Texan Women Must have STD Vaccine

JaJae · 02-02-2007, 06:05 PM

Texas requires cancer vaccine for girls - Yahoo! News

Texas requires cancer vaccine for girls

By LIZ AUSTIN PETERSON, Associated Press Writer 36 minutes ago

Bypassing the Legislature, Republican Gov. Rick Perry signed an order Friday making Texas the first state to require that schoolgirls get vaccinated against the sexually transmitted virus that causes cervical cancer.

By issuing an executive order, Perry apparently sidesteps opposition in the Legislature from conservatives and parents' rights groups who fear such a requirement would condone premarital sex and interfere with the way parents raise their children.

Beginning in September 2008, girls entering the sixth grade — meaning, generally, girls ages 11 and 12 — will have to get Gardasil, Merck & Co.'s new vaccine against strains of the human papillomavirus, or HPV.

Perry, a conservative Christian who opposes abortion 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 from the one that protects children against polio.

"The HPV vaccine provides us with an incredible opportunity to effectively target and prevent cervical cancer," Perry said in announcing the order.

"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.

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.

Perry has several ties to Merck and Women in Government. One of the drug company's three lobbyists in Texas is Mike Toomey, Perry's 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.

Perry also received $6,000 from Merck's political action committee during his re-election campaign.

Texas allows parents to opt out of inoculations by filing an affidavit objecting to the vaccine on religious or philosophical reasons. Even with such provisions, however, conservative groups say such requirements interfere with parents' rights to make medical decisions 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.

The concept of women having the right to choose what to do with their body is being fought in Texas. Interestingly enough, it is the liberals in Texas who are pushing this. The government should stay out of a woman's genital area when it comes to abortion, but they're willing to force them to vaccinate against STDs.

I don't understand the logic personally, and I don't really have a problem with vaccines that protect the public and they pass properly through the legislature. HPV to my knowledge typically has no symptoms and very rarely results in cancer. This seems a bit extreme.

Yes, you can go through some legal paperwork to opt out, however, you are required to either take the shot or file paperwork over it. It seems a bit over the top for me.

6SpeedTA95 · 02-02-2007, 06:28 PM

I think this vaccine is no different then the standard vaccinations that people must take when in school. It helps people stay healthy and stops the spread of disease.

I see this differently than abortion.

JaJae · 02-02-2007, 06:32 PM

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

I think this vaccine is no different then the standard vaccinations that people must take when in school. It helps people stay healthy and stops the spread of disease.

I see this differently than abortion.

Yes, I don't have a problem with forcing a vaccine on anyone. However, bypassing the legislature to get it done is a bit wrong. It's not like this is the measles. This is a disease almost everyone gets at some point in their life and generally has absolutely no side effects. The chances of it causing cervical cancer or any complications from what I've read is extremely minor.

It goes away on its own without treatment and the majority of Americans who get HPV never even realized they had it.

6SpeedTA95 · 02-02-2007, 06:35 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

Yes, I don't have a problem with forcing a vaccine on anyone. However, bypassing the legislature to get it done is a bit wrong. It's not like this is the measles. This is a disease almost everyone gets at some point in their life and generally has absolutely no side effects. The chances of it causing cervical cancer or any complications from what I've read is extremely minor.

It goes away on its own without treatment and the majority of Americans who get HPV never even realized they had it.

I think it is specifically designed to prevent the type of HPV that leads to cancer. If it helps prevent cancer resulting from HPV which as much as 30% of cervical cancer is linked to then I think its a good thing.

I agree with you on the point of bypassing the legislature.

MKULTRA · 02-02-2007, 09:42 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

Yes, I don't have a problem with forcing a vaccine on anyone. However, bypassing the legislature to get it done is a bit wrong. It's not like this is the measles. This is a disease almost everyone gets at some point in their life and generally has absolutely no side effects. The chances of it causing cervical cancer or any complications from what I've read is extremely minor.

It goes away on its own without treatment and the majority of Americans who get HPV never even realized they had it.

WTF? You don't have a problem with forcing vaccines? Dude if you don't own your own body then what do you own? I am not, nor is my gf, property of the state. Let people make their own choices, for better or worse, regarding their own body and their own children.

JaJae · 02-02-2007, 09:47 PM

Originally Posted by MKULTRA

WTF? You don't have a problem with forcing vaccines? Dude if you don't own your own body then what do you own? I am not, nor is my gf, property of the state. Let people make their own choices, for better or worse, regarding their own body and their own children.

Polio, measles etc.. all these vaccinations we receive as children... no I don't have a problem with it. And if something is a serious enough risk to our society, I have no problem with the proper channels forcing immunizations.

As I said previously though, I don't believe HPV is a serious enough threat to require it and the fact that they bypassed legislation on this makes the whole matter even worse.

MKULTRA · 02-02-2007, 09:55 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

Polio, measles etc.. all these vaccinations we receive as children... no I don't have a problem with it. And if something is a serious enough risk to our society, I have no problem with the proper channels forcing immunizations.

As I said previously though, I don't believe HPV is a serious enough threat to require it and the fact that they bypassed legislation on this makes the whole matter even worse.

And you really believe that any agency with that kind of power isn't going to abuse it?

What is risking our society? None of the things you've brought up are near as dangerous as allowing the government ownership of our bodies.

JaJae · 02-02-2007, 09:59 PM

Originally Posted by MKULTRA

And you really believe that any agency with that kind of power isn't going to abuse it?

What is risking our society? None of the things you've brought up are near as dangerous as allowing the government ownership of our bodies.

This doesn't give the government ownership of our bodies.

MKULTRA · 02-02-2007, 10:03 PM

If someone can force you to take a vaccine then they own you. You no longer make your own choices in regards to your body. Are you not making this basic connection?

JaJae · 02-02-2007, 10:09 PM

Originally Posted by MKULTRA

If someone can force you to take a vaccine then they own you. You no longer make your own choices in regards to your body. Are you not making this basic connection?

I don't have a choice to do a lot of things. Doesn't mean those "things" are owned by somebody else. Because someone may be required to do receive or do something doesn't mean you have become the property of someone else.

- You are allowed to opt out of this.
- There already are plenty of laws on the books regarding vaccinations. Does the government own all of us because we've received our shots when we were younger?

7960 · 02-02-2007, 11:53 PM

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

I think this vaccine is no different then the standard vaccinations that people must take when in school. It helps people stay healthy and stops the spread of disease.

I see this differently than abortion.

I have an allergy that means I couldn't get those "standard" vaccinations. Consequently my parents found out they're not exactly mandatory.

Kytro · 02-03-2007, 12:06 AM

I am of the opinion that in most cases it should be required. Allowing people to do stupid things that can cause significant harm to society isn't a good idea.

7960 · 02-03-2007, 12:09 AM

Originally Posted by Kytro

I am of the opinion that in most cases it should be required. Allowing people to do stupid things that can cause significant harm to society isn't a good idea.

how is a woman who chooses not to get a vaccine and resulting in her getting cervical cancer causing "significant harm to society"?

6SpeedTA95 · 02-03-2007, 01:01 AM

Originally Posted by 7960

I have an allergy that means I couldn't get those "standard" vaccinations. Consequently my parents found out they're not exactly mandatory.

No they're not, you can opt out of them if you really want or need to. But nto requiring such vaccines poses a risk to society, what if we didn't vaccinate for things like Polio and Measles?

6SpeedTA95 · 02-03-2007, 01:02 AM

Originally Posted by 7960

how is a woman who chooses not to get a vaccine and resulting in her getting cervical cancer causing "significant harm to society"?

If the woman doesn't have insurance we pay for it? If the HPV is spread through sexual contact then thats an increased risk to society as well.

Kytro · 02-03-2007, 01:44 AM

Originally Posted by 7960

how is a woman who chooses not to get a vaccine and resulting in her getting cervical cancer causing "significant harm to society"?

the cause of the cancer is an STD that many people get, right ?

Scrum · 02-03-2007, 02:05 AM

The thing I saw today said they could opt out if they wanted.

I don't see a problem.

Dharma Bum · 02-03-2007, 02:13 AM

I support this vaccine because I don't want to get warts on my schlong.

MKULTRA · 02-03-2007, 02:19 AM

Originally Posted by JaJae

I don't have a choice to do a lot of things. Doesn't mean those "things" are owned by somebody else. Because someone may be required to do receive or do something doesn't mean you have become the property of someone else.

- You are allowed to opt out of this.
- There already are plenty of laws on the books regarding vaccinations. Does the government own all of us because we've received our shots when we were younger?

If you're allowed to opt out then it's not a forced vaccination. And likewise, you don't have to get your kids vaccinated either. No, public schools cannot force you to do that. But if they did, then your body would not belong to you anymore. The same is true for your kids. If someone forces you to get something injected into your body then you no longer have control over yourself.

IminWonderland · 02-03-2007, 02:45 AM

I think it's ironic that they would have to even make it a law.

I sign my kids up for all vaccinations, and will include this one for Sophie when she's old enough.

And that's because I think dying from Cervical Cancer would be a shitty end to her life, so if I can do this when she's younger, to do my own part, then I definatley will, and aside from religious, or allergy reasons, I don't see why a parent would opt out, although it's their perogative.