Perry vs. Bachmann: Who Wins the Debate Over HPV Vaccine?

9 year old?

Regardless: the only reason to get a pap smear is to look for changes due to HPV.

-- the 2005 legislation that added the philosophical option to the previous medical reasons for opting out. --

I believe Texas had both religious and medical opt outs before the legislature broadened the range of acceptable justification for obtaining an exemption.

This AP story is about four years old, "dated," but shows the prevalence of exemption for religious reasons, and distinguishing between "religious (only)", and "religious or conscience."

Twenty-eight states, including Florida, Massachusetts and New York, allow parents to opt out for medical or religious reasons only. Twenty other states, among them California, Pennsylvania, Texas and Ohio, also allow parents to cite personal or philosophical reasons. Mississippi and West Virginia allow exemptions for medical reasons only.

I believe the year of the legislated broadening was 2003, not 2005.

Not from an authoritative source ...

In 2003, the Texas legislature passed changes to the statutes expanding the reasons a parent can claim an exemption but the Health Department has questionably also increased the bureaucratic red tape necessary for claiming the exemption.
vaccineinfo.net/exemptions/index.shtml

As for how this information plays in the Perry/HPV mandate discussion, it results in finding the only thing Perry changed with his 2007 EO, vis-a-vis opt out, was making the request for (already existing) opt-out form available via the internet, in addition to being obtainable by written request delivered by mail, fax, or in person. The language of the EO certainly reads that way, as well.

-- the 2005 legislation that added the philosophical option to the previous medical reasons for opting out. --

vaccineinfo.net/exemptions/exemption2003.shtml

Thanks to HB 2292 passed in the Texas Legislature and signed by the governor, starting September 1, 2003, Texas will become the 19th state to have a conscientious exemption. HB 2292 also corrected the unconstitutional aspect of the religious exemption. Now the exemption can be for "a religious belief", and the unconstitutional requirement to be an adherent of a recognized religion which opposes immunization has been stricken from law. Additionally, the criteria allowing a physician to write a medical exemption has broadened to allow doctors more flexibility to write exemptions.
IN ORDER TO UTILIZE THE CONSCIENTIOUS OR RELIGIOUS EXEMPTIONS IN TEXAS ON OR AFTER SEPTEMBER 1, 2003 FOR ADMISSION TO PUBLIC OR PRIVATE SCHOOL, DAY CARE, OR INSTITUTES OF HIGHER EDUCATION, THE LAW REQUIRES THE PARENT TO:
1) Obtain an official original exemption form from the Texas Department of Health for each child (photocopies will not be accepted by the school or day care)
Requests must be in writing and can be made IMMEDIATELY in writing By Mail or in Person Only:
2) Fill out the form and have it notarized. Don't sign the form until you are in front of the notary so they can witness and stamp it.

I'd overlooked the hassle of needing to have the signature on the government-provided affidavit notarized.

HB 2292 was a sweeping piece of legislation, creating the state Department of State Health Services, and restructuring the state bureaucracies involved in the health care industry. See this 400 kB pdf: Department of State Health Services Assessment

One of the goals of the legislation was to increase vaccination rates (which were around 71% - pages 2 and 20 of the "Assessment" document)

Reading http://www.texmed.org/Template.aspx?id=2681, causes me to speculate there was much pressure on the medical bureaucracy (physicians and health departments alike) to play down any notion of "opt out," since Texas was either at or near the bottom of the heap, in the vaccination rate contest.

-- All opt outs follow the same opt out process. --

I'm going to try to summarize what we've found about the opt-out.

In 2003, the TX legislature passed HB 2292 (HB 2292 - Enrolled Bill Text) which broadened the vaccine opt out justification from "medical or recognized religion" to "medical, religion, or conscientious objection." The legislation says that in order to receive exemption from immunization, the child's parent or guardian must request a child-specific form in writing, sign it and have the signature notarized, and submit the signed form to the school within 90 days of notarization.

In 2004, the state health department promulgated rules along those lines, including that the written request for the child-specific form could be delivered via mail, facsimile, or in person.

The state health department rules have conscientious objection affidavits expire in 2 years (97.62 Exclusions from Compliance), even though the legislation does not require expiration.

In 2007, Governor Perry ordered the state health department to make the request for the child-specific affidavit form available online.

Parents may choose to opt out of mandatory vaccinations for reasons of conscience, including religious beliefs. The governor's executive order directs DSHS to ease the opt out process by providing exemption request forms online.
February 02, 2007 Press Release

That's it. That's the "opt out" that Perry provided. That, and nothing more. His EO provided the same "you can request the form via the internet" convenience for ALL vaccination opt out, nothing different for the HPV vaccination.

If you don't mind, please correct any errors above.

Here is an excerpt from HB 2292, linked above.

SECTION 2.160.
Section 38.001, Education Code, is amended by amending Subsection (c) and adding Subsections (c-1) and (f) to read as follows:
(c) Immunization is not required for a person's admission to any elementary or secondary school if the person applying for admission:
(1) submits to the admitting official:
(A) an affidavit or a certificate signed by a physician who is duly registered and licensed to practice medicine in the United States, in which it is stated that, in the physician's opinion, the immunization required __poses a significant risk__ ~~would be injurious~~ to the health and well-being of the applicant or any member of the applicant's family or household; or
(B) an affidavit signed by the applicant or, if a minor, by the applicant's parent or guardian stating that the __applicant declines__ immunization --for reasons of conscience, including a religious belief__ conflicts with the tenets and practice of a recognized church or religious denomination of which the applicant is an adherent or member, except that this exemption does not apply in times of emergency or epidemic declared by the commissioner of public health; or
(2) is a member of the armed forces of the United States and is on active duty.
__(c-1) An affidavit submitted under Section (c)(1)(B) must be on a form described by Section 161.0041, Health and Safety Code, and must be submitted to the admitting official not later than the 90th day after the date the affidavit is notarized.__
__(f) A person who has not received the immunizations required by this section for reasons of conscience, including because of the person's religious beliefs, may be excluded from school in times of emergency or epidemic declared by the commissioner of public health.__
SECTION 2.163.
Subchapter A, Chapter 161, Health and Safety Code, is amended by adding Section 161.0041 to read as follows:
Sec. 161.0041. IMMUNIZATION EXEMPTION AFFIDAVIT FORM.
(a) A person claiming an exemption from a required immunization based on reasons of conscience, including a religious belief, under Section 161.004 of this code, Section 38.001 or 51.933, Education Code, or Section 42.043, Human Resources Code, must complete an affidavit on a form provided by the department stating the reason for the exemption.
(b) The affidavit must be signed by the person claiming the exemption or, if the person is a minor, the person's parent, managing conservator, or guardian, and the affidavit must be notarized.
(c) A person claiming an exemption from a required immunization under this section may only obtain the affidavit form by submitting a written request for the affidavit form to the department.
(d) The department shall develop a blank affidavit form that contains a seal or other security device to prevent reproduction of the form. The affidavit form shall contain a statement indicating that the person or, if a minor, the person's parent, managing conservator, or guardian understands the benefits and risks of immunizations and the benefits and risks of not being immunized.
(e) The department shall maintain a record of the total number of affidavit forms sent out each year and shall report that information to the legislature each year. The department may not maintain a record of the names of individuals who request an affidavit under this section.

Again, if you don't like Perry, don't vote for him.

Now back to the morality of 45,000,000 on food stamps and the millions upon millions who are unemployed.

Don’t vote for him and let him know, in no uncertain term why you will not vote for him and that you will work against his election. Now back to the economy.

You are correct....I do not worry about educated Christian doctors and I totally agree that God made us rational beings for a reason. We are required to become informed.

It is also true that this world is filled with great evil and I see the Leviathan of government and crony capitalism trying to destroy everything which made this country the greatest and most free in the history of man. I see the government involvement in medicine a very dangerous and evil thing. Study of history will prove me right.

All their new laws and “agendas” which mandate things instead of informing and educating and allowing parental choice in weighing risks, etc., I find extremely sinister and fascist and no different than Hitler’s idea of good medical practice.

Our country was designed for responsible parents who take the duty to raise and care for their children, and government, through welfare laws and no fault divorce and medical take-over, is trying to destroy that family unit and usurp the role of parent. It is evil and unconstitutional.

Thanks for your info., but I still agree with Michele Bachmann that there should be an opt-IN, for parents, rather than an opt-out, even if the opt-out is online.

“We did our due diligence, just like you did.”

But it’s still super early, and you should not make up your mind yet. Keep learning, PLEASE. There will still be more debates.

For instance, in Monday’s debate, did you notice this (which I already posted, but it’s worth repeating).

PERRY said at the last debate:

“And the bottom line is it doesn’t make any difference what the sound of your last name is. That is the American way.”

excerpt http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1109/12/se.06.html

Either Perry is dense, or playing the race card, when he tries to insinuate that people against in-state tuitition for ILLEGALS are against it because of the ILLEGAL immigrant’s last name.

“Do the women you know get pap smears (which are only for detecting the cellular changes that result from HPV infection at some time in their lives)?”

Women are not required to get them (yet) by Nanny Government. Plus there are no possible serious side affects, as there is with Gardisil.

“The women I know are disgusted about the too few parents that really care enough about their children, male and female, to teach them the consequences of ‘doing it’.”

In Uganda, AIDS cases drastically decreased when they stressed abstinence.

Isn’t it frustrating, when liberal mainstream media has made the race between Perry and Romney - even in the debate questions.

I’m glad conservative talk show hosts haven’t made up their minds so early.

The FACT is that Perry would hve made it mandatory adn the legislature stopped him. This is the same paternalistic worldview that gave us Obamneycare.

It was reflected in his comments that those who disagree with ihim about his pro-illegals position “have no heart” coupled with his patronizing, insulting comment to Sen. Santorum (”Have you ever ven been to the border?”)

The Perrybots will twist tehsmelves like pretzels to justify any action or position by this pseudocnservative, Big Governmant, paternalist statist.

Thankfully, he may well have shot himself in teh foot at that debate.

Yes, the State of Texas has decided that vaccines may be made mandatory for school children. We decided to protect against another STD, Hepatitis B, because it so often becomes chronic and leads to liver cancer.

Gardasil is a good vaccine. It’s made the same way insulin is made for diabetics. (Unlike Measles, chicken pox and Hep A, which were mandated without fuss - the latter 2 since 2007 - and which are grown in vats of human tissues derived from abortions back in the 1960’s.)

Gardasil’s safety and efficacy had a 5+ year history and children on the Vaccines for Children program - those on Medicaid, CHIPS, Indian Health Services, and those whose insurance did not cover vaccines or who don’t have insurance - were getting the vaccine for free.

Our Legislature delegated the authority to mandate vaccines to the Executive Branch. The Governor is the head of that branch. He made it easier to opt out and tried to make it covered by private insurance.

This is what I said back in 07

https://lifeethics.wordpress.com/2007/09/28/homework-fallacies-about-gardasil/

http://lifeethics.wordpress.com/2007/02/07/texas-hpv-vaccine-2/

and it’s what I say now.

Santorum was rude - he asked a question and continued to talk, not listening to the answer.