Replies

Perry is not my candidate of choice, nor have I lied on his behalf.

Perhaps he's not your candidate of choice, but you certainly have misrepresented the meaning of his Gardasil order, over and over again on this site.

You act as though I'm making some spurious charge against the man, when in reality, I'm simply repeating the plain facts of the incident. Do a bit of reading here, and you'll see those same facts posted hundreds of times by others.

Good lord, the whole state of Texas was up in arms about this order. You think that 24 million people misunderstood it?

Now that Deport has posted the actual verbiage from Perry's executive order, you have no further excuse to not understand the plain meaning of it.

I've studied the Guardasil matter in detail. It's a very contentious issue. Texans at the time rightfully raised a ruckus, and it still causes heated debate. What Perry did was misguided but I believe well intended, I've said it often. My point has always been that parents had a choice, they and their daughters weren't being forced against their will. You and I obviously disagree about the meaning of "forced" and "mandatory". To me these aren't difficult words to understand, but in the case of Guardasil and the Perry E.O., they are words that have been misapplied by Perry's detracters.

This is my prior statement on the matter. I stand by it.

..............................................

Those who continue to use the words "forced" and "mandatory" in regards to Perry's Guardasil decision fall in to two camps. Those who are just repeating misinformation they've heard elsewhere, or those who refuse to acknowledge the truth because it doesn't fit their anti-Perry agenda.

I've seen that word mandatory used by both supporters and non-supporters of Rick Perry.

I've always thought mandatory properly defined meant obligatory; compulsory: permitting no option. It seems to me that the word has been misused in it's application to what happened with Guardasil.

Perry's unilateral executive order was boneheaded, although well-intentioned. He probably wishes he'd never heard of Guardasil. At the time, parents had a full 18 months to decide what they wanted to do. The order was issued February 2007, and parents had until September 2008 to either comply or opt out. The option to refuse vaccinations under a state law approved and signed by Perry is a loophole large enough to drive a Mack truck through. Only the most incompetent of parents would have been unable to act in the 18 month time frame, and I would certainly fear for any child stuck in such a home.

"Perry's order directs the Health and Human Services Commission to adopt rules for the requirement, which is effective in September 2008.

Parents would be allowed to opt their daughters out for medical, philosophical, religious or moral reasons, as they can do now for other required vaccines.

A 3-year-old state law broadened parents' ability to refuse vaccinations." Read more: Perry orders cancer vaccine for young girls

The vaccine remains to this day part of the Texas Immunization Program, and legislation and programs continue to move forward in many other states. Although Perry's effort was clumsy, he is proving to be an early trail blazer on the matter.