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."
He was just re-elected. Are you telling me he has been that bad since November?
What did he do, lie to get elected?
Actually, I believe that they would (and would be joined by some of their puritan soulmates on the left).
It's a simple opt-out, the schools cannot override it, and the idea that the school nurse is going to administer a shot secretly, against the wishes of the parent is absurd, and if true could happen with or without official policy.
He got 38% of the vote in a field of many.
Then, sir, please tell me how the point is irrelevant since boys were included in the study Merck conducted?
I'm guessing avoiding HPV itself would be considered a benefit to most women, whether or not they would have ended up with Cervical Cancer from it.
$6000 may be a lot of money to you, but it's NOTHING to a candidate for Governor.
If you think a politician can be bought for $6000, you shouldn't vote for them.
Thanks for your post, although I wasn't the one who came up with that question.
I don't agree with the arguement that the vaccine promotes earlier sex. What that arguement is really about is the parents' ability to oversee their kids' sexual issues rather than the state doing so.
Zachary is talking about a specific test for a specific desease. If I know(or think) I am protected from yellow fever I will certainly not go in and be checked for it, and a yearly checkup doesn't require a test for yellow fever, your anology is off a bit. A regular checkup for women won't necessarily include a pap smear. How many women do you know that actually have a "yearly" check up? I know of none, but I do know many who have a pap smear regularly.
Zachary is correct, this will stop some women from having a test that is both painful and embarassing for many. If they think they are protected many will forgo pap smears and you are the ludicrous one for thinking otherwise.
There are risks to all vaccinations. You do realize that.
We have a friend whose daughter died after a DPT shot.
Cervical cancer is fairly rare can be detected early and treated with routine pap smears, and there are no risks involved in doing routine pap smears. It seems like the best way to prevent/treat cervical cancer is through pap smears.
The risks for this vaccine are too high.
This thread isn't so long for it to have escaped your notice that this vaccine only covers 4 of 230 HPV viruses, of which 20 are thought to cause cancer.
No, it MAY be effective on 70% of cervical cancers caused by HPV, but even that number is misleading. Someone was telling me that it was effective 80% of the time. so 20% of that 70% will not be prevented at all, and women who get the shot will get cervical cancer anyways, in fact more likely because they will think they are immune and forgo regular pap testing. Just because you brush your teeth, do you stop going to the dentist? No. You brush your teeth as a preventitive step, but you can still get cavities. This vaccine does not prevent HPV. It does not warrant manditory vaccination at considerable cost. The only one it benefits is the drug maker, and shareholders, who get rich, and pass all liability off on the government.
Plus there are no side effects from a pap smear (or a mammogram).
"# HPV is a sexually transmitted disease."
While it is sexually transmissible, not all cases of anogenital warts are from sexual contact. Anogenital warts have appeared spontaneously in children who are not sexually active and who show no evidence of sexual abuse. Some cases are perinatal and others, where sexual abuse and contact have been certainly ruled out, are just "unknown".
No, but I bet those 4 aren't any nicer to have than the ones that it doesn't help with.
The same vaccine was used on males and females during the study.
Males don't get cervical cancer. What would you like the results to be?
It has been found to be 100% effective against cancers caused by HPV 16/18, which constitute 70% of cervical cancer cases. So no matter what someone was telling you, that someone doesn't know what's up. It is 99% effective against the two strains of genital warts it is intended to prevent.
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.