in the past has received strong backing from conservatives because of his opposition to abortion and embryonic stem-cell research, says the cervical cancer vaccine is no different from the one that protects children against polio. But Adams notes there is no crisis, noting cervical cancer deaths in American women have dropped by 74 percent due to routine pap smears.
(Excerpt) Read more at gopusa.com ...
Is that supposed to alay my concerns? It's much safer than a drug that killed people. Not much of a selling point to me.
I have news for you: every drug has side effects, including tylenol and aspirin. It's all relative and risk/benefit. Driving in a car has risks, too, as does walking across the street, but both are safer than hang gliding.
Check your condescending attitude, Doc. I am well aware that all medications have side effects, and that driving has inherent risks. My concern is not with tylenol or aspirin, it is with the HPV vaccine. This is being targeted to prepubescent girls. Was it tested on prepubescent girls? I doubt it, but I could be wrong.
Hopefully, a medical person such as yourself is aware that there is a lot of development going on in the bodies of 11, 12 and 13 year old girls. I am not wild about introducing a drug, especially from a manufacturer that has VIOXX listed as one of its recent 'oops' pills, to my 11 year old daughter. That is a decision for me, my wife to make with advice from a PRACTICING pediatrician, not a governor beholden to a drug manufacturer.
>>>I did not. You said your mother died of cervical cancer, that puts you genetically in a higher risk group. >>>
Well, then I apologize. I read the "You and your daughter are at a higher risk for cancer and probably should get it" as 'SHOULD GET CANCER'. Believe me, it's been said to me here before. At anyrate, I now realize you meant the VACCINE. Sorry!
However, I do agree. I feel it is extremely important for girls to get this. That is MY firm belief, but I am anti-government parenting and do not think it should be regulated by the government.
My daughters are only 10, so I would like to wait a few years to see if there really are any serious side effects before actually giving it to my daughters.
I figure 16 is really the age we'll have to seriously look at what is going on with the vaccine. If it still looks safe, then I think I want my daughters to get it.
However, I don't think it should be mandated.
Not if they are honest..which they should be you can if you can trust them enough to marry them..!
It's also called personal responsibility: God created this world, unfortunately we screwed it up..now I am not condemning anyone (infact if someone has committed premaritial sex;GOD STILL LOVES YOU, and I care for you too), but in this world natural consequences occure one of those is if you committ premarital sex, you may get an STD (no I don't want ANYONE to get any STD of ANY form!); as the issue goes is this vaccine a 'good idea', (maybe), but I don't like it or the way the Gov. went about it for 3 simple reasons, they are:
1)This violates the rights for parents to choose what is best for their children, and is akin to liberal parentalism-big gov. statism.
2)It will lead to girls feeling (not that my gender is ANY better, mind you we are far worse in general, I believe, but that is a different discussion) like they have 'liscence' for premarital sex.
3)This is a collusion between big "business" and big government to profit off the populace unvolutarily. I don't like Merck's campaign to 'lobby for inoculations' (forcing the indidivdual throug the power of the state to pay for their "inoculations", once again a corporate fat-cat profiting by coercions through government FORCE), where are the citizens saying..wait a minute..? LUCKY I'm Not a Texan (anymore, well I was one for a year back in '80, I was a baby though..).
EXACTLy Abigail Adams! You carry the spirit of your namesake well..
Thanks! ;-)
Because the average time between initial HPV infection and death from cervical cancer is 20 years, definitive conclusions about HPV vaccine efficacy will take years to establish. ... Until further research is completed, HPV vaccine recipients should be fully informed as to the current limits of knowledge regarding the vaccine’s potency and duration of protection.
Because of these and other concerns, the American College of Pediatricians states they are "opposed to any legislation which would require HPV vaccination for school attendance."
Case closed.
"Being against forced vaccination ..."
... should be the default pro-freedom conservative position for ANY non-very-communicable disease.
If someone wants the vaccine, they can have it for their own protection on their own time and their own dime.
The fact that the vaccine is (a) not proven and (b) for a preventable STD and not for generally communicable disease only adds to the certainty that this is wrong to mandate this for 6th grade girls.
"It's simply a strongly-worded recommendation" No, its a mandate. It says:
"Rules. The Health and Human Services Executive Commissioner shall adopt rules that mandate the age appropriate vaccination of all female children for HPV prior to admission to the sixth grade. "
See also:
http://travismonitor.blogspot.com/2007/02/pushing-back-on-perrys-hpv-vaccine-plan.html
bump
If there is a parental opt-out, it isn't mandatory.
I am getting tired of the level of discourse around here lately. Discussion of the policy is excellent, and we can all learn from posting the opinions of experts like this Pediatric association.
But lately it seems that every dispute turns into name-calling and challenging people's character. Without proof, it is mean-spirited to suggest that Governor Perry would sell out your child for a $6,000 donation, or even a $20,000 donation.
Can't we just argue the facts, without impugning people's motives?
..and it is not a knee jerk post but a concerned parent wanting control over his children's medical concerns.
Do you know for a fact Governor Perry doesn't have a vested interest in this drug company?
A governor mandating drugs for our children is definitely a hot button topic....and will result in emotional responses..... as it should!
I would hope parents pay attention to anything that will affect their child.
This poster is legitimately addressing his genuine concerns about what the governor is proposing!
Just curious....do you have children?
No, I don't "know for a fact" that he doesn't. I don't "know for a fact" that you aren't lying about being a concerned parent, or that you are someonne from a rival drug company, or a person who has sold Merck stock short and is trying to push the price down.
Of course, I don't think for a second either of those things are true or relevant. Too much of the debate on FR has been crap like that lately, not only here but in any thread discussing the BP agents, or immigration policy.
People are getting lazy. Instead of discussing the merits of a proposal, they attack the person proposing it.
If giving the vaccine is the right thing to do, it's the right thing to do whether or not Perry will get rich by it. If it's the wrong thing to do, it's wrong even if he returned every dime of money from the drug company.
And in fact, if all we had was Rick Perry's opinion, it would be the wrong thing to do, because Perry is a politician and hardly in a position to issue medical judgements on the efficacy of a treatment.
Since the only point of an ad-hominen attack is to cast doubt on an argument by authority, and since the argument by authority itself can be dismissed here, it simply serves to lower the level of discourse.
SO what happens is instead of having an impartial discussion of the facts, you just force Perry supporters to back him up against your political attack, when otherwise they might agree with your position.
Our legislature is trying to pass this mandatory vaccine bill, and so I need the facts. My representative could care less if Ric Perry got money from the drug companies, he needs to know by what study or authority the ACP makes it's judgment that the vaccine is not worth the risk.
And in fact, I got into this stupid argument because people used it to attack the Governor instead of discussing the merits, and I wanted to point out that there are conditions under which it is appropriate to make a vaccine mandatory.
I have no idea if this is such a case. I don't know if medically the vaccine's safety is high enough to make the risk/reward tradeoff work in favor of giving it to low-risk girls.
But I do know that arguing over why Perry pushed this doesn't help me one bit in my decision, because my decision needs to be what is best for my daughter, NOT what people with political agendas are pushing.
..I'm speaking as a parent......pure and simple
Yes, being informed is a good thing :^
...when my county was pushing a sex-ed curriculum (straight from the pit of Planned Parenthood, btw)...parents had little recourse as it was a done deal....already mandated....but still to be voted on by the local school board.
.. they fought against it, when it became known.
And I was one of those naive parents who didn't understand the politics of this, but aggressively pursued information and spent time/energy informing other parents across the county.
We did make a difference..... and we did effect change.....to the good of our children....our children...
...and did not accept their concept but pursued/won and installed ours.
Parents aren't always informed or educated to the latest political ploy involving their children...
..but parents are their children's guardians/protectors......
..and regardless of whether you think they understand the 'talking points', does not negate their rights as parents to protest someone mandating a vaccine, a sex-ed curriculum, or etc., for their child.
And you didn't answer my question....
Are you a parent?
Well, I said I needed to know what would be best for my daughter, so I thought that would answer your question :-)
In fact, my daughter is of an age that if my state's legislature passes their law, she will be mandated to take this vaccine. But our state will have an opt-out, so I will have to decide whether to opt her out or not.
My opinion is that Perry did this because HE made an informed decision about what he thought would truly be best for the people of his state. I disagree with him, but I don't impugn his motives.
Since others were impugning him personally, I fell to the camp that defended what he was saying, in order to show that a reasonable person COULD be on his side; There's a far difference from making the wrong decision and being a bad person.
Making a decision because you received money would make you a bad person.
CWCT-Aren't you doing the same thing but for the opposite opinion of mine when you say No, I don't "know for a fact" that he doesn't.? It seems to me that your blind faith in a governor, who received less than 40% of the vote when he was reelected in November (fact, not impugning), is uninformed. Governor Perry is beholden to Merck, Inc. Merck donated generously to his reelection campaign, and there are strong (financial) ties to Merck and several members of Perry's closest staff members, including 2 of his Chiefs of Staff.
During his reelection campaign, the subject of vaccinations mandated by executive order was curiosly absent. IMHO, Perry used executive order in mandating this vaccination to sidestep debate in the state legislature. The debate would have been contentious and passage of a law requiring this vaccination would have been in jeopardy.
I do question Perry's motivations and I do not think that the health and safety of the girls and women of Texas comes first. My wife and I had already researched the HPV vaccine and decided that our daughter would not recieve it at 11 years old. Now, because of Perry, we will have to file affidavits objecting to this policy to protect her from a vaccine that has had its efficacy and safety seriously challenged.
Guenevere - I applaud your efforts in protecting children from 'lawmakers gone wild.' Parents should decide what is best for their children in almost all cases, not legislators.
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.