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."
conquered. Sorry.
No, the policians shouldn't run pharm companies! But, why are they making campaign contributions?
You can pretty much stick a fork in me, too.
"HOWEVER, the pageant thing is a 10 for me, and I'll post."
Sorry, is that for pageants or against? And because we differ on this I wouldn't score it either way. Time will tell, that's all. We agree on plenty other things.
I hate pageants. Period.
To keep the parasites out of private business! Who ever contributes less, gets beat up more.
Nothing succeeds like capitalism.
It's not lost on me that viruses can be useful.
During the Exxon Valdez spill, didn't they use a virus to help with the cleanup?
To some extent that is what the CDC says about cervical cancer. Basically, there is a high risk group for cervical cancer and they are poor, multiple sex partners, and smokers.
I am for limited government programs, but I think it may be worth our money to provide this vaccine to poor women and also offer pap testing.
I just don't want the govt to mandate anything.
As I have young daughters (10), I will wait a few years before we really start deciding about this vaccine. I'd like to see what kind of side effects start surfacing. I figure that I don't really have to worry about it until they are around 16 (when they can drive and have a lot more freedom).
Virus's will be found to be the cause of so many of our chronic diseases in the near future and thus the vaccines will follow. Praise the Lord.
I work with and see a lot of high risk girls. Many from 'normal' homes. Just normal homes with crazy people. If it were me, I'd vaccinate them for everything right down to bedbugs.
You obviosly have not read free republic threads about vaccines and autism.
There are a lot of freepers that are worried about the effects of vaccines and it has nothing to do with sex.
"it may be worth our money to provide this vaccine to poor women and also offer pap testing."
That reminded me that I read the minority groups [Hispanic and African American] were more likely to develop cervical cancer than others.
It still bothers me that it's all gender biased. A male's genital warts may not be life threatening to him, but they may be to his next conquest.
It's not easy to find virgins in the 11-12 year old age group. You are kidding me?
Even today, most girls are virgins until around 16.
I was talking to my middle school 12 year old son today about this vaccine. I'm pretty frank about all of this stuff, and he said most kids are not having sex in middle school and we are in liberal California.
Several things there,
I'm dealing now with a full blown AIDs 9 year old (thanks mom!) and a Hep C kid (thanks Dad!)
I've also played in more than one cemetary full of kids graves from the good ole pre vaccine days. And I deal with lots of autistic clients.
I guess I see things a little more long term.
Live is full of trade-offs like this....and I've yet to read anything that makes me belive in the vaccine/autism link.
You asserted that the girls in State care got 'used' from a very young age and at various places and you thought this vaccination was a grand idea.
My reply, if I recall, was to the effect of how do you use the fact some children have suffered abuse to justify vaccinating children that came from a stable home and had never been 'used' in their life.
And no, I can't see how anyone would think a child in a stable home does not have as high a risk of contracting HPV than someone who was 'used' while still a child and became (I believe you said)a promiscuous 13 year old. More sexual contact means higher risk...period.
If you want to take that rational argument to mean I think its 'all about sex', so be it.
If you think it means I wish death and suffering on someone because they have sex in some non-approved of manner, you're sadly mistaken.
-------
So I up your ludicrous and raise you a clueless.
I call your clueless and raise you an asinine.
Stick a fork in both of us,
We're done ;)
Of course having multiple sex partners increases your chances of exposure and thus that of development of disease. Note that those children who have been molested or have started to have sex (unknown to parents) at a very young age, tend to have muliple sex partners, due to confusion. Even observent parents are often the last to know.
That reminded me one of the new product trials at Merck is for shingles.
Yep.
Shingles is quite painful. It is the chickenpox virus that lays dormant in the CNS until later in life and then S
URPRISE! Shingles!
Well, the choices were Larry, Moe, and Curly-ette.
At least Moe had his head on straight half the time.
:-)
Yes, I know. I had them twice. First time it felt like I'd scratched myself and looked like a rash.
Second time was pain city. Shower hit a bump and screamola.
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.