I don't think anybody denies that Merck contributed to Perry or that Perry's chief of staff became a Merck lobbyist.
I think what is being challenged is the conclusion that Perry's executive order was the return of a political favor rather than an attempt to protect the health of his constituents.
Since Sarah Palin was boasting about starting a program in which Gardasil was going to be freely given to the young girls of Alaska, it not only strongly indicates that Perry's heart was in the right place, but his mind as well.
Which you object to kids being given Gardasil if it really does effectively protect them from horrible cancers?
1. Nanny state tactics guised under the 'I hate cancer' excuse. Who doesn't hate cancer?
2. The same nanny state reaction aided by BigPharma
3a. Reactionary legislation by executive order without consulting the state legislature.
3b. Reactionary legislation by executive order without proper research (as Perry has apologize for).
4. You scratch my back, I'll shave yours 'same as it always was' politics.
5. And the most important, the government claiming to know what's best for my children.
If was to start talking about Pro Cancer Perry Bashers I’ll bet they’d change their tune but then I’d be no better than they are.