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."
It offers 100% prevention of 2 strains of HPV that cause 70% of cervical cancer cases. It does not combat any other strains that cause cervical cancer, nor can it claim 100% effectiveness against cancer because you can get cervical cancer without having HPV.
But it still prevents HPV 16/18.
Too bad. They should have. Then again, they are self explanitory. Gee I wonder what a polio vaccine is for, measles? duh... What gardisol for daddy? Well, it's to err, ahh,... I really don't know. It doesn't really prevent HPV, just MAYBE might prevent 2 strains of it that MAY but probably not cause cancer if you are very sloppy and never see a doctor, and 2 strains which cause warts, which go away on their own anyways...
It does not. Says so on their website.
and HPV does not "cause" cancer. Just like birth control pills do not "cause" cancer.
Because Gardisol does not work in 100% of people, it cannot prevent 100% of cervical cancer. In fact, Gardisol does not prevent cancer at all. it prevents (most of the time) infection from 2 strains of HPV. Not cancer.
And just where does the government think women are getting HPV from other than HPV infected men? I still don't get the double standard of mandating the vaccination for girls only.
Man I know this link is like, all the way on the top of the page. But you could still read it.
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=42307
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=31783
I should say it amend to say it is 100% to HPV 6, 11 and 16. It is 99.9% to HPV 18 at a young ages and lost .8% efficacy in the above 16 age group. It loses efficacy the older the vaccine recipient is.
The level of HPV antibodies (and thus level of immunity) remained the same or higher after 5 years.
These efficacy rates are significantly lower than most vaccines. The measles vaccine, for example, is only 90% effective.
And lets also not forget that HPV is a ever changing virus, like the flu. Maybe slower, but changing never the less.
As I said, 30% of women which get other strains of HPV that MAY promote cellular changes that cause cancer will think they are protected, but they aren't. Add to that number those on whom the vaccine does not work for one reason or another.
Add again to that number the cases in women who have already been exposed to HPV at least once. Gardisol will do nothing for them.
There will be NO reduction in any cervical cancer numbers for at least a couple decades, until these 8 year olds grow up, promise to take a booster shot every five years (at who's expense?) which many won't (how convenient for Gardisol's makers) Who will, if predisposed, develop cancer from another strain anyways.
"If a parent wants to give it to their child (or an adult wants to take it), then fine. Just don't make it mandatory."
It's not mandatory. You simply opt-out. There is typically a form at the nurses's office.
The only reason it is opt-out, instead of opt-in is so that insurance will negotiate a lower price for the shots and provide them. Otherwise, the price would remain high and it would not be covered by people's insurance policies.
"If a parent wants to give it to their child (or an adult wants to take it), then fine. Just don't make it mandatory."
It's not mandatory. You simply opt-out. There is typically a form at the nurses's office.
The only reason it is opt-out, instead of opt-in is so that insurance will negotiate a lower price for the shots and provide them. Otherwise, the price would remain high and it would not be covered by people's insurance policies.
If you have to opt out, it means that by deafult you are opted in.
The question is what level of disease likelihood, to what percentage of the population, is great enough that we give the government power to compel medical treatment (ie govern our bodies)?
How severe must the disease be before citizens should consent to abridge their parental authority?
Ask yourself: who would the government prosecute if a child did not get immunized? This will show you whether or not this is invasive and adversarial arrangement.
We don't. Governors of the State of Texas are impeached, a process which starts in the House of Representatives.
-----
Besides, he's just being a jerk, he hasn't run the state into the ground like Graem Davis did.
Davis didn't blatantly flout the laws of the State my family helped establish and try to jack with my little girls.
He now has a load of PO'ed mama on his hands.
The Education Code clearly says how a child receives a vaccine at a school 'clinic'...they have to ask for CONSENT, they have no ability in law to assume it. And I'm sick to death of politicians trying to prostitute the law.
You just makin' stuff up now? There's no reason to think they will need a 5 year booster and no one has been discussing boosters. Researchers are delighted that girls who received the vaccine 5 years ago do not need boosters now.
I don't think, "It won't cure cervical cancer for every single woman on earth within the next six months" is actually a valid criticism of an effective vaccine that will prevent cancer in hundreds of thousands of American women of the next generation.
Plus, there isn't any PROOF that Gardisol prevents anything actualy. The study isn't old enough to be conclusive. None of it's virgin test patients are even old enough to develop cervical cancer, and won't be for years to come. Plus with all the check ups they get, they probably never will.
"The question is what level of disease likelihood, to what percentage of the population, is great enough that we give the government power to compel medical treatment (ie govern our bodies)?"
The American Cancer Society estimates that in 2007, about 11,150 cases of invasive cervical cancer will be diagnosed in the United States Noninvasive cervical cancer (carcinoma in situ) is another 45,000. The treatment is surgical removal of the cervix, et al, or, if one of the "lucky" 11,150 removal, chemotherapy, and radiation. Of that 11,150, 3,700 still die.
"Ask yourself: who would the government prosecute if a child did not get immunized?"
No one. The child cannot attend school until the parents either immunize her or they CHECK THE OPT-OUT BOX on the form the school nurse hands them.
" I'd be all for impeaching Perry if we can find a cause. "
Look up poster Mama Texan. She's got it; the opting out is a lie.
"Plus, there isn't any PROOF that Gardisol prevents anything actualy."
More than for the Salk Polio vaccine was put into widespread use, actually.
I reckon they just won't let them go to public school, same as any other mandatory immunization.
Or if there parents aren't idiots and can read a simple news article, they will be opted out and go to school just fine.
Some just think Perry is a major tool, which is a step below a useful idiot.
:-)
You are indeed correct. That would be an entirely disfunctional relationship but you wouldn't get warts.
Abstinence Monogamy is dysfuntional? My, how the morals in this country have sunk.
How can one be monogamous and abstinent at the same time?
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.