You continue to ask 'why bring up motive?' It is in reponse to Perry claiming that he is doing it to protect the girls of the state. This vaccine has documented serious side effects and an efficacy rate of about 70%, and only protects against one specific type of cancer. Couple these with the unkown aspect of long term side effects and his protection of females could actually harm thousands.
I was against this vaccination before it was mandated, thus your 'Well, mandatory vaccines would be great, except Perry took money from Merck, so I'm against it' argument exists only in your mind.
As for my 'personal attack', I stated fact. Merck is a financial supporter of Perry and they will benefit from this mandate. Had I said that Perry is stupid, or ignorant or has B.O., I would understand your position.
He claims he is doing it because he thinks it is best for the girls. I see no reason to impugn his motives. You said he was doing it because Merck gave him money. If you had just said Merck gave him money, you'd have an argument (although the implication would be there). But you said he was acting NOT out of a well-meaning but ignorant desire to help kids, but cynically saying so because he wanted campaign contributions.