Posted on 02/06/2007 8:45:52 AM PST by Froufrou
Gov. Rick Perry stood firm Monday against a political firestorm ignited by his order that sixth-grade girls be inoculated against a sexually transmitted disease that can cause cervical cancer.
Social conservatives from Austin to Washington joined some state lawmakers in calling for Perry to reverse his executive order making Texas the first state to mandate the human papillomavirus vaccine for girls entering sixth grade in September 2008.
Several legislators expressed outrage that Perry circumvented the legislative process. Several bills had been filed to make the HPV shots mandatory for school enrollment.
"This needs closer examination. How much will it cost the state?" Senate Health and Human Services Committee Chairman Jane Nelson, R-Lewisville, said at a news conference.
"Most importantly, as a mother of four daughters I want to make sure our daughters' health is protected and parental rights are preserved."
Another senator, Glenn Hegar, R-Katy, said he'd file legislation to reverse Perry's order, which he said was not in the best interest of the state.
Parents will be able to opt their 11- and 12-year-old daughters out of the program, as they can for other required vaccines.
As speculation swirled about why Perry risked angering his conservative base, political observers said the governor is showing newfound independence and may be trying to raise his national profile as a potential vice presidential candidate.
The governor's spokesman also indicated that first lady Anita Perry's strong support for the vaccine might have played a role in the decision. A former nurse and the daughter of a doctor, Anita Perry works for an organization dealing with sexual assaults.
"I know they have discussed it, and it's something they both feel very strongly about," the spokesman, Robert Black, said.
In a statement, Perry addressed criticism that the vaccine could send a message that teenage sex is permissible.
"Providing the HPV vaccine doesn't promote sexual promiscuity any more than providing the Hepatitis B vaccine promotes drug use," he said.
"If the medical community developed a vaccine for lung cancer, would the same critics oppose it claiming it would encourage smoking?"
Perry's office said it would cost the state $29 million for its share of inoculating students who are uninsured or on government health programs. Federal funds also will be available for children on Medicaid or the Children's Health Insurance Program.
Federal health authorities last year recommended girls and young women get the vaccine, which prevents infection by four common strains of the HPV virus, which can cause cervical cancer years after infection.
Cervical cancer accounts for 3,700 deaths a year in the United States, including nearly 400 in Texas.
House Ways and Means Chairman Jim Keffer, R-Eastland, said he supports the vaccine but noted that other state legislatures have decided not to make it mandatory.
"What kind of deal was made?" asked Keffer, referring to comments by Cathie Adams, president of Texas Eagle Forum, that Perry's political ties with drug company Merck may have influenced the decision.
Perry's office has denied he was influenced by anything other than health concerns. His ex-chief of staff, Mike Toomey, is a lobbyist for Merck and Perry got $6,000 in contributions from the drug manufacturer's political action committee.
Black said Perry and Toomey never discussed the issue, and noted the Merck campaign contributions were relatively small.
"The governor is very pro-life, and he views this as protecting life," Black said. "The human race has never had an opportunity to prevent cancer. Not to pursue that opportunity, the governor believes that would be morally reprehensible."
Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst and House Speaker Tom Craddick both said Perry did not consult them. Craddick said he didn't have a position on the issue. Dewhurst said he would prefer a voluntary vaccination program.
GOP consultant Royal Masset said he thinks Perry wants to be considered as a national leader. Perry talked about international terrorism and immigration reform in his inaugural address.
"Health care is one of the most powerful issues we're going to be dealing with nationally," Masset said.
Meanwhile, a Christian group knocked the Texas governor in a Washington update mailed to supporters Monday.
Tony Perkins with Family Research Council said, "By commandeering this issue, Gov. Perry, who has championed family values, has only succeeded in arousing more mistrust."
Not knowing the laws in Texas, I can't speak to what their law says currently. But your point is well made. "Opt out" isn't so easy as people try to make it sound.
Gardasil at best, might help 50%, the other 50% will die because of a false sense of security.
I can bet you money that you wouldn't go to a malaria infested part of Africa vaccinated with a vaccine that only protects you from 2 strains of the virus carried by mosquito's which make up only 2% of the species variety. Again, this does NOT warrant manditory vaccination, and the reasons are numerous. PAY FOR IT YOURSELF.
Wrong. It is effective against those strains of the virus. The package insert itself admits it makes no prediction as to cancer prevention, nor reproductive side effects. They just don't know.
You miss the point -- if the disease protected against is rare, then the vaccine can easily be worse than the disease it cures if given to large populations.
Your governor is an idiot.
"Oh, so HPV, a LARGER virus, isn't stopped by a condom, but AIDS, a smaller one is? I've heard that "pro" argument already. It's pure BS"
It's not the size of the virus, it's the method of transmission. HPV is not simply present in the semen, but in the skin of the anogenital area. Skin-to-skin contact of areas not covered by a condom can transmit HPV.
The CDC agrees with me, so unless you have some revolutionary evidence to the contrary, it's not BS:
http://www.cdc.gov/nchstp/od/latex.htm
"Name them."
Cervical cancer not caused by HPV. Cervical cancer not caused by the specific strains of HPV Gardasil prevents. It can also indicate other abnormalities and infections like yeast and Trich.
"Women are NOT being told that this product does NOT prevent HPV in all it's forms, not even a majority of them. Only 2 cancer strains and 2 wart strains."
The two strains that cause 70% of cervical cancer and the 2 strains that cause 90% of genital warts. And they are, respectively, 100% and 99% effective in treating those. Ye gods what standards do you have before something is effective?
Do you realize that you pay for the vaccination of poor schoolchildren every day? Hep B, MMR, polio. I know state-sponsored health initiatives are not en vogue around these parts, but preventing serious infectious disease is about public health, not just private health.
Psh, what a lark. Polio vaccine. I mean come on, polio hasn't even been eradicated yet. How effective is that?!
Not completely true. Some people are concerned about the "asshat." Many others are concerned about the unproven physical and social effects of the vaccine. Some just seem to hate the medical profession and pharmaceutical companies generally. Some think the government is colluding with pharmaceutical companies to conduct secret, widespread tests, like in The X-Files. All types have shown up on these threads.
Let's face it - we are not getting the whole story once again. HPV and HIV are linked in one respect - risky sexual behavior by the individual - which only fools dare not define. If 12-year girls who aren't sexually active, and don't want to be sexually active, are forced to have this vaccine, where is the "informed consent"? Will they be told exactly what and why they need the vaccine? Will they be told that sexual promiscuity is a leading cause of contracting HPV? Will they be told what sexual promiscuity means? No - that would be judgmental. We protect our dogs better than we do our children.
Yeah I guess it could. I guess the vaccine could cause a unicorn to fly out of your butt too. But it didn't after five years so I think we are safe for now.
This isn't some crazy drug cocktail being put in your body, you know. It's just made out of proteins. Your body attacks, metabolizes and flushes it out within a few days. After that you're just left with some ass-kicking antibodies.
70% of which you claim gardisol helps or will help IF they get a shot while they are virgins of 8 years of age. It will NOT help those who've already become sexualy active, and had HPV previously.
So, you can take many of those 2,500 cases off the "saved" list, because NONE of them can be helped unless they are 8 year old virgins.
All 3,700 could have been saved if only they had regular pap smears, becaus HPV itself is not a serious disease.
Gardisol is pretty much usesless as far as vaccines go. 100's of Billions of dollars spent for what? 2,500 cases of cervical cancer that can be prevented by a simple regular check up in the first place?
There has to be something wrong with you if you can't see the scam this is.
We could take HALF that money and prevent 45,000 breast cancer deaths a year instead.
"Will they be told what sexual promiscuity means?"
When I was vaccinated, nobody told me I could get Hep B from sharing needles and unprotected sex and those are, in fact, the most common ways to get it the US; but as a kid I knew not to do those things for reasons unrelated to being vaccinated.
Come on, there is a big difference between a vaccination and birth control. You are setting up a straw man with that argument. Furthermore, the state isn't mandating that all children get vaccinations, the are saying if you want to attend this public school you need to get vaccinated. As far as the state having the right to set vaccination standards at their public schools, yes, I think it is OK. I also think vouchers should be available to everyone, so you could have a choice as to where to send your children, but that is a different topic all together.
"Why would it stop them when neither Merck, their gyno, their GP, nor the state of Texas would make the ridiculous claim that they should stop getting pap smears because they are vaccinated against four kinds of HPV? "
Maybe because Merck is marketing this as a "Cervical Cancer Vaccine", not "a vaccine against certain types of cervical cancer caused by certain types of HPV..."
See the companies announcement for an example.
Headline
Merck Launches National Advertising Campaign for GARDASIL®, Merck's New Cervical Cancer Vaccine
Do you really think that everyone is going to read (and understand) the fine print about which strains are/aren't covered by this vaccine?
Fine Print
GARDASIL is the world's first and only vaccine indicated for the prevention of HPV types 16- and 18-related cervical cancer, cervical pre-cancers (CIN 2/3 and AIS), vulvar pre-cancers (VIN 2/3) and vaginal pre-cancers (VaIN 2/3) and for the prevention of genital warts and low-grade cervical lesions (CIN 1) caused by HPV types 6, 11, 16 and 18.
Then what will you tell them it's for? There is no other reason to have this worthless vaccine other than to protect against 2 strains of a common STD which has a hundred more.
"In the United States, About 14,000 women are diagnosed with cervical cancer disease each year and more than 3,900 women die in the USA each year from this disease." http://www.nccc-online.org/
So that's 9,800 cases of cervical cancer prevented. EACH YEAR. In decade that will be 98,000 women who still have their uterus, who never lost their hair to chemo, who are raising children and going to their jobs like normal people instead of going under the knife.
All 3,700 could have been saved if only they had regular pap smears, becaus HPV itself is not a serious disease. 14,000, and no. Just because you catch precancerous cells during a pap smear doesn't mean you are suddenty miraculously cured. Even if the cells are excised, you may still have to go through surgery, chemo, radio, hysterectomy; the treatment is not a walk in the park just because you caught it early. We could take HALF that money and prevent 45,000 breast cancer deaths a year instead. You hiding a breast cancer vaccine from me? You tricksey hobbit.
We could take the same amount of money and raise awareness of breast cancer and funds for more mobile mammograms and research. But we still can't be sure that any one of those dollars will prevent a case of cancer. You are weighing possibly increasing early detection against out-and-out prevention. While appreciate that breast cancer is more prevalent, that doesn't make cervical cancer less serious.
To help them not get cancer in their baby factory, or whatever cute term you would like to couch it in.
No one told me why I got a polio vaccine, Hep B, MMR or anything else. I got them and I was happy to get a sucker afterwards.
Gardisol does not offer out and out prevention. Says so right on the pamphlet.
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.