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."
The reference to chickenpox (hardly a dangerous disease, although there certainly can be complications) was a reference to the testing procedures and the Governor's Executive order that implemented an opt-out innoculation, just like here.
They should all get it. You have a moral issue with cancer prevention and that is truly sad.
Sure, Merck -- as a corporation -- is in it for the money only. But of the many individuals within that corporation, I suspect at least a few are in it to save lives. I only know a couple of people in the biological sciences, real rat-slicers, but both of them are personally interested in increasing the standard of living for Americans. You don't spend six years in school studying biomedical engineering and accruing massive debt to make money. You go to law school and sue Merck.
The FDA and the CDC are not in it for the money. They get paid whether or not they approve vaccines and recommend them for public health reasons. If you want to spin a tale of profit-seeking conspiracies between evil corporations and the government, you have to account for those two agencies.
"Yes. But 70% or more will not.
Cutting out 70% of the cancer and 705 of the hysterectomies is a good thing.
Would 1005 be better? Sure. But 70% is a great start."
While I respect your faith in Merck's data, I confess I'm somewhat more of a skeptic than you.
As for the 'evil sex' remarks, regardless of the target, I don't think they add anything to the discourse. Do you?
Again untrue.
One must REQUEST an affidavit from the State printed with your child's name.
You must have it NOTARIZED.
You must give it to the school (and hope they keep up with it.)
You must do this EVERY 2 years.
You can only object on moral or religious grounds, or get a medical exemption from your doctor.
The parent has no way to say "I do not feel this procedure is in the best medical interests of my child at this time" or simply "I do not consent"
Which is something you should have the ability to do in a representative Republic.
I can't believe the amount of people who would blindly send their child into a room, arm extended, waiting to be injected with a compound with such a relatively short track-record.
You don't find it immoral to exclude males from the vaccine that could prevent genital warts?
One more time; this vaccine won't prevent cancer in everyone who gets the vaccine. I'm tired of telling you. Go to merck.com and read it for yourself.
"As for the 'evil sex' remarks, regardless of the target, I don't think they add anything to the discourse. Do you?"
Yes, I do. Because many of the objections and "logic" presented here is clearly a sham to cover the real objection --- e.g., repeatedly claiming (even when corrected by multiple posters) that a pap smear TREATS cancer. Come on!
You try to divert the subject, once again. Males cannot get cervical cancer.
No, true.
I know this because my parents were completely against innoculations, and I was an opt-out kid until I got measles (from a illegal immigrant kid, no less) and my parents changed their tune.
The form (available from the nurse, and was notarized by the school secretary) had a check box that said "matter of concience" or "medical" and had check boxes for each innoculation you didn't want.
That was it.
It's not a big deal.
And yes, we had to do it several times, probably every couple of years.
LOL! Let's not get started on the FDA and Celebrex, Vioxx, Phenphen, yada, yada, yada...
I think it's suspect that they licensed the product in 1995 without the value of the trails' result. If that's SOP for the drug industry, and you don't have a problem with that, fine.
For you. I have a problem with it. Something's not right.
There is a huge difference in this type of vaccine and a drug for a chronic condition like Vioxx.
Basically, someone takes Vioxx for the rest of their lives --- ergo chronic problems develop.
This type of vaccine is a simple protein --- stimulates the immunse system and then is flushed out of your body by your kidneys.
If there was going to be a problem, it would crop up ASAP, probably minutes or hours after the injection.
Yep. They realize using the fear of disease/illness is a fast track to get folks to hop too.
We are on a roller coaster ride to the New World Order, complete with universal healthcare, and brought to you by UN alphabet agencies (WHO) and our own governments.
BAH!
I did not see a post where someone claimed a Pap treats cancer, but I'll take your word for it.
Make it available for those who want it. It shouldn't be forced on anyone because it's not an epidemic and isn't transmissable in the classroom, unless they've changed the curriculum to include Sexual Intimacy 101.
I googled cancer statistics and cervical cancer wasn't even there.
Without being offensive, I doubt that was recently.
At least 3 threads are running on the subject, and links leading to the criteria for opting out have been posted as well.
Things change. It USED to be that easy, but it no longer is.
I wish it were
If you have any concrete evidence it IS as easy as you claim, please post it.
"Vaccination with GARDASIL may not result in protection in all vaccine recipients. GARDASIL is not intended to be used for treatment of active genital warts; cervical cancer; CIN, VIN, or VaIN. GARDASIL has not been shown to protect against disease due to non-vaccine HPV types.
Vaccine-related adverse experiences that were observed in clinical trials at a frequency of at least 1.0 percent among recipients of GARDASIL and also greater than those observed among recipients of placebo, respectively, were pain (83.9 percent vs. 75.4 percent), swelling (25.4 percent vs. 15.8 percent), erythema (24.6 percent vs. 18.4 percent), fever (10.3 percent vs. 8.6 percent), nausea (4.2 percent vs. 4.1 percent), pruritis (3.1 percent vs. 2.8 percent) and dizziness (2.8 percent vs. 2.6 percent)."
From the Merck site advertising products. I also read of bronchospasm, asthma, PID and some other nasty side effects.
Absolutely I don't have a problem with them licensing technology when developing the vaccine. There are certain problems in the current intellectual property regime, especially as it relates to the biological sciences and information. But as long as those rules exist, pharmaceutical corporations like Merck and CSL should play by the rules. Do you disagree? Do you think CSL should have abandoned their intellectual property to Merck and given up a potential stream of royalties? Or that Merck should have broken their agreements with CSL?
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Sites-Types
Last time.
Go see for yourself. I don't have to justify anything, most especially that ridiculous accusation.
Disagreeing with you was most agreeable when compared to the average argument on this site. I don't agree with you but I respect your opinion.
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.