Backlash Grows Over Mandatory STD Shots

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."

"The chance of getting Hep B from someone else's saliva, unless you it goes into a wound in your body like from a bite, are extremely rare."

You've got to be kidding. Girl fights happen every day in school, lots of biting and clawing going on there, same as young boy fights. Consider that hep B is epidemic among our Mexican visitors, there is a very HIGH chance of getting it.

You don't think forbidding a child to attend school is a punishment? Who is doing the forbidding - the state. Why? because little Susan might spread cancer? That last part is awfully hard to fathom.

When I divide the number of women in the USA 150,000,000 by the # of cases you cite (I rounded up to 12000), I get .008% of the population. That's not an epidemic. That's something to address through education at a kid's physicals.

But you seem more ready to give the state power over people than I am. I would set a much, much higher hurdle, and I would put the burden on the state to appeal to my reason. You would give them the power to compel right out of the gate.

You must be a nurse.

Hasn't research shown that the vaccine is not effective agains all strains of HPV? Since the vaccine is effective from ages 11-26 what about encouraging young ladies to abstain at least until they reach their majority and get the vaccine before they become sexually active.

Considering that birth control makes getting breast cancer 70% more probable, 216 times more probable with Norplant, and that breast cancers have climbed to 45,000 deaths in America per year from voluntary use, imagine what horrible numbers there will be when Gardisol, a MANDITORY injection, is found to do something weird to your cell structure years down the road. Good luck finding someone to sue though.

It's not like we are talking about a hormone or some body altering chemical! Its a VACCINE, weakened or dead virus cells. Once your body is exposed to them it can guard against infection. Just like a flu shot, or any other vaccine.

You can tell if someone is immune to HPV without them making whoopie, you know. Well you don't know, I guess. Turn of phrase.

They are plenty old to show precancerous symptoms (which do not always lead to cancer, of course, but are something to be looked at).

"Two multicenter Phase III trials (titled FUTURE I and II for Females United to Unilaterally Reduce Endo/Ectocervical Disease) were conducted to further evaluate the safety and efficacy of the quadrivalent HPV vaccine. FUTURE I assessed 5,442 girls and women over a period of 2.4 years. There were no cases of CIN 1, CIN 2/3, AIS in the vaccine recipients, compared to 37 cases in the placebo patients (100, 95% CI 89.5, 100) There were also no cases of genital warts in the vaccine group, compared to 29 cases in the placebo group (100, 95% CI 86.4, 100)

FUTURE II enrolled 12,157 women for a two year period. At follow-up, there were 4 cases of precancerous lesions in the vaccine group, compared to 43 cases in the placebo group (90.7, 95% CI 74.4, 97.6). There was one case of genital warts in the vaccine group, compared to 59 in the placebo group (98.3, 95% CI 90.2, 100). There were no cases of cervical cancer reported."

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/549278

It depends. If you know your child is not sexually active, then why give them a vaccine.

Because the vaccine is effective when given BEFORE a person is infected or has sexual contact with a carrier. I know that your child will not have sex prior to marriage, probably in her mid 30's or whenever God commands it, but will that matter in case of rape or if her future husband isn't "pure" and happened to catch it (Or is a carrier for HPV) before courting your daughter?

So that's 9,800 cases of cervical cancer prevented. EACH YEAR. In decade that will be 98,000

As cervical cancer rates are dropping, its rather ludicrous to increase the amount of cervical cancer rates by multiplying the current cancer rate by the number of years (9,800 versus 98,000).

"I think the wart goes away, but I'm not sure the virus ever does, much like Chicken Pox can come back as Shingles many years later after living in the nerve sheathing the whole time.

It goes away on it's own.
If you have the warts, you pass it on as long as you have them.

You can get re-infected over and over however, and that is in fact what happens among the non-monogamous crowd.

Pox are are different animal. It lies dormant for a long time, then, you are corrent, can reappear as singles, even as teenage pox, which can leave horrible scars, even sterility.
"They" say, if you get a reoccurance- teenage pox, your odds of getting shingles increases.

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.

There is proof that it prevents four types of HPV infection, including types which contribute to 70% of cervical cancer cases. There is proof that it prevents precancerous lesions -- there were 136 of those in the placebo group, and four in the test group. That's what, a thirty-four fold reduction? Maybe not perfect, but it's a start. As the prevalence of the targeted HPV types decreases in the population, even that tiny minority in whom the vaccine was not effective will benefit, since the odds of getting the killer variants will decrease.

I'm not sure how much more proof you can get than that, nor how many people should die or undergo costly medical procedures while that proof is being collected.

"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?

Apparently, using their numbers, 70% of 3,700 possible cases. What percentage of 300,000 million is 2,500? Plus, all of those cases could be prevented just by a regular check up. Are 2,500 people who can be treated worth giving Gardisol 100's of billions of MY dollars to? NO!!!!

How about waiting until 16? My daughters are not in a high risk group for having sex before 16.

Maybe if you have a daughter that is more interested in getting into college than boys you wait until 18 and let her decide.

That means my daughters would even be able to decide for themselvs while they are still in high school and before their senior prom.

And yes, there are still plenty of virgins at 18 (if they are in a stable family with lots of supervision).

I figure at 18, my daughter can make up her own mind how she wants to live her life.

I do know that most women have sex before they are married these days. However, you do not know my daughters, and I should be able to make the decision about this vaccine before they are 18.

Just out of curiosity, how many other required immunizations are for non-airborne diseases? Here's some info on standard required immunizations:

diptheria - coughing and sneezing
tetanus - wound
whooping cough - airborne
polio - feces-tainted water, food, etc
Measles, mumps, & rubella - airborne
hepatitis b - blood, semen, and vaginal secretions of infected persons
HPV - ditto above

Your math is off.

The total is 11,150 plus 45,000 for a total of 56,000 per year.

56,000 avoidable hysterectomies (best case outcome) PER YEAR is not enough for you?

In 20 years, that's a MILLION hysterectomies avoided.

All because checking a box "no" is too much of an imposition on you.

Do you even read the posts people write to you?

BUBBLE GUM BANANA FART!

Did you read that? Are you following along now?

There are more than 3,700 women who get cervical cancer every year. But you keep yap yap yappina away about it!

"Routine screening has decreased the incidence of invasive cervical cancer in the United States, where approximately 13,000 cases of invasive cervical cancer and 50,000 cases of cervical carcinoma in situ (i.e., localized cancer) are diagnosed yearly."
http://www.oncologychannel.com/cervicalcancer/

"Thanks largely to Pap test screening, the death rate from cervical cancer has decreased greatly over the last 40 years. Still, every year more than 10,000 women in the United States are diagnosed with invasive cervical cancer, and nearly 4,000 die of cervical cancer."
http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/library/DS/00167.html

You DO NOT prevent cancer with a regular check up. You find precancerous lesiosns and you treat them. This is not the same thing! You may still have to have the lesions excisedm undergo surgery and chemo, and/or have a hysterectomy. You cannot prevent cancer with check-ups! I said this already! You are not even reading this thread!

If Perry is serious about the health and wellbeing of our young people he would overhaul the school lunch programs in Texas. French fries, pizza, hamburgers and tater tots are offered daily to kids and that is what they eat.

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.