More Rights Violations — HPV Vaccine Mandated in Texas
As per the Washington Post, an executive Order was signed by Governor Rick Perry in Texas last week that mandates all girls entering the 6th grade be vaccinated for HPV. For any of those who may not know, HPV is the human papillomavirus which studies have shown may cause cervical cancer. What is shocking about this is that by employing an executive order, Gov. Perry sidestepped opposition in the Legislature, and, in effect, stifled any public debate about this issue. This is the same governor who instituted a fast-track process for TXU Energy to obtain permits for 11 new coal-fired power plants in Texas. To me, this is just another example of corporate influence peddling at the expense of the public’s rights. And Rick Perry is the poster child for it (along with the former Texas governor, George W. Bush, of course).
This mandated order serves up some major problems for me. The first of which is that it tramples all over parents’ rights. This vaccine is available for anyone who wants their child to have it. If a parent is concerned, then they should be the one to make this very personal decision, not a Texas governor. Some parents object that it could possibly encourage premarital sex and interfere with the way Texans raise their children.
Dawn Richardson, president of Parents Requesting Open Vaccine Education, a citizens group who has challenged other mandated vaccines, states,
“He’s (Perry) circumventing the will of the people….there’s no emergency except in the boardrooms of Merck, where this is failing to gain the support they had expected.”
This leads into the second reason I am upset about this order. The federal government only approved this vaccine called Guardasil in June of last year. There has not been enough testing as far as I’m concerned in regards to this new drug. And the FDA has been known to approve drugs without proper trials as per the Union of Concerned Scientists who has recently testified before Congress regarding the political interference on the part of the Bush administration. Until this vaccine has been tried in the court of public opinion, I will not support a mandate from the governor.
The final reason I am strenuously against this order is that there is evidence of influence peddling on the part of Merck, the only drug company who makes this vaccine. Merck is bankrolling efforts to pass state laws across the country mandating Gardasil 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.
Funny thing about this is that Perry’s former chief of staff, Mike Toomey, is a lobbyist for Merck (surprise, surprise). And Toomey’s mother-in-law is Texas Republican state Rep. Dianne White Delisi, a state director for Women in Government. Hmmmm….sounds like big business and government is in bed together again.
A 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. But 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.
So, here we go again with Rick Perry and his big business cronies. If it’s not TXU Energy and what they want to do to destroy our Texas air, it’s Merck and what they want to do to bypass our parental rights. And all of this is being done to amass huge fortunes for big business on the backs of the right’s of the public — just more of the same on the state level as is happening on the federal level. These are our elected officials who are ignoring the public will, and we must make them stop.
But there is hope. It was reported in the Dallas Morning News that State Sen. Jane Nelson, chairwoman of the Senate’s health and human services committee, said lawmakers should have been allowed to hear from doctors, scientists and patients before the state implemented such a sweeping mandate. She has asked Rick Perry to rescind the order. I agree with Sen. Nelson, that we should not be railroaded into succumbing to this blatant political “cronyism”. Our congress needs to push back on elected officials pandering to big business. These are just some of the reasons why I am obviously against these types of “Big Brother knowing best” mandates. How do you feel?
17 Comments so far
Leave a reply
New Scientist
The Onion
Media Matters
Newsvine
Associated Press
Awesome as always. I support vaccines that prevent cancer. But I’m with you that it should go through more testing and that all laws should be created in the legal manner, which seems like it goes without saying but any more…
Basically the only thing I disagree with is that its the parents choice. I know I don’t like government intervention into peoples private lives but I also feel that there are times when you need to look out for the common good. Plus I support Universal Health Care, and its much more cost effective to prevent cancer for $360 than to treat cancer. There are plenty of vaccines that we do not give parents the right to say no to, at least not if they want to be engaged in public schools.
So I’m with you that big Pharma has way way to much sway in government and that this needs much more testing before being a required vaccine. But required vaccines have been the only way we have eradicated diseases in the past. So when the research has been done and the laws have been passed with full disclosure then I will fully support this plan, until then I don’t like it.
I would be with you about having the government look out for us, but I just do not trust them or the big pharmas, as you call them. I just don’t truly know what is in that vaccine. And, there is not anyone you can go to that is a reliable resource for it either.
Take for instance the military. There have been stories of soldiers getting weird vaccines and having really bad reactions to them. Or, how about mercury being in most of the vaccines a couple of years ago, and how people are now linking this to the sudden rise in autism? There is just to much information about vaccines and developmental problems or debilitating side effects.
Now, I know some may be conspiracy theories, but when there is smoke there is usually fire. Until I feel I can trust the government, I will never take anything they force me to, and sure as hell wouldn’t make my daughter (if I had one) take it either.
There is just too much at stake when we are discussing big pharma. We are talking about billions of dollars here. That kind of money distorts reality and overrides the passion for honesty and compassion.
Nice Article Pat, it laid out the situation pretty well.
In response to Kilgore Trout:
The thing is parents have a legal and moral obligation to make all reasonable decisions regarding the lives of their children’s lives so long as it doesn’t harm there children or others. You talk about a common good but there is two problems with that argument:
1. The common good has to be balanced against the individual rights. In other words there has to be a significant public good served in order to curtail individual rights.
2. There is no reasonable possibility of spreading the infection at school. Unless of course the kids are having sex in class. Unlike for example tb, or measles, the child isnt gonna come into class and spread hpv to all his or her classmates.
Regarding the costs, versus the cost of cancer treatments. There is no need for cancer treatments even if the child contracts the particular form of hpv that leads to cervical cancer. All that is needed is regular pap-smears which woman should get anyways.
If Rick Perry cared about the girls of texas he would be pushing for mandatory pap smears rather than dangerous and unnecessary vaccines.
hmm…. Devils Advocate.
2. There is no reasonable possibility of spreading the infection at school. Unless of course the kids are having sex in class. Unlike for example tb, or measles, the child isnt gonna come into class and spread hpv to all his or her classmates.
But the people that child is most likely to have sex wi.. (I’m in trouble when thats my opening line) Children are having sex by the high school age, and younger than that is not uncommon. There is no point is teaching prevention after the child has already contracted diseases. So while better education is a safer alternative it has not been effective enough and I have no reason to think thats going to change. And back to my original point children are having sex, and they are (often but not always) having sex with other people they know from school.
And personal experience is always a bad way to prove a point so I’m just throwing this out as a funny story, When I was in highschool two students were caught by the faculty having sex in the bathroom, so it is like TB. Although unlike TB people want to have sex.
1. The common good has to be balanced against the individual rights. In other words there has to be a significant public good served in order to curtail individual rights.
And this is the most difficult part of a democracy. I think that saving a few thousand lives a year is worth the inconvenience of every kid having to get one more vaccine, as long as that vaccine is safe. On that part I am in total agreement, I do not trust a drug that has only just hit the market. Time has proved that our testing program is not sufficient and that recently released drugs should be thought experimental by the user. As for the Mercury thing, I have heard that as well and I don’t know enough about it to have an opinion either way, it does seem insane that they would knowingly have mercury in something that is designed to go into a human body.
There is no exact definition there is no specific line that can be drawn in the sand as far as what is beneficial enough to the common good to warrant intrusion into our lives.
Regarding the costs, versus the cost of cancer treatments. There is no need for cancer treatments even if the child contracts the particular form of hpv that leads to cervical cancer. All that is needed is regular pap-smears which woman should get anyways.
A pap-smear will not prevent the disease it would only mean that the cancer could be treated in its early stages which is still a far more dangerous option than a vaccine. Which leads me to the final question. I had basically agreed with the post because they were against the mandate because of the manner the law was created and because there was not sufficient testing of the vaccine. Which is a very different thing than to say I don’t want the vaccine because its dangerous. There is no evidence that this vaccine is not perfectly safe, its just that we would like a bit more reassurance that it is safe. And if the vaccine is going to be mandated then it should do so following the ideas of a democracy, the people should have a voice or at least let more than one person weigh in on the subject.
Okay, I’m going to weigh in here. By the way, thanks Ryan for your appreciation for the article and your comment. And, Kilgore — as usual you offer an interesting perspective, thanks.
My objection to this vaccine is that being that this HPV virus only affects females and leaves the male basically with no ill effects. Then if you choose not to have your daughter vaccinated, the only risk is to the daughter. This is because if she chooses to have unprotected sex and infects a male, it does no harm. And all those other females who may have sex with this infected male, if they got the vaccine, would not be infected. It’s that simple. There’s no “common good” — it’s just the daughter at risk.
So, if you believe the vaccine is safe and want your daughter protected, then by all means, get her vaccinated. What we need to do is offer the vaccine at vastly reduced prices to people who can’t afford it. But don’t force all the rest of us to submit our children to a mandated vaccine. It’s just another usurpation of human rights.
are seatbelt laws a usurpation of rights?
I ll try to respond to all of that :-). First of all yes mandatory seatbelt laws are a small infringement on individual rights. However this is a very small infringement compared to the fairly significant public good it promotes.
Also this law applies to children and is only applicable for enforcement if an officer see’s another traffic violation first.
“But the people that child is most likely to have sex wi.. (I’m in trouble when thats my opening line) Children are having sex by the high school age, and younger than that is not uncommon. There is no point is teaching prevention after the child has already contracted diseases. So while better education is a safer alternative it has not been effective enough and I have no reason to think thats going to change. And back to my original point children are having sex, and they are (often but not always) having sex with other people they know from school. ”
If this occurs it is up to the parents of the two children to prevent it. Although it does happens it is out of the the normal course of school activity and thererfore any student minding his or her own business will not be exposed to the disease.
Also a pap smear can detect pre cancerous abnormalities before they turn into cancer. They can be easily removed and as long as you get regular checkups there is virtually no danger of getting an untreatable form of cervical cancer.
If parents want their daughters to have this vaccine than that is their choice, but it shouldnt be promoted by the state, and it certainly shouldnt be a mandate.
FYI this is a link to Rick Perry’s actually executive order
http://www.governor.state.tx.us/divisions/press/exorders/rp65
Highlights:
Mandates vaccine for all girls prior to admission to sixth grade.
Parents may REQUEST a concientous objection form, although it doesn’t say it will be granted.
Department of State Health shall make the vaccine available to woman up to age 18.
Im still undecided I just know that playing the devils advocate is the best way to get the full argument out of someone. I’m glad to hear that your at least consistent about rights infringements.
What I don’t understand is why someone would NOT want their child to be protected? I’ve heard the argument that if we reduce the diseases then young people will see sex as having fewer consequences and therefore they will be more likely to engage in sexual behaviors. I feel this is a ridiculous claim if for no other reason than when listing scary diseases HPV is very low on the list. But I usually only hear this argument from the fundamentalist crowd which I don’t think applies to you. Most of the issues people have with vaccines as a whole are because they are given to young children whos immune system may not be able to cope. But this is a vaccine for older children 9 so that should not be an issue. Theres the old concern about mercury in vaccines but since 1999 its been removed from all but one vaccine.
I like the idea of a mandate only because the only ones I have heard argue against it previously were doing so based on strange religious reasoning that seemed only to put there children at risk, and it often came from the same groups that denounce birth control and other forms of safe sex and only promote absitnence. I have great concern for children brought up in homes like this so if we need to force these parents hands in order to protect their children, so be it. It is because of this view that I support a mandate. This has all been an awkward way to say that what I am looking for is a rational reason why someone would not want there child to be vaccinated. If you can give me a good reason then I may support your view.
Thanks Kilgore for your continued questioning of this very important issue. To answer your question as to why I wouldn’t want to subject my 9 year old daughter to this vaccine is because the vaccine is barely 8-months-old, scarcely enough time to know how it will work.
In addition, new and possibly dangerous side effects could emerge as the vaccine is more widely used over a longer time period. We don’t know if these girls, years later, might develop arthritis, auto-immune diseases or brain disorder.
In this link (Click Here) it has been reported that in just six months, there have been 82 cases of side effects from the HPV vaccine reported to the government, involving neurological symptoms, joint pain, fever and Guillain-Barre syndrome.
In the study itself, fewer than 2,000 people were involved in the testing of Gardasil – with 102 adverse reactions, including juvenile, rheumatoid and regular arthritis, and 17 deaths, which were said to be unrelated.
You may say that the likelihood of having anything serious like this happen is rare. So one would have to weigh the odds of serious side effects against the odds of contracting cervical cancer.
If you look at the odds of the side effects of adverse reactions from the vaccine (102 per 2,000), it’s about .05%.
The annual incidence rate for cervical cancer is:
Hispanic women (14.8 per 100,000) = .00015%
African American women (13.5 per 100,000) = .00014%
White women is (8.9 per 100,000) = .00009%.
So, I say leave it to the parents to weigh the risks.
Link for above rates: Click Here.
I would like to chime in as well on this subject.
One thing I would like to bring to the table is the fact that all of us are falling victim to the government’s and the big pharmaceutical’s scare tactics. HPV is does not mean cancer, it just means that you may have a higher risk for cancer.
I am floored on how we are talking about cancer; we should be talking about HPV. From one medical journal International Journal of Gynecological Cancer it reads, “Cervical cancer should be considered as a rare complication of oncogenic HPV.” But, this does not implicate the kind of fear response that the big pharma’s and big brother need for the “mind control” that is necessary for people to spend the $400 to $500 for the 3 treatments.
Here is what a panel of research scientists say about the relationship of HPV with cancer:
So, why aren’t we concerned with the overall immune system of our children? Why are we not trying to improve the overall health of our children? Wouldn’t that be more effective against not only HPV and cancer, but all other health related issues and illnesses. Why are we willing to implement a government mandate to force children to take an expensive injection of a so called “safe” HPV virus directly into the body, but the government does not even give a sh*t that we are still feeding them the nation’s worst, most nutritiously deficient food?
If we can boost the over health, immune system and anti-oxidant defense of our children then HPV will not have the chance to do its damage and cause cancer as well as other health concerns.
But, could it be that there is no money to be made in better, more healthful food? When are we going to wake up and question every single motive that our money grubbing government has for it’s actions. I take every word and action of this neo-con government with as much weight as I take Paris Hilton’s singing career. It is all full of hot air!
Currently, I am in the process of writing an article about how food has a cascading affect on our health and immune system. Specifically, in regards to metabolic syndromes like insulin resistance. And, considering there are estimates of 25% of the population that suffer from metabolic syndromes, don’t we think this may be a more important epidemic? When 25% of our children are plagued with metabolic syndromes, and all we have to do is feed them better and move them into a more physical lifestyle, why don’t we jump on this like we are the vaccine? Yet contrary to common sense, we ignore this quarter of our society in favor of something that only affects a thousandth? I can understand why the government does this, but I can’t understand why the People of America don’t realize this atrocity.
There is a lot of evidence in our history about our government doing the so called “right thing”, and then more damage ensues because of there blind fearful responses. Has anyone ever heard of the swine flu scare?
The above is what happens when we allow fear to influence our political actions without proper scientific study and democratic debate. We need to stop being reactive to the main stream perspective and its ploy in controlling our decisions. We need to be more proactive, so that we do not need the government meddling in our personal affairs.
But, that is just my thoughts on the matter. [POOF] I’m out!
This is for Kilgore I ll try to answer the other comments later.
I understand you are just trying to further debate.
Let me see if I can explain why someone would not want their child to be vaccinated. Although I must first insist that it really doesn’t matter why they don’t want their child to be vaccinated, the point is that they must have that right.
In order to further that debate though I will indulge you.
I don’t want to get this into a full out medical debate, because while as a first responder I have more medical knowledge then the average person, I am certainly no expert.
For the possible safety issues check out these links…
PR News Wire
Washington Times
There have been NO LONG TERM STUDIES of the drug…think Viox
I do not believe that receiving this vaccine will cause teens to go all out and have promiscuos sex(at least not anymore than they already do). I explain this in my article if you wanna check it out http://brainspiller.com
The thing is when you take a vaccine or an anti-biotic in general you are putting something unhealthy into your system. That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t take them it just means that they will have a negative, not a positive effect on your body.
So why do people take them then you ask? Well because someone of them are able to prevent even more negative things from effecting your body. So basically there is a balance here. You must weigh the toxic effect the vaccine will have on your body against the disease it could possibly prevent you from getting. Not only that you must measure your likelyhood of getting that disease or illness and how severly it will effect you.
Take the flu vaccine for example. It is has many dangerous side effects. The flu is rarely deadly to those aged 12-65 with healthy immune systems. Therefore if you fall into that category it would be a bad decision to take the vaccine, because the temporary inconvenience of being sick is far outweighed by the risk of a serious complication from the vaccine.
If you are elderly however it might make sense, since the flu is much more likely to kill you then the vaccine itself.
To put it in a simper analogy its sort of like saying. Why don’t you put a helmet on your child when he goes to school? Don’t you want to protect him?
Well yes a helmet on my child as he goes to school would certainly provide some level of protection against certain accidents that could befell him on his trip to school. That being said it is very unlikely that anything will happen to him on the way to school, and the psychological harm he might receive from teasing classmates outweighs any small protection against an unlikely accident.
Of course we all want to protect children, but there are millions of ways to do that and not all of them are feasible or even safe (ironically).
fair enough.
I had already said several times that I thought they needed more testing before pushing this on the public. Everyones arguments have been pervasive enough that I am now against this vaccine. When they do some more testing then I’ll look at the results and re-evaluate, but untillthen, this is no bueno.
Thanks everyone for answering my questions.
[…] This reminds me of the heated debate going on right now in regards to Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s mandating the HPV vaccine for 6th grade girls. Guess who the manufacturer of the vaccine is? Merck. Guess who is buddy-buddy with Merck’s lobbyist? Perry. Guess who’s Perry’s former chief of staff? Merck’s lobbyist. Well, it’s the same old big money game with the Republican’s favorite being…”Let’s Make A Deal.” […]
Hello! This IS “the heated debate going on right now in regards to Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s mandating the HPV vaccine for 6th grade girls!!!”
It appears that our legislature in Texas is about to overturn this executive order. Thank God. I find it reprehensible that a governor would bypass any public or congressional review of such an imposition on the rights of the public.
But with George W. in office, he seems to be leading the example. With Bush’s self-proclaimed “inherent powers”, he can overlook or refuse to enforce laws that are passed by Congress that he doesn’t agree with. He is getting just too scary for me. But it’s no wonder that any governor would try to do the same.
Thanks for the comment, we hope to see you again soon.