Gov. Perry orders HPV shots for all Texas female schoolgirls

[Drbio]

AUSTIN (AP) -- Gov. Rick Perry ordered Friday that schoolgirls in Texas must be vaccinated against the sexually transmitted virus that causes cervical cancer, making Texas the first state to require the shots.
The girls will have to get Merck & Co.'s new vaccine against strains of the human papillomavirus, or HPV, that are responsible for most cases of cervical cancer.
Merck is bankrolling efforts to pass laws in state legislatures across the country mandating it Gardasil vaccine for girls as young as 11 or 12. It doubled its lobbying budget in Texas and has funneled money through Women in Government, an advocacy group made up of female state legislators around the country.
Details of the order were not immediately available, but the governor's office confirmed to The Associated Press that he was signing the order and he would comment Friday afternoon.
Perry has several ties to Merck and Women in Government. One of the drug company's three lobbyists in Texas is Mike Toomey, his former chief of staff. His current chief of staff's mother-in-law, Texas Republican state Rep. Dianne White Delisi, is a state director for Women in Government.
Toomey was expected to be able to woo conservative legislators concerned about the requirement stepping on parent's rights and about signaling tacit approval of sexual activity to young girls. Delisi, as head of the House public health committee, which likely would have considered legislation filed by a Democratic member, also would have helped ease conservative opposition.
Perry also received $6,000 from Merck's political action committee during his re-election campaign.
It wasn't immediately clear how long the order would last and whether the legislation was still necessary. However it could have been difficult to muster support from lawmakers who champion abstinence education and parents' rights.
Perry, a conservative Christian who opposes abortion rights and stem- cell research using embryonic cells, counts on the religious right for his political base.
But he has said the cervical cancer vaccine is no different than the one that protects children against polio.
"If there are diseases in our society that are going to cost us large amounts of money, it just makes good economic sense, not to mention the health and well being of these individuals to have those vaccines available," he said.
Texas allows parents to opt out of inoculations by filing an affidavit stating that he or she objected to the vaccine for religious or philosophical reasons.
Even with such provisions, however, conservative groups say mandates take away parents' rights to be the primary medical decision maker for their children.
The federal government approved Gardasil in June, and a government advisory panel has recommended that all girls get the shots at 11 and 12, before they are likely to be sexually active.
The New Jersey-based drug company could generate billions in sales if Gardasil _ at $360 for the three-shot regimen _ were made mandatory across the country. Most insurance companies now cover the vaccine, which has been shown to have no serious side effects.
Merck spokeswoman Janet Skidmore would not say how much the company is spending on lobbyists or how much it has donated to Women in Government. Susan Crosby, the group's president, also declined to specify how much the drug company gave. A top official from Merck's vaccine division sits on Women in Government's business council, and many of the bills around the country have been introduced by members of Women in Government.

[Drbio]

As you may expect I have a fairly strong opinion on this but I would like to hear yours. Especially from our female members.

What do you think?

[kg_veteran]

Ridiculous, an abuse of power, and a complete betrayal of those who put him in office.

Not surprising, though. I always knew Perry could be bought and sold.

[u2sarajevo]

Rick Perry continues to smear the Republican party with mud.

[Mavdog]

why are people against mandating the immunization? isn't prevention of a potential disease a no brainer?

[u2sarajevo]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

why are people against mandating the immunization? isn't prevention of a potential disease a no brainer?

Sure it's a no brainer.... unless abstinence can do the same thing?

This should be a parents decision, or the decision of the child when they become an adult. Not the decision of a Governor getting kickbacks from a pharmaceutical company.

[u2sarajevo]

But man.... his hair looks great!

[TheBlueVan]

im a little suprised, but not really shocked. ok, would y'all be against an AIDS vaccine if they had it?

or we can go the other way and take sex out of it. would you be against a breast cancer vaccine? nope...

like i said, surprising, yes. but there's not a whole lot of abstinence going on, and if you have a vaccine that can prevent a kind of cancer, i think its a good idea to use it. some girl could wait until marriage and marry a guy who carries it. i dont think it should have been government mandated, but its not a bad thing if it is. it helps the ppl who have sex, and doesnt hurt the ppl who dont.

edit:typo

[dude1394]

Quite frankly I don't see much difference between this and a polio vaccination, except that it's only contracted via sexual activity. It also appears that parents have the ability to opt out via written permission so I also do not see anyone's rights being trampled here.

What I would like to see before making a judgement is the number of people effected 50,75,100%? If 5% it seems blow out of porportion. Also something for $300/shot is ridiculous. Either they bring the cost down to something reasonable or you just wait until it is.

In the vast majority of cases a parent will never know beforehand that their child is sexually active, it is always after the fact. So I wouldn't see many people taking advantage of this unless mandated.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by u2sarajevo

Sure it's a no brainer.... unless abstinence can do the same thing?

This should be a parents decision, or the decision of the child when they become an adult. Not the decision of a Governor getting kickbacks from a pharmaceutical company.

abstinence doesn't prevent the spread of the virus, skin to skin without sex can also infect.

the immunization is recomended around puberty.

imho we should give it because it's a preventable disease. any disease we can remove the bettter.

no matter if the woman does or does not practice abstinence, this immunization is for her benefit.

as for perry, how is he getting paid for this? I've gotta say, this is not the rick perry who I knew....but then the rick perry I knew wouldn't have called chris bell after the election just to chat...

[dalmations202]

IMO, it is just like condoms. Condoms are very good to keep young ladies from getting pregnant, and from getting many diseases. It is not the government business to tell me that I need to give this to my child though. I will be opting out for my girls. If in about 10 years they don't find any massively harmful side effects, I might consider it for the younger ones, but NO WAY this is done to my children right now. I just don't trust MAN and their intentions.

[dude1394]

I think dal's take on it (with respect to safety) also aligns with myself. I would not want a "shot du jour" approach as I don't really trust scientific folks that much these days, they just continue to change their tune too much.

[u2sarajevo]

Originally Posted by dalmations202

IMO, it is just like condoms. Condoms are very good to keep young ladies from getting pregnant, and from getting many diseases. It is not the government business to tell me that I need to give this to my child though. I will be opting out for my girls. If in about 10 years they don't find any massively harmful side effects, I might consider it for the younger ones, but NO WAY this is done to my children right now. I just don't trust MAN and their intentions.

Me too.

And perhaps he isn't getting kickbacks from his "friends" at Merck but it sure smells like it and I don't trust him.

[Usually Lurkin]

how long has this vaccine really been around? The news said 6 mos. I find it hard to believe anyone would order anyone else to take a shot that's been around for only 6 mos.

If it works and it's safe, I'm not sure what to think. It seems sorta orwellian on one hand, but the "saving lives" thing is on the other. For those with strong (moral) objections, are you objecting along these lines:

1) Is it an acceptance that the little girls are going to be having sex with someone they don't know well enough?
2) Is it that it removes a natural consequence for having sex with someone you don't know well enough?
3) Is it an assumption that parents are going to fail at teaching their girls not to have sex with people they don't know well enough?
4) Is it another step into some kind of guilt free, sex with everybody all the time society?

[rmacomic]

I like it and hate it at the same time.

Anyone who feels like teen abstinence works should take a look at the numbers in my home state, Arkansas. 101.7 per 1000 teen girls get knocked up (per the CCSSO ARKANSAS PROFILE of HIV, STD, AND TEEN PREGNANCY study in 2002).
It is the worst per capita in the nation. The state policy is teaching abstinence, and nothing else. I don't think anyone can argue that it has been a failure. However the leaders of that state will never allow any other option to even cross their mind, much less their ballots.

I like that Texas is willing to admit that teaching abstinence only won't work. However I really don't like this approach. I don't have an alternative, so don't ask what I would do. But I know I just don't like this.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

how long has this vaccine really been around? The news said 6 mos. I find it hard to believe anyone would order anyone else to take a shot that's been around for only 6 mos.

If it works and it's safe, I'm not sure what to think. It seems sorta orwellian on one hand, but the "saving lives" thing is on the other. For those with strong (moral) objections, are you objecting along these lines:

1) Is it an acceptance that the little girls are going to be having sex with someone they don't know well enough?
2) Is it that it removes a natural consequence for having sex with someone you don't know well enough?
3) Is it an assumption that parents are going to fail at teaching their girls not to have sex with people they don't know well enough?
4) Is it another step into some kind of guilt free, sex with everybody all the time society?

5) Is just acceptance that there is more knowledge about diseases that could prevent something versus what was known in the past?

[dude1394]

Not to mention we just celebrated another out of wedlock birth on the mavs. I'm all for abstinence but not to the point of stupidity.

We taught our daughter abstinence but when we found out she was sexually active we marched her ass down to the clinic and gave here a long-term birth control shot and exam. She was too stupid and irresponsible to trust on that front.

[u2sarajevo]

So it IS the governments job to look after my children... Because I'm not smart enough or too ignorant?

Huh.....

[TheBlueVan]

no, its not, but when does a health hazard cross into the domain of public health and welfare?

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by u2sarajevo

So it IS the governments job to look after my children... Because I'm not smart enough or too ignorant?

Huh.....

the parent is the one looking after their child, after all who's going to take them to get the shots?

the connotation of the virus to sex is indisputable. it is primarily a std.

that will in itself limit the number of women given the virus. some well meaning parents may think that by giving the virus, they send a positive message. that unfortunately doesn't always work. some parents and young women may misunderstand what the immunization does.

do you feel requiring measles immunization is wrong? polio? this should be no different.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

do you feel requiring measles immunization is wrong? polio? this should be no different.

this is different because transmission is so closely tied to a behavior that you can avoid.

[Drbio]

Rick Perry is a joke. I really identified with dalm's pst but kg's and u2's first psots are spot on as well.

[dalmations202]

My other big question is "Why is it mandated?"

I mean, if you made it optional I think more people wouldn't be so skeptical of it. Why make it mandatory and force people to opt out? Why not just add it to the list of them that can be given.

The answer is $$$$. 6 months -- what are the 10 year effects of this drug? Mandated without enough testing, IMO.

[Mavdog]

the question that I want answered is why. why does rick perry of all people mandate this immunization. why is perry's ex-chief of staff a lobbyist for the manufacturer of the vacine.

why is there only one providor of the vacine, it seems there is no competition. if there is one drug manufacturer who is solely benefiting from this move, it needs to be looked at closely.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

the question that I want answered is why. why does rick perry of all people mandate this immunization. why is perry's ex-chief of staff a lobbyist for the manufacturer of the vacine.

why is there only one providor of the vacine, it seems there is no competition. if there is one drug manufacturer who is solely benefiting from this move, it needs to be looked at closely.

Because he has no power as governor.

[Mavdog]

touche.

it seems he ordered HHS commissioner to administer. there's a HHS commission, wonder if they need to give consent?

[jacktruth]

Originally Posted by rmacomic

I like it and hate it at the same time.

Anyone who feels like teen abstinence works should take a look at the numbers in my home state, Arkansas. 101.7 per 1000 teen girls get knocked up (per the CCSSO ARKANSAS PROFILE of HIV, STD, AND TEEN PREGNANCY study in 2002).
It is the worst per capita in the nation. The state policy is teaching abstinence, and nothing else. I don't think anyone can argue that it has been a failure. However the leaders of that state will never allow any other option to even cross their mind, much less their ballots.

I like that Texas is willing to admit that teaching abstinence only won't work. However I really don't like this approach. I don't have an alternative, so don't ask what I would do. But I know I just don't like this.

So what are the numbers in the other states? What teaching do they use? lone statistics are meaningless.

[Caliente]

As a female member on this site I am putting in my two cents worth in....

Why do we need a mandate for this sort of thing? What is the real reason behind this rush to have every girl vaccinated with it? Hmmmmmmm.........

[rmacomic]

Originally Posted by jacktruth

So what are the numbers in the other states? What teaching do they use? lone statistics are meaningless.

That's just it. I can't find another state as back wards, that has such a staunch stance on this issue. It has failed for Arkansas, but every other state I've looked at, has other options to what they teach kids. I like that Texas has a more realistic view, but still don't like mandatory vaccine policy. My argument was that an abstinance only view doesn't seem to work in todays world.

[jacktruth]

Originally Posted by rmacomic

That's just it. I can't find another state as back wards, that has such a staunch stance on this issue. It has failed for Arkansas, but every other state I've looked at, has other options to what they teach kids. I like that Texas has a more realistic view, but still don't like mandatory vaccine policy. My argument was that an abstinance only view doesn't seem to work in todays world.

But what are the results from other states?

The point I'm trying to make is that in order to determine the success of different programs, you have to have more info like:

A state's education methods---resulting teen pregnancy rate for that state

I'm not saying you're wrong about the stats, I'm just saying statistics on one state does not make a successful comparison with other states or other teaching methods.

[rmacomic]

Originally Posted by jacktruth

But what are the results from other states?

The point I'm trying to make is that in order to determine the success of different programs, you have to have more info like:

A state's education methods---resulting teen pregnancy rate for that state

I'm not saying you're wrong about the stats, I'm just saying statistics on one state does not make a successful comparison with other states or other teaching methods.

True enough, but I was only stating how it had failed in Arkansas. It seems to me that Texas has a better approach, but I may be wrong. You guys might be just as dumb and I just don't know better.
Also
I like what this guy has to say about it. http://www.swimmingkangaroo.com/blog...ence-only.html

Edit: Also I'll admit basing my argument on my home state only might be a little biased.

[jacktruth]

I think this is an area where the Christian right of this country (myself included) don't have a firm grasp on thier role. There are a lot of parents in this country that don't believe abstinance is highly important. If we demand abstinance only, we are holding a person that does not have the Spirt of God living in them to accomplish something that even people with the Spirt of God living in them have a difficult time doing.

I don't think that the government should strictly teach abstinance, but I think they should clearly teach it as the ideal method.

I have two daughters. My plan and prayer is that they are not sexually active until they are married. But if they decide to ignore me, as I did my parents, and become sexually active, I do hope that they are prepared to do it safely and in full awareness of the risks. It is completely and totally up to me and my parenting to let them know that whether they use protection or not, premarital sex is not God's ideal for them and it is up to me to teach them to value God's ideal for them above all else. Even if those who don't know God decide not to have sex, they still don't know God, which is a much larger issue.

I had sex outside of my marriage at least once this weekend (and so did most of you!!)because Jesus says that if I look on a woman lustfully, I have committed adultery. I try and I do my best, but as scantilly clad as women are these days, it is impossible to stay clean and clear in my conscience. I know this was even harder when I was a teenager.

Praise Jesus for freeing me from death because of my sin! And praise Jesus for sending his Spirit to help me get back on the right path daily and reduce my infractions to glances and thoughts.

Jesus can and will give anyone the Spirit to strengthen them and deliver them to marriage safely. And yes, it does work and it happens a lot. The government never can give this same power.

[rmacomic]

It's great if that works for you. It doesn't work for everyone. The problem I see is that many teens having sex don't have or don't care about that spiritual base. I myself had a horrible relationship with god as a teen, despite my parents being devout Christians, I converted to Judaism in college, and would admit I'm not a very good Jew either.

[big_pth]

For all of you preaching abstinence, how many of you practiced it? How about no pre-marital sex?
If your reasoning is that you don't trust Rick Perry (which is very logical to me) or that you don't trust the drug companies (again, very logical), then that is fine. If your reasoning is that you don't even want your daughters to KNOW what sex is, then you are in for trouble later. Teenagers are stupid. They are going to do stupid things and probably let themselves get talked into stupid things. I have two little girls, and I am glad I don't have to worry about this just yet, but I know I will and that there is no way in today's society to keep them from learning about sex sooner than I want (ideally thirty). This is a public health issue that could save lives, if the vaccine is all it is cracked up to be and is safe. I would like to have it looked at for a few more years personally...

[Five-ofan]

this is just another of the reasons that rick perry should be taken from office and tarred and feathered.... I will never understand how this state could be stupid enough to continue to elect that man though my hatred of him has very little to do with this issue.

[Ninkobei]

this just in, perry rescinds his order on the vaccines. I guess his press secretary got to him in time before he made a huge political mistake...

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory?id=2851559

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Ninkobei

this just in, perry rescinds his order on the vaccines. I guess his press secretary got to him in time before he made a huge political mistake...

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory?id=2851559

That link doesn't say that Perry rescinded the order.

[Ninkobei]

wow, my mistake. sorry about that..