kevbone Posted February 5, 2007 Share Posted February 5, 2007 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. This is crap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbone Posted February 5, 2007 Author Share Posted February 5, 2007 Is this legal.....apparently the Gov. Rick Perry just made it legal. What about the children who have made a personal choice not to engage in sex until marriage. There is no exposure to these children and yet are forced to take drugs. This is not right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucK Posted February 5, 2007 Share Posted February 5, 2007 Hey, I see you are posing a serious question about something which sounds important to you. I have a question back at you. Why would anyone want to discuss a serious issue of your choosing on this board when you have consistently crapped all over other people's serious topics with your dimwitted banter even when they asked you to stop? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RemoWilliams Posted February 5, 2007 Share Posted February 5, 2007 It's not about sex Gary, it's about trust. So what if a kid waits until marriage for sex. They're still going to be exposed to HPV then . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbone Posted February 5, 2007 Author Share Posted February 5, 2007 Hey, I see you are posing a serious question about something which sounds important to you. I have a question back at you. Why would anyone want to discuss a serious issue of your choosing on this board when you have consistently crapped all over other people's serious topics with your dimwitted banter even when they asked you to stop? You are open to crap on me if you like. I try not to expect much here. "You reap what you have sow"....and I have sowed much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbone Posted February 5, 2007 Author Share Posted February 5, 2007 So what if a kid waits until marriage for sex. They're still going to be exposed to HPV then . . . Right....but shouldnt it be a choice....like all vaccines? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Posted February 5, 2007 Share Posted February 5, 2007 Vaccinations are a requirement for attending public school unless you can show some religious reason not to be included. Seems that it's a simple public health issue. That's why our kids are no less or no more sexually active than other countries but we manage to top the charts in teen pregnancy and STDs - it's all that religious hand waving over teaching sex ed in schools. Dog forbid that we actually give them accurate information. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob Posted February 5, 2007 Share Posted February 5, 2007 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. So, what's the problem? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbone Posted February 5, 2007 Author Share Posted February 5, 2007 (edited) 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. So, what's the problem? "schoolgirls in Texas must be vaccinated against the sexually transmitted virus that causes cervical cancer, making Texas the first state to require the shots" I would need to look into it, but I believe the "religious" dont get a free pass on this one. Why else would it have made the front page of the Oregonian? Edited February 5, 2007 by kevbone Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Posted February 5, 2007 Share Posted February 5, 2007 "schoolgirls in Texas must be vaccinated against the sexually transmitted virus that causes cervical cancer, making Texas the first state to require the shots" I would need to look into it, but I believe the "religious" dont get a free pass on this one. Why else would it have made the front page of the Oregonian? Likely because it is a bold public health move in the current atmosphere of religious scare-mongering. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E-rock Posted February 5, 2007 Share Posted February 5, 2007 (edited) 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. So, what's the problem? "schoolgirls in Texas must be vaccinated against the sexually transmitted virus that causes cervical cancer, making Texas the first state to require the shots" I would need to look into it, but I believe the "religious" dont get a free pass on this one. Why else would it have made the front page of the Oregonian? Read the quote above your last post, cherry-picked from your article, and then rethink your statements, fuckup retard. Edited February 5, 2007 by E-rock Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigIslandCurls Posted February 5, 2007 Share Posted February 5, 2007 Similarly, most colleges and graduate schools require students to have various immunizations before enrolling. I've always avoided these procedures by filing personal reasons in an affidavit; and in fact you can find numerous templates for such affidavits around the web. For this coming year in graduate school it appears that I have to call upon religious grounds this time. It sucks to write a letter pretending you're a cross wielding, neo-conservative christian when you're not Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stonehead Posted February 5, 2007 Share Posted February 5, 2007 Question. So if high cholesterol was deemed to be a public health threat in that development and continuation without treatment of this condition could lead to high health costs to society in much the same way as mentioned above then is it justified to begin cholesterol screening early in a person's life and to treat that condition as soon as possible? In other words, should screening begin in high school? I understand this is not the same issue as vaccination but the motivation and justification are similar. Also, I read some time ago about a push by the Bush Administration to require mental health evaluations of all people. Sounds too draconian so maybe it's disinformation... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbone Posted February 5, 2007 Author Share Posted February 5, 2007 Am I the only one thinks this is f….ed up? This huge Vaccine Company is making it required by law to vaccinate. Not to “protect our girls from Cancer” but to MAKE MILLIONS. This is wrong. But it is the future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stonehead Posted February 5, 2007 Share Posted February 5, 2007 Would it be wrong if it were a more looming threat such as Bird Flu? Or are you going to forego your vaccination and take your chances? Also. If you can't beat'em, then join'em. Invest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_Puget Posted February 5, 2007 Share Posted February 5, 2007 Vaccinations like fluoridation are just another excuse for the man to pump a few more $$$ out of. Fight the power anyway you can. Don't vaccinate your children! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevenSeagal Posted February 5, 2007 Share Posted February 5, 2007 Is this legal? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olyclimber Posted February 5, 2007 Share Posted February 5, 2007 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbone Posted February 5, 2007 Author Share Posted February 5, 2007 Or are you going to forego your vaccination and take your chances? This particular vaccine is for a very specific STD which can lead to Cervical Cancer. You can only get it from sex. So if you choose not to have sex....then you are not at risk, the exposure is not there. You should not be force to place this Vaccine/drug into your body. Its all about money. Don’t you all get it? The Vaccine Company has a guarantee on one PAID vaccine pure child. Guaranteed on the law in Texas. That is a pretty good motive for making it law in Texas….wouldn’t you think? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-spotter Posted February 5, 2007 Share Posted February 5, 2007 Would you think it was OK if a non-profit cooperative had developed the vaccine? Is it the Giant For-Profit Coproration you are worried about, or the possibility that fewer women could die of a sexually-transmitted cancer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbone Posted February 5, 2007 Author Share Posted February 5, 2007 (edited) I dont care who "made" the vaccine.... it should be choice, not law. Edited February 5, 2007 by kevbone Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foraker Posted February 5, 2007 Share Posted February 5, 2007 It's funny how people get all worked up about sexually transmitted anything in this country but don't bat and eyelash over billions of dollars going to agribusiness or the military industrial complex or developers. Unlike the aforementioned, however, Texas appears to let you opt out. Learn to read. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbone Posted February 5, 2007 Author Share Posted February 5, 2007 Learn to read. "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". This is not the point. In my opinion. Its all about the vaccine company making it law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-spotter Posted February 5, 2007 Share Posted February 5, 2007 Parents only have the right to be the primary medical decision maker for their children insofar as the decisions they make are beneficial to their children's health. Funny that the same parents that would call an unborn fetus a baby and demand it brought to term want to have their kids die of cancer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbone Posted February 5, 2007 Author Share Posted February 5, 2007 Funny that the same parents that would call an unborn fetus a baby and demand it brought to term want to have their kids die of cancer. G-spotter, that is some huge speculation you got going on. Are you saying that by not having this mandatory vaccine…..you are inherently sentencing you child to die of cancer? That is how I read you last driveling post. Am I wrong? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.