Now, this is at best, an ignorant misrepresentation of the facts, if not a bold faced lie. There is nothing 'bogus' about the opt out of the Gardisil vaccine, or any other of the vaccines required to attend a Texas public school.
Most if not all states have some sort of statutory vaccination requirement for public schools and most that I know of offer some sort of opt out on philosophical or religious grounds. To position this as some sort of huge statist power grab over existing law in the same vein as ObamaCare is dishonest. She also fails to mention that the executive order that Perry signed actually helped parents access the opt out option much easier by putting the information and submission form online, which streamlined the process for opting your daughter out of it. Perry was actually attacked by the pro-compulsory vaccination lobby for making this option easier.
As I stated earlier, this isn't me piling on or attacking Michelle Malkin unfairly, as she has a known history of making these kinds of false comparisons, specifically her book In Defense of Internement where she not only defended the internment of innocent Japanese-Americans, but used that defense to justify something totally and wholly different, that being racial profiling when fighting terrorism. It did not surprise me at all that someone with such a warped sense of justice made indefensible arguments in the cases of both Perry's Gardisil issue and the internment issue.
Any other questions?
Now, this is at best, an ignorant misrepresentation of the facts, if not a bold faced lie. There is nothing 'bogus' about the opt out of the Gardisil vaccine, or any other of the vaccines required to attend a Texas public school.
You are misinterpreting Malkin. She is not saying, as you claim, that the ability to "opt out" is itself bogus. That would be, after all, a stupid thing for her to say since the fact of the opt-out is quite clear. You noticeably left out the following sentence in your quote in which Malkin explains why opt out provision is "bogus":
Perry defenders pointed to a bogus “opt-out” provision in his mandate “to protect the right of parents to be the final authority on their children’s health care.” But requiring parents to seek the government’s permission to keep an untested drug out of their kids’ veins is a plain usurpation of their authority.Perry says the opt out provision is to protect the parents authority. That claim of protecting parental authority is what Malkin is saying is bogus. Requiring parents to get permission to stop the government from injecting their kids with an untested drug doesn't "protect" parental authority but rather undermines it, Malkin believes. As before, this is a reasonable and good faith assessment of facts by Malkin. You may not agree or like her assessment, but it is most definitely not a lie, nor is it a gross misrepresentation of facts.
Most if not all states have some sort of statutory vaccination requirement for public schools and most that I know of offer some sort of opt out on philosophical or religious grounds.
This isn't polio or chicken pox. This isn't a government response to an epidemic or some imminent catastrophic health threat to the population at large. We're talking about a vaccination for a sexually transmitted virus. Comparing the two situations is quite a stretch.
We are left here then with no specific compelling evidence that Malkin lied or acted in bad faith in this article.