Well said. Perry had every reason to believe it would be welcomed.
Gov. Haley's experience underscores the outrage is driven by the vaccine being against a sexually transmittable virus. If this had been a vaccine against breast cancer, it would've been received much differently.
I've offered the backstory before but it's worth repeating for those who may not have seen it:
In 2005, recognizing 1,100 new cervical cancer diagnosis in Texas yearly, with one-third ending in death, the legislature passed HB 2475 which says, "This bill requires the Department of State Health Services to develop a strategic plan to eliminate mortality from cervical cancer by the year 2015…" "The strategic plan must be developed and delivered to the governor and legislature no later than December 31, 2006."
A 47 page report (Acrobat PDF) called "Texas Cervical Cancer Strategic Plan," December 2006, by Texas Department of State Health Services in collaboration with The Texas Cancer Council was delivered.
Page 8, "Executive summary" Armed with this new HPV vaccine, we can achieve the moment when we know our goal — eliminating cervical cancer death and suffering — is in reach.
Page 20, "Access to Care" - "Women must have access to cervical cancer screening to eliminate cervical cancer in Texas. The National Cancer Institute reports that groups of women with high cervical cancer mortality:...
… "Widespread vaccination is a key to reducing cervical cancer incidence in Texas"
In 2007, when he signed the order, there was just a single approved HPV vaccine: Merck's Gardasil.
It wasn't until 2009 that GlaxoSmithKline's vaccine was FDA approved.
“Perry had every reason to believe it would be welcomed”
How dare you say that? Never mind it’s the truth. You just can’t say that here. LOL
Thanks. He didn’t, and Nikki didn’t, anticipate the overwhelmingly negative reaction. How do I know that? Easy. If either one of them had anticipated the overwhelmingly negative reaction - which would embarrass them no end and force them to back down - neither one would have ever supported it in the first place. It brought them nothing but grief, and especially so for RP. Nobody, nobody, would knowingly bring that down upon their own heads. LOL Not for Merck, not for 5 thou or 500 thou. Not for ANYTHING.
And when they heard the roar of the people, they stopped. It’s clear what mattered to them. So.very.clear.
Thanks for having the guts.
Makes my day.
This bill requires the Department of State Health Services to develop a strategic plan to eliminate mortality from cervical cancer by the year 2015. The department is required to work with the Texas Cancer Council and is authorized to convene workgroups that may include physicians, nurses, cancer epidemiologists, representatives of medical schools, health educators, representatives from areas or groups at higher risk, representatives from community-based organizations, or anyone else deemed necessary. When developing the plan, the department is required to identify barriers to screening and treatment, identify methods to increase screenings, review current technologies, develop partnerships, identify gaps in service, identify actions to reduce morbidity and mortality, and make recommendations to the legislature on policy and funding changes. The strategic plan must be developed and delivered to the governor and legislature no later than December 31, 2006. This section expires January 1, 2007.
Heh. This whole effort was started, it appears, by the organization "Women in Government," which was organized by Merck as part of its government lobbying efforts. HB 2475 was passed as a result of Women in Government efforts. See page 8 of the report, "Women in Government urged state legislatures ... The Texas Legislature responded to this challenge in 2005." Meaning, I think, that HB 2475 was instigated by Women in Government.
Anyway, I'm reading through the resulting report, seeking policy recommendations that are directed toward HPV vaccination.
@ page 17I find "Perry had every reason to believe an executive order mandating HPV vaccination as a condition of public school attendance would be welcomed." to be totally disconnected from that background. I would also find a total disconnect between the recommendations in that report, and the Texas legislature mandating HPV vaccination.
Goal I: Information & Communication.
Objective C, Increase the number of Texans participating in informed and shared medical decision-making about cervical cancer prevention, screening, diagnosis, treatment and survivorship.Strategy 5: Promote and encourage communication between health care professionals and patients to increase patientsa knowledge and facilitate their decision-making about HPV testing, diagnosis and prevention, including vaccination.
@ page 21
Goal II: Access to and Use of Services.
I. Recommendations to Improve Access and Use of ServicesAs long as all women do not have access to necessary preventive health services, including low cost screening, cervical cancer will remain as a health threat in Texas. Recommendations to eliminate cervical cancer must prioritize access to care and improve the quality of cervical cancer services in public health settings. Access to the Pap test is not enough. Women must also be able to access the latest discoveries and technologies in cervical cancer. Recent advancements in cervical cancer care technology include the liquid-based cytology for Pap test; Pap test combined with HPV test; and the availability of HPV vaccines.
@ page 22
Recommendations for Funding:Provide sufficient state funding to comply with federal Food and Drug Administration and Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommendations for HPV vaccination for age appropriate Texas females in public health programs.
@ page 25
Objective E: Increase the number of Texas residents with access to cervical cancer prevention, screening, diagnosis, treatment, and survivorship services delivered in a culturally appropriate manner throughout the continuum of careStrategy 5: Promote and implement policies and programs that reduce health care disparities, including increased access to preventive vaccines and other health services for the medically underserved.
@ page 36
GOAL IV: Professional Education & Practice
I. Recommendations for Using DataPromote the use of the DSHS ImmTrac registry to monitor the use of the HPV vaccine in Texas.
Recommendations for Use of HPV VaccineRecommendations for Routine Use and Catch-Up
Routine Vaccination of Females Aged 11--12 Years
ACIP recommends routine vaccination of females aged 11--12 years with 3 doses of quadrivalent HPV vaccine. The vaccination series can be started as young as age 9 years.
Catch-Up Vaccination of Females Aged 13--26 Years
Vaccination also is recommended for females aged 13--26 years who have not been previously vaccinated or who have not completed the full series. Ideally, vaccine should be administered before potential exposure to HPV through sexual contact; however, females who might have already been exposed to HPV should be vaccinated. Sexually active females who have not been infected with any of the HPV vaccine types would receive full benefit from vaccination. Vaccination would provide less benefit to females if they have already been infected with one or more of the four vaccine HPV types. However, it is not possible for a clinician to assess the extent to which sexually active persons would benefit from vaccination, and the risk for HPV infection might continue as long as persons are sexually active. Pap testing and screening for HPV DNA or HPV antibody are not needed before vaccination at any age.
There is some connection between "routine" and "mandatory," even though they aren't exactly the same thing.
I'm not familiar with the terms of art used by ACIP, so don't know if there are some vaccines where the recommendation is "mandatory vaccination." I think I'll research that.