Rick Perry and the HPV debacle

posted at 8:20 pm on August 15, 2011 by Jazz Shaw

If the first casualty of war is truth, the first casualty of politics is common sense. The nascent battle for the 2012 GOP presidential nomination is no exception, and has already managed to find a way to drive me to distraction. It all started with Ed Morrissey’s report of questions put to presidential candidate Rick Perry over a 2007 mandate he issued as Texas governor for young girls to be vaccinated against the cancer-causing Human Papillomavirus (HPV.)

In Texas this caused a kerfuffle leading to Perry backing down on the issue, and now it seems that “conservative-minded” activists want to make sure that he’s learned his lesson about government sticking its nose into affairs of the family. Unfortunately, the greatest likelihood in this case is that politics has once again managed to turn partisan absolutism into a socially suicidal death spiral. And it’s not just socially conservative Republicans either. The Libertarians are up in arms as well, as I found out when I wound up in an extensive debate on the subject with libertarian leaning Doug Mataconis from Outside the Beltway. (Who expands upon the subject here.)

There are a number of obvious and important questions to deal with when a subject like this comes up. If people are objecting because the vaccine is dangerous or not needed, this is clearly a problem. In that case, the vaccine should be pulled from the shelves, fixed to make it safe or scrapped entirely. But Gardasil – the brand name of the vaccine in question – has now been tested in thousands of children and remains, according to the FDA, “as safe as any other vaccine.”

So what was the major objection to Perry’s order? As I suspected, it came down to politics rather than science in all the cases I found. In particular, HPV was noted to be a “sexually transmitted” disorder, which unfortunately draws some of the worst brand of politics into the mix before you can say boo. In some of the most extreme cases I ran into (with close personal friends, no less) there were soft whispers about how a vaccine against HPV would, “encourage or excuse promiscuity among our young women.” Ed Morrissey took a barely less direct approach, seeming to favorably link to an explanation from Joshua Mercer at Catholic Vote.

Obviously Merck wants to make a lot of money by making all of our daughters get the $120 shots. And I understand that sexually transmitted diseases have become a pandemic, one that we don’t talk enough about.

But if we force every daughter to get Gardasil, we have lost hope in the ability of our children to say no to hazardous premarital sex.

In effect, the very decision to give your daughter Gardasil tells your daughter: “I know you can’t say no.” This gives her the green light. She’ll think: “After all, Mom and Dad think I’m having sex anyway.”

When I hear arguments like this I can’t help but wonder if I’m about to step off of the last flight of the space shuttle program only to find that the entire ground crew is composed of talking apes handing out posters of the Statue of Liberty buried up to her neck in sand. Are you kidding me?

Did you miss the part where I mentioned that HPV causes cervical cancer? It’s also now definitively linked to a number of other less commonly occurring cancers, some of which affect boys as well. That’s why the FDA approved the drug for boys in 2010.

And oh, by the way, while far more rare, it’s already been determined that the virus might be spread in methods other than sexual contact. This is reminiscent of some of the early responses to HIV and how it was the “gay plague.” I don’t think that was of much comfort to the first heterosexual guy who caught it from a blood transfusion after he got into a car accident.

Others have attempted to raise arguments about whether or not it is the proper place of government at any level to order parents to get their children vaccinated. Again, this battle has already been repeatedly fought and, thankfully, lost. All the states have school immunization laws for children which have been challenged in the courts and repeatedly upheld. Even if the federal government were to enact something like this, a possible precedent for such power exists, as Washington has long mandated immunization rules for immigrants coming to live in the United States.

But all of the technical details pale in comparison to what I see as the major madness in this discussion. I’ve lost count already of how many times I’ve already brought this up in this column, but we’re talking about C*A*N*C*E*R here. We’ve been working on this for years and finally somebody came up with a way to stop at least the next generation of people from getting one version of it which affects, on average, more than 12,000 women in the United States each year and kills more than 4,000 of them.

And we can stop it.

And you’re arguing about politics and getting upset because the Governor of Texas, in a “moment of weakness,” tried to do something about it. And some of you managed to get him to back down.

Nice job.

Roughly half the adult men in this country and nearly 80% of the adult women have or will have the HPV virus by the age of fifty. The men will almost never exhibit any symptoms and may never even know they have it. Not everyone has to be tested for it in every state, even when they get married. Your little girl – no matter how studiously you work to make sure she is virginal on her wedding night – could wind up marrying a man carrying it, catch it, and die of cancer. And it could have been stopped.

Shockingly, a few of you, (such as my friend Doug) are saying that cervical cancer is “not a public health threat.” Or perhaps it’s “not as communicable as smallpox.” I don’t know what to say to these people. Not a public health threat? It’s CANCER. Not communicable? Then why does roughly 3/4 of the population carry it, most without knowing it? The odds are that a majority of you reading this have HPV right now. You might want to get checked.

Though most of you will now scoff, I believe in small government conservatism. I dislike the massive growth of government and the corresponding overreach of power and endangerment of civil liberties. But in a case like this I will gladly take my place among the brown-shirts. If the vaccine is proven safe and effective, as the reports I’m seeing indicate, then I want the government to make sure every young girl gets it. HPV is transmitted primarily – though not always – through sex, and the vast majority of those young girls are eventually going to have sex, even if only with their husbands. And the odds are too high that the husband in question might have it and not even know it.

A special message for those of you chanting, “well, it’s still optional. Any family can choose to have the vaccination, or a test. It’s just not the government’s job.” I envy you. You certainly have a refreshing, optimistic, and completely fictional faith in the intelligence, common sense and foresight of the entire population. I have no idea where you came by it. But every person who fails to exhibit that intelligence and foresight will be primed to keep unleashing more of the same out into the general public. I’m sure you’ll be happy to know you secured that freedom from the oppressive hand of the government for them.

Bottom line: Many years ago, with the power and enforcement of the government, we wiped out smallpox, a disease which was devastating the land. Today a method is in hand to wipe out at least one form of the greatest medical scourge we face today: cancer. For such a tool to be within reach of the government – on any level – and for them not to act would not be a failure or success of partisan politics or ideology. It would be a crime against humanity.

This post was promoted from GreenRoom to HotAir.com.
To see the comments on the original post, look here.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Look at all the liberal talking points that Jazz hits upon here:

1)”This is science, you troglodytes.”
Global warming alarmists make the same arguments.

2)”Govt should act to protect the public whenever possible.”
Sounds like ObamaCare to me.

3)”If you don’t agree with me, you’re crazy.”
Just about every lib pundit and politician I’ve ever seen takes this line of attack.

spinach.chin on August 15, 2011 at 10:48 PM

The odd thing is that even Perry himself knows it was wrong. That should serve as a clue.

whatcat on August 15, 2011 at 10:55 PM

steebo77 on August 15, 2011 at 10:51 PM

This…

d1carter on August 15, 2011 at 10:55 PM

What? Don’t they know without the government making decisions for them that they are doomed! Doomed, I tell you!!

whatcat on August 15, 2011 at 10:48 PM

lolol

Murf76 on August 15, 2011 at 10:52 PM

Sorry, caught the hyperventilation and hyperbole from Jazz. Didn’t get the vaccine for that.

whatcat on August 15, 2011 at 10:58 PM

So, in essence, you have determined that a young girl who may grow up in a family where she is given no guidance about her sexual behavior, who may never have the benefit of your wisdom, who makes a mistake, should be delivered a death sentence because she engaged in behavior which you do not approve of. You have effectively removed any choice from her. She shall simply die, regarless of her circumstances, because she failed to live up to your standards. I thank you for your response again. You have proven exactly what I was trying to say. You are the judge, jury and executioner of this girl and no excuse shall be tolerated and no quarter given.

Jazz Shaw on August 15, 2011 at 10:08 PM

Prove, right here and right now, that every single girl in this country who does not or chooses not to receive Gardasil will die.

Come on, Jazz. You’re calling this a death sentence; prove that it is one.

By the way, you’re full of crap, because there have been literally BILLIONS of women who were born, lived, and thrived quite nicely BEFORE THIS VACCINE WAS EVEN INVENTED.

You can’t even prove that this prevents cervical cancer in every single case.

What you’re trying to do is bluster your way into an argument. You have stated that, unless a girl receives this vaccine, she will die of cervical cancer.

Prove it. With facts, with peer-referenced studies. Right here, right now.

Or walk back your words.

northdallasthirty on August 15, 2011 at 10:59 PM

Do y’all remember when HA was a very conservative blog? I do. Now, they’re going all RINO on our a$$es.

Jazz, you hung himself out to dry here. This is your battle. This is your hill. Your arguments make no sense, but keep on keeping on, cuz you gotta pay the bills. Take it easy, Jazz.

j_galt on August 15, 2011 at 10:59 PM

I thought of another lib talking point:

4)”A government organization (FDA) has deemed this safe, so it’s crazy to have any objection to it.”
Tell this to the victims of fen/Phen and Avandia.

spinach.chin on August 15, 2011 at 11:00 PM

Changing your mind on forced injections of teenagers, or abortion etc. is known as a FLIP FLOP on Hot Air.

Perry = Flip Flopper.

scotash on August 15, 2011 at 11:00 PM

4)”A government organization (FDA) has deemed this safe, so it’s crazy to have any objection to it.”
Tell this to the victims of fen/Phen and Avandia.

spinach.chin on August 15, 2011 at 11:00 PM

What? You don’t trust the government?!?

j_galt on August 15, 2011 at 11:04 PM

Isn’t Jazz the HA blogger who ran for office unsuccessfully in this last election cycle?

I guess he must have lost to the Tea Party candidate.

spinach.chin on August 15, 2011 at 11:05 PM

Let us assume for the moment that everything virtuous and effective Jazz asserts about the vaccine is factual and correct. And also, let’s further assume that there was no conflict of interest or unethical taint involved in the decision.
The question at issue is whether or not the Governor of a State has the power to arbitrarily DICTATE that the vaccine must be administered to every person it is designed to help, or not. The answer of course is “Certainly not!”
You cannot justify a dictator by the virtue of what they dictate. The power to dictate a good and virtuous thing is the very same power to dictate a vile and very bad thing. The problem that Jazz’s rationale brings up is that the action dictated is dwarfed by the grant of power that dictated it, and the power once granted will inevitably be used for great evil. In other words, the ends are the sugar coating around the poisonous means.

Lew on August 15, 2011 at 11:05 PM

I envy you. You certainly have a refreshing, optimistic, and completely fictional faith in the intelligence, common sense and foresight of the entire population. I have no idea where you came by it. But every person who fails to exhibit that intelligence and foresight will be primed to keep unleashing more of the same out into the general public.

And… we’re back, to the Fundamental Contradiction of the Democratic Nanny State:

If people are too stupid to vaccinate themselves against a virus that can cause cancer that kills them, how are they smart enough to elect Rick Perry to force them to do it against their better judgement?

You might argue that Rick was acting to protect girls that are too young to vote… to force themselves to get the shot??? But the fancy Latin name for that rationale, in loco parentis, literally means “in place of (the) parent”. So we’ve moved the problem to the parents being incompetent to… parent their children, but somehow competent to elect the people to tell them how to parent their children.

Huh?

The Monster on August 15, 2011 at 11:07 PM

Do y’all remember when HA was a very conservative blog? I do. Now, they’re going all RINO on our a$$es.

Yeah, this site has pretty much outlived its usefulness. It sucks because Ed is such a great writer, but other than him this place has become a wasteland. I don’t know who thought Jazz Shaw good enough to be worthy of front page status, but he’s about as shrill as Andy Sullivan. I’m done with this blog.

paulzummo on August 15, 2011 at 11:14 PM

I’m surprised y’all are still making arguments, and not just calling Jazz names by now. I mean really, Jazz has shown his progressive colors. What the people are too stupid to do for themselves, the government can do very well and protect them and save the lives of millions of innocent, but sexually active teenagers! Think of the children y’all! (Well, as long as it’s a Republican government, because Rick Perry rocks, and not a Democrat government, ya know.)

j_galt on August 15, 2011 at 11:15 PM

I thought of another lib talking point:
4)”A government organization (FDA) has deemed this safe, so it’s crazy to have any objection to it.”
Tell this to the victims of fen/Phen and Avandia.
spinach.chin on August 15, 2011 at 11:00 PM

How about if the cheerleaders for this mandate assume unlimited financial liability for it’s adverse effects? Would work for me as getting their money aligned with their mouths.

whatcat on August 15, 2011 at 11:15 PM

But every person who fails to exhibit that intelligence and foresight will be primed to keep unleashing more of the same out into the general public.

Not really.

The joy of vaccines is that you can a) choose to get them and b) are protected in the process against those who are not.

Now let’s throw a few hypotheticals Jazz’s way and see how he responds.

1) Would Jazz support private insurance companies stating that they will not cover cervical cancer treatments or related syndromes for people who had not received the vaccine? How about Medicare/Medicaid doing the same?

2) Roughly 30,000 men annually are infected with HIV through gay sex, with an estimated 282,000 dying from the disease in the 30 or so years since it was first categorized (a death rate of roughly 8k, twice cervical cancer). Will Jazz support and endorse public bans on gay sex as a health hazard?

northdallasthirty on August 15, 2011 at 11:17 PM

Roughly 30,000 men annually are infected with HIV through gay sex, with an estimated 282,000 dying from the disease in the 30 or so years since it was first categorized (a death rate of roughly 8k, twice cervical cancer). Will Jazz support and endorse public bans on gay sex as a health hazard?
northdallasthirty on August 15, 2011 at 11:17 PM

Good point – can’t add to it.

whatcat on August 15, 2011 at 11:23 PM

This thread has certainly brought the CINOs out!

OldEnglish on August 15, 2011 at 11:31 PM

Good point – can’t add to it.

whatcat on August 15, 2011 at 11:23 PM

Actually, you can.

Given the extraordinary increase in the rate of teens contracting HIV through gay sex annually, why should schools promote, endorse, and support gay sex, while simultaneously demanding forced HPV vaccination?

In short, schools are ranting that students and parents should lose choices to reduce the probability of sexually-transmitted infections — while spending Federal dollars to promote, push, and demand acceptance of behaviors definitively linked to spreading sexually-transmitted disease?

Any answer, Jazz?

northdallasthirty on August 15, 2011 at 11:34 PM

The discussion of public policy v. vaccines has to include one big iceberg-like chunk of reality: “herd immunity”.

Essentially, any infectious agent needs to be able to infect within a population to maintain its viability in that population. If everyone died of a cold before they could make it out the door to give it to someone, the cold virus would die as well. If a bug has only half a chance of infecting someone over the next 24 hours, and then is done, the average victim has to interact with more than two people or the epidemic will die out by itself. Note that this is the average victim — it’s not a straight line and it’s not individual cases.

So, let’s take a further case — let’s say that the average X-plague victim interacts with three people during the 24 hours that they are 50% infectious. The X-plague would spread like wildfire. For math geeks, it’d be like an exponential function running away from a linear one. But if 50% of the population has been vaccinated against the X-plague, any outbreaks would be short and self-extinguishing.

Societies, then, have reasons for mandatory vaccinations that go beyond a form of government or multicultural tolerance. By rendering a section of the population inhospitable to X-plague, it can be driven to extinction and/or crippled in its ability to spread.

That’s not to say that such reasons are unlimited — there are laws of war that dictate what must be done with people who shoot at you, so it comes as no surprise that quarantine and vaccination have rules as well — but they are not the the usual rules and laws of everyday society.

The problem with the Texas HPV case is that both sides took it as a matter of regular law. Perry thought that it could be done by governmental decree by a politician, and its opponents felt that their rights had been violated.

In reality, there should have been a scientific case made for the action, perhaps coupled with a plebescite to ensure that the public understood the case and the necessary actions contemplated. At that point, it would have ceased to be a matter of “rights” and become a question of logistics.

Mind you, I’m not completely comfortable with such a pattern — the pseudo-scientific warmers have been attempting the same tactics for their brand of statism, for instance. But actual facts need to be distinguished from political questions, and — at times — the dictum that “the Constitution is not a suicide pact” needs to be kept in the forefront.

cthulhu on August 15, 2011 at 11:39 PM

You missed a lot of info in your liberal propaganda piece, Jazz. For instance, you missed the fact that the HPV vaccine is only kinda effective on only 4 types of cervical cancer. There are many more types that it is not effective against. Too many in my view to warrant the government dictating to my child-and the parents of that child- that they “need” to have this injection “because they are going to have sex anyway”, which is exactly what this kind of legislation is doing.

Have you been bought by the pharmaceutical company that makes Gardasil or something? I am just trying to figure out why your stance is so strong, and misguided, on this issue.

This is reminiscent of some of the early responses to HIV and how it was the “gay plague.”

As Ann Coulter wrote about in a very compelling column, “we’re still waiting for the big heterosexual AIDS epidemic” that was warned about when the homosexual lobby wanted to deflect the truth and avoid(even more) responsibility for spreading it through their behavior. It’s immoral to tell people not to have casual sex, you know!!!

I don’t think that was of much comfort to the first heterosexual guy who caught it from a blood transfusion after he got into a car accident.

Yeah, he probably got it from a homosexual who had given blood. Oh, is that statement too politically incorrect? Too bad. It is also in all likely-hood true.

That’s why the FDA approved the drug for boys in 2010

Of course they have. Take a drug that is minimally effective even for girls, do some more fear-mongering, get the government to back you to force young boys to take it, take the money and run, and all the while giving “free-loving” liberals more power to change the traditional family and the roles of parents. As you sarcastically said Jazz, good job.

Though most of you will now scoff, I believe in small government conservatism.

I am not scoffing. But no I do not believe you.

But in a case like this I will gladly take my place among the brown-shirts.

You already have/are.

Sterling Holobyte on August 15, 2011 at 11:43 PM

Any answer, Jazz?
northdallasthirty on August 15, 2011 at 11:34 PM

I doubt you’ll ever get one.
What Jazz wrote was along the line of an emotional explosion, filled with bizarre “what if” strawman hypotheticals and end of the world hyperbole, e.g. crimes against humanity!! (a la the panicked Hindenberg radiocast).

The question you posed is real-world, which is tough to tackle without putting on one’s rational thinking cap.

whatcat on August 15, 2011 at 11:43 PM

Conservative ≠ Libertarian – deal with it.

Knott Buyinit on August 15, 2011 at 11:47 PM

All the states have school immunization laws for children which have been challenged in the courts and repeatedly upheld. Even if the federal government were to enact something like this, a possible precedent for such power exists, as Washington has long mandated immunization rules for immigrants coming to live in the United States.

The comparison is invalid. These immunizations are for diseases that are communicated without any action on our part. We do not have to have sex to get measles or diptheria or whooping cough. And HPV is preventable without the vaccination while the others are not.

Deanna on August 15, 2011 at 11:47 PM

Roughly 30,000 men annually are infected with HIV through gay sex, with an estimated 282,000 dying from the disease in the 30 or so years since it was first categorized (a death rate of roughly 8k, twice cervical cancer). Will Jazz support and endorse public bans on gay sex as a health hazard?

northdallasthirty on August 15, 2011 at 11:17 PM

Good point of course. Will M’chell be spending hundreds of millions of our dollars in a campaign against homosexuality? I doubt it. It seems perfectly okay however to crusade against the level of fat in foods, salt, the extremely weak health hazard from ‘second hand’ smoke, etc, etc.

slickwillie2001 on August 15, 2011 at 11:52 PM

Conservatives who value self-responsibility are, in fact, practitioners of libertarianism.

OldEnglish on August 16, 2011 at 12:00 AM

Yeah, this site has pretty much outlived its usefulness. It sucks because Ed is such a great writer, but other than him this place has become a wasteland. I don’t know who thought Jazz Shaw good enough to be worthy of front page status, but he’s about as shrill as Andy Sullivan.

paulzummo on August 15, 2011 at 11:14 PM

I’m guessing that would be Ed, since I’m pretty sure he’s the one who brought Jazz on board, due to his having been a frequent NARN moderator. I could be wrong, but that’s my guess.

In my humble and unqualified opinion, Ed lost a huge amount of credibility when he kissed Obama’s ass after the Giffords shooting, and then a lot more when he tried to defend Obama’s suggestion that Israel return to the 1967 borders. Sorry, just being honest.

I don’t always agree with Allahpundit, but at least he’s more consistent. And in any case, like it or not, by any semi-objective measure AP is Hot Air.

Cylor on August 16, 2011 at 12:01 AM

Good point of course. Will M’chell be spending hundreds of millions of our dollars in a campaign against homosexuality? I doubt it.

slickwillie2001 on August 15, 2011 at 11:52 PM

Thanks.

The annoying part about this is that I’m not a fan of banning gay sex, and were I a parent, I certainly would be considering very hard having my daughter vaccinated. I would also be supportive of, for something like this, subsidizing vaccination costs with tax dollars so that those who wanted it and couldn’t afford it having access.

But I have a real problem with a government mandate for it, and I have an even bigger problem with someone like Jazz telling me that, unless I agree to a mandate and forcing it on people whether they want it or not, I’m a murderer.

Perry did the right thing. He explained why he did what he did, he acknowledged that he didn’t have public agreement, and he stood back and let the public’s decision stand. That’s exactly what I want to see in a politician, and it reminds me why I voted for him previously when I was in Texas.

Jazz’s credibility is shot here at Hot Air. There’s not going to be another post that he makes without this one being referred. That’s sad, but I think we’ve seen a side of him that will have many people reconsidering what he says and what his motivations are.

northdallasthirty on August 16, 2011 at 12:02 AM

I doubt you’ll ever get one.
What Jazz wrote was along the line of an emotional explosion, filled with bizarre “what if” strawman hypotheticals and end of the world hyperbole, e.g. crimes against humanity!! (a la the panicked Hindenberg radiocast).

The question you posed is real-world, which is tough to tackle without putting on one’s rational thinking cap.

whatcat on August 15, 2011 at 11:43 PM

FIFY

So, in essence, you have determined that a young girl who may grow up in a family where she is given no guidance about her sexual behavior, who may never have the benefit of your wisdom, who makes a mistake, should be delivered a death sentence because she engaged in behavior which you do not approve of. You have effectively removed any choice from her. She shall simply die, regarless of her circumstances, because she failed to live up to your standards. I thank you for your response again. You have proven exactly what I was trying to say. You are the judge, jury and executioner of this girl and no excuse shall be tolerated and no quarter given.

Jazz Shaw on August 15, 2011 at 10:08 PM

According to Jazz, if you don’t support a mandatory innoculation against HPV like the one Perry, who is to Conservatism as Jimmy Swaggert was to Christianity, espoused, you are the executioner of some poor girl who happened to make bad decisions because she wasn’t smart enough not to i.e. you are responsible for the consequences of someone else’s bad decisions. It’s not rationally arguable – Jazz is a socialist.

Bizarro No. 1 on August 16, 2011 at 12:03 AM

It’s not rationally arguable – Jazz is a socialist.

Bizarro No. 1 on August 16, 2011 at 12:03 AM

In fairness, I don’t think he’s ever pretended to be a conservative. He does hail from a site which calls itself “The Moderate Voice”, after all.

Cylor on August 16, 2011 at 12:10 AM

You missed a lot of info in your liberal propaganda piece, Jazz. For instance, you missed the fact that the HPV vaccine is only kinda effective on only 4 types of cervical cancer.
Sterling Holobyte on August 15, 2011 at 11:43 PM

Which “4 types of cervical cancer” is it “only kinda effective” on? I’m a gynecologist, I need to know these things.

A lot of you remind me of maybe an adult giving directions from the store to home to a five year old and then having the five year old repeat them to the four year old.

Marcus on August 16, 2011 at 12:11 AM

According to Jazz, if you don’t support a mandatory innoculation against HPV like the one Perry, who is to Conservatism as Jimmy Swaggert was to Christianity, espoused, you are the executioner of some poor girl who happened to make bad decisions because she wasn’t smart enough not to i.e. you are responsible for the consequences of someone else’s bad decisions. It’s not rationally arguable – Jazz is a socialist.

Bizarro No. 1 on August 16, 2011 at 12:03 AM

Right. On.

What it will take for this country to be great again is for a whole groundswell of people to stand up to Jazz and his fellow shrieking libs and say, quietly but firmly:

“No. I am NOT a murderer. And I am NOT personally, physically, financially, socially, or spiritually in any way responsible for YOUR bad choices. YOU are. YOU made the decision to spend money you didn’t have. YOU made the decision to have unprotected and promiscuous sex. YOU made the decision to drop out of public school. YOU made the decision to major in feminist lesbian art washing. No one else. YOU thought through the consequences, or not, and you made the choices.

YOU are now going to grow up, get a job, pay your own bills, and stop freeloading off society. If you don’t work, you don’t eat, nor do you buy expensive clothes, flat-screen TVs, or Escalades. And if you try to take from me, I will only be kind enough to pay the part of your emergency-room bill that we all must.”

northdallasthirty on August 16, 2011 at 12:14 AM

Jazz, I can see how you got into some heated arguments over this.

Esthier on August 16, 2011 at 12:34 AM

Here are the problems with Perry’s actions in this situation.

1) He acted unilaterally, with no consultation with members of the legislative branch.

2) It is questionable whether or not Perry had the authority under the Texas Constitution or statutory law to impose the requirement.

3) Perry and his aides argued that not only did he have the right to issue the executive order, but that the Texas Legislature lacked the authority to overturn his actions or prohibit the use of state money to fund the vaccination program.

4) HPV is different from every other disease for which the state of Texas requires vaccination as a condition of enrollment in school. The others can be easily passed in a normal classroom setting in the course of the ordinary activity of going to school. HPV, on the other hand, is not ordinarily passed under such conditions — therefore the nexus between school enrollment and the vaccine is lacking.

5) If Perry’s reasoning is accepted as legitimate, then there is no legitimate barrier to a future governor issuing an executive order mandating that girls receive Norplant as a condition of enrolling in school beginning in sixth grade. After all, given the multitude of societal problems caused by teen pregnancy and the negative impact on the future of girls who do become pregnant, there is a compelling argument that such a mandate is beneficial to society and the girls — religious, moral, legal, and constitutional questions notwithstanding — and that argument is every bit as compelling as the argument for Gardasil (actually more so, given the number of teen pregnancies every year).

Besides, I think that the commercial that the manufacturer put out at the time really offers the best critique of Perry’s misdeeds in this case. It said “ask your doctor if Gardasil is right for you” — but nowhere suggested consultation with your governor or other elected officials. It is therefore clear that Rick Perry’s decision to play doctor with the little girls of Texas was the wrong one.

RhymesWithRight on August 16, 2011 at 12:38 AM

In fairness, I don’t think he’s ever pretended to be a conservative. He does hail from a site which calls itself “The Moderate Voice”, after all.

Cylor on August 16, 2011 at 12:10 AM

“In fairness”? I guess it depends on your definitions – he himself claimed, “Though most of you will now scoff, I believe in small government conservatism. I dislike the massive growth of government and the corresponding overreach of power and endangerment of civil liberties. But in a case like this I will gladly take my place among the brown-shirts,” remember?

See, Jazz believes in small government, except when he understands that big government needs to impose its unquestionably virtuous will upon the inhumane, antisocial, nihilistic small-governmenters who would execute without hesitation those foolish enough to catch HPV because they didn’t know how to control themselves sexually is. In other words, Jazz is delusional, just like every other rationalizing, self-righteous coercer in denial is.

Bizarro No. 1 on August 16, 2011 at 12:42 AM

Jazz, I can see how you got into some heated arguments over this.

Esthier on August 16, 2011 at 12:34 AM

I don’t know how you could see that, especially if/when you consider that Jazz clearly has no idea what ‘it’s not what you say, it’s how you say it’ means – blind tyrants like Jazz aren’t capable of such notions.

Bizarro No. 1 on August 16, 2011 at 12:49 AM

Here are the problems with Perry’s actions in this situation.

1) He acted unilaterally, with no consultation with members of the legislative branch.

2) It is questionable whether or not Perry had the authority under the Texas Constitution or statutory law to impose the requirement.

3) Perry and his aides argued that not only did he have the right to issue the executive order, but that the Texas Legislature lacked the authority to overturn his actions or prohibit the use of state money to fund the vaccination program.

4) HPV is different from every other disease for which the state of Texas requires vaccination as a condition of enrollment in school. The others can be easily passed in a normal classroom setting in the course of the ordinary activity of going to school. HPV, on the other hand, is not ordinarily passed under such conditions — therefore the nexus between school enrollment and the vaccine is lacking.

5) If Perry’s reasoning is accepted as legitimate, then there is no legitimate barrier to a future governor issuing an executive order mandating that girls receive Norplant as a condition of enrolling in school beginning in sixth grade. After all, given the multitude of societal problems caused by teen pregnancy and the negative impact on the future of girls who do become pregnant, there is a compelling argument that such a mandate is beneficial to society and the girls — religious, moral, legal, and constitutional questions notwithstanding — and that argument is every bit as compelling as the argument for Gardasil (actually more so, given the number of teen pregnancies every year).

Besides, I think that the commercial that the manufacturer put out at the time really offers the best critique of Perry’s misdeeds in this case. It said “ask your doctor if Gardasil is right for you” — but nowhere suggested consultation with your governor or other elected officials. It is therefore clear that Rick Perry’s decision to play doctor with the little girls of Texas was the wrong one.

RhymesWithRight on August 16, 2011 at 12:48 AM

Best summary of the whole thing!

haner on August 16, 2011 at 1:26 AM

Sorry Jazz, you are wrong.

The vaccines children are currently required to get to attend school are for diseases that are communicable in the school setting. Any other vaccines are for discussion between parents and their doctor.

I have no problem with government recommending a vaccine, but making it mandatory is wrong, just like trying to control eating habits and exercise is wrong.

I’ve had many conversations with my daughter (now 19) about what she needs to do when she decides to become sexually active, hopefully, not before marriage. That includes prevention of pregnancy and STDs and includes this vaccine. I see no reason for her to get it before then, there are serious side effects associated with the vaccine that she doesn’t need to be exposed to earlier than necessary.

I know other parents are not as open or responsible with their children, but I shouldn’t be forced into an action by the government to make up for them.

The Chicken Little “the sky is falling” nonsense about this being different because it’s CANCER is ridiculous.

Common Sense on August 16, 2011 at 2:18 AM

Rick Perry didn’t “walk back” sh!t. He decided not to get in a tussle with the legislature that overturned his EO. He went over the heads of the people’s elected representatives and decided that not thumbing his nose at them a second time would be a good idea if he were to remain politically viable.

gryphon202 on August 16, 2011 at 3:15 AM

3) Perry and his aides argued that not only did he have the right to issue the executive order, but that the Texas Legislature lacked the authority to overturn his actions or prohibit the use of state money to fund the vaccination program.

RhymesWithRight on August 16, 2011 at 12:48 AM

So tell me again how/why Perry “walked it back?”

gryphon202 on August 16, 2011 at 3:16 AM

But in a case like this I will gladly take my place among the brown-shirts.

Well, at least you admit it. The liberal craze to mandate is matched only by the liberal craze to ban. It is totalitarian madness.

Perry’s action was an insult to parents and their girls, saying, in effect, I know a bunch of you are going to turn into sluts so I’m mandating this expensive vaccination.

Perry to little girls: You need injections, heheh.

The mandate for Hepatitis B vaccinations is just as questionable as Gardisil — state ordered risks for adverse reactions to prevent diseases having nothing to do with school safety.

Waving cancer like a talisman is not a convincing argument. The plain fact is that Perry’s first instinct was statist and authoritarian. Liberal Republicans: Meet the new boss; same as the old boss.

For such a tool to be within reach of the government – on any level – and for them not to act would not be a failure or success of partisan politics or ideology. It would be a crime against humanity.

The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.
–H. L. Mencken

Feedie on August 16, 2011 at 3:18 AM

The Chicken Little “the sky is falling” nonsense about this being different because it’s CANCER is ridiculous.

Common Sense on August 16, 2011 at 2:18 AM

Not only that, but it’s cancer that is almost universally caused by a virus transmitted almost universally by sexual contact. Mandating it for 11 year olds? For insurance purposes? That doesn’t pass the smell test.

gryphon202 on August 16, 2011 at 3:19 AM

Well, it must be of vital societal importance. Jazz used all caps. I’m sure there is some subject that Shaw can write intelligently about. This isn’t it and I don’t have time to waste reading any more of his posts in hopes of finding one. He and I will not miss each other. I can take Ed’s holier-than-thou and AP’s sarcasm-in-place-of-wit, but I’m done with this clown.

SKYFOX on August 16, 2011 at 5:31 AM

miConsevative on August 15, 2011 at 8:46 PM

/\ this and the gore deal puts perry in the ABO camp if`n he`s the guy, sorry.

NY Conservative on August 16, 2011 at 6:23 AM

Jazz Shaw – It’s the Sex, Stupid.
-
It’s probable that an infectiously diseased person might accidentally cough or sneeze on or around my eleven year old. That’s part of the deal in the social contract. But as far as I know, society hasn’t “progressed” yet to someone accidentally sexing on my eleven year old.
-
Mandating an HPV vaccination for my eleven year old, mandates I have a conversation with my eleven year old about *her* sexual behavior.
-
I prefer to keep my sex talks with my girls theoretical, educational and above all else, age appropriate. I’m not gonna be that creepy parent that provides info on my sexual behavior and I prefer to have the obligatory discussion about *her* sexual behavior when she’s say, 15. Talking to an eleven year old about *her* sex is creepy/awkward and I resent the government mandating it for any age of any of my daughters.
-
What’s that you say? “Just give her the damned vaccine and don’t explain what’s for?” Nice

TWG78 on August 16, 2011 at 7:30 AM

Jazz is spot-on. Bravo!

Buy Danish on August 16, 2011 at 7:57 AM

All vaccines entail some risk; a few people will always have an adverse reaction to them. This risk is justified in the case of combating highly communicable diseases because the few who are harmed by the vaccine are much less than those who would be harmed by an outback of the disease.

The problem here is not the vaccine but the mandate. Doctors would be free to recommend the vaccine to their patients to let them or their parents decide.

It appears as if Jazz has an overly developed authoritarian streak.

Laurence on August 16, 2011 at 8:16 AM

Why is it that small pox and measles are almost wiped out across the whole planet? I guess if they were sexually transmitted we should keep them around as a choice? Brilliant plan.

odannyboy on August 16, 2011 at 8:20 AM

Prove, right here and right now, that every single girl in this country who does not or chooses not to receive Gardasil will die.

Come on, Jazz. You’re calling this a death sentence; prove that it is one.
northdallasthirty on August 15, 2011 at 10:59 PM

The science is settled. Or something.

crushliberalism on August 16, 2011 at 8:20 AM

Why is it that small pox and measles are almost wiped out across the whole planet? I guess if they were sexually transmitted we should keep them around as a choice? Brilliant plan. – odannyboy on August 16, 2011 at 8:20 AM

Well said. Also, today children are vaccinated against hepatitis A and B. Hepatitis B is not easily transmitted. As I said young boys should be vaccinated against the disease also. So that if they are exposed to it, they do get it they won’t get it and be able to transmit it. Wipe the damn disease out.

SC.Charlie on August 16, 2011 at 9:30 AM

Some people are citing the number of gay males who die of anal cancer due to the virus. How many woman die each year of anal cancer because of the virus? Farrah Fawcett is not the only woman to have died of anal cancer. Men are obviously carriers of the virus and should be getting vaccinated. And, no, I am not promoting promiscuous sex. Just some common sense.

SC.Charlie on August 16, 2011 at 10:00 AM

Why is it that small pox and measles are almost wiped out across the whole planet? I guess if they were sexually transmitted we should keep them around as a choice? Brilliant plan. – odannyboy on August 16, 2011 at 8:20 AM

Yeah, cause no one is going to get the vaccine if it’s not mandated.///////////////// Douchebag.

gryphon202 on August 16, 2011 at 10:26 AM

Yeah, cause no one is going to get the vaccine if it’s not mandated.///////////////// Douchebag.

gryphon202 on August 16, 2011 at 10:26 AM

There a really only two kinds of people in the world, those who want to control their own lives, and those who want to control other people’s lives.

These 2 kinds of people come in various brands: Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, Christians, Muslims, Atheists, Americans, Iranians, Brits.

But in the end, no matter what they call themselves, you can determine what kind of person they are by determining who they want to control and how much they want to control them.

j_galt on August 16, 2011 at 10:46 AM

Sometimes political ideology leads to insanity. And the arguments characterized by the examples above which I took from this chain of comments, are insane. End. Of. Story.

Jazz Shaw on August 15, 2011 at 9:42 PM

Jazz, you just jumped the shark. Everyone knows I don’t hold punches when in the comments…but when you’re the article writer, and you insult everyone who disagrees with you, you’ve just gone full retard. You’ve adopted the tactics of elitist windbags, left or right. Rather disappointing.

MadisonConservative on August 16, 2011 at 10:50 AM

Gov Perry lives with this decision, “I signed an executive order that allowed for an opt-out, but the fact of the matter is I didn’t do my research well enough to understand that we needed to have a substantial conversation with our citizenry,” as do the parents of Texas, yet you know best for the science is settled?

But as you say, this isn’t about a vaccine per say. Hence, it can’t be about a virus or, sorry charlie, cancer. After all, why do we even allow the sale of cigarettes?

If my _fill in the blank/local/state/federal_ government is focused on this type and enforcement of “tooth level surveillance,” as Kathleen Sebelius, HHS Secretary, was given in Obamneycare, then what are they not engaged in? There are only so many hours in a day and tax dollars stretch just so far, so what are they supposed to be doing that is getting neglected or set aside? More specific, for such detail dominance, have we achieved world peace and budget surplus?

How can you, Jazz Shaw, one assumes a fiscal conservative, advocate compassion through compulsion and not mention cost? Outside of the inflated drug market costs to cover the lobbying of state officials done by Merck which ultimately was successful so we can expect more of it industry wide. Perry’s Executive Order was signed to force insurance companies to cover the $360 cost of the vaccine ($120 for each of a 3-shot regimen, doctor visit charge not included), and force compliance for 6th grade (11 to 12 year-olds) school enrollment so the government would cover the cost for low-income and uninsured Texans at taxpayer expense.

While I can understand the indignity of having your Governor insult you and your daughters by resigning them to be sluts in the end, as the virus is almost universally transmitted by sexual activity, it also brings to mind Perry’s good friend, yours and mind, “George” W. Bush; “The soft bigotry of lowered expectations.” How those Merck lobbyist must have hummed the refrain, “She can’t help it, the girl can’t help it,…” for no matter how you slice the numbers in Texas, Mexican girls are dropping out of school, increasingly single mothers with increasing state aid, and having more children by far than any other demographic. As Mark Steyn notes in Truce and Consequences, “Eighty-three per cent of Medicare recipients are white; 70 per cent of births in Dallas’ biggest hospital are Hispanic.” “The principal beneficiaries of the mid-20th century entitlement programs are honky geezers. The fellows expected to fund them are increasingly Latino. That doesn’t sound a recipe for social tranquility.”

Were Perry’s motivations raaaaacist? Also, school safety has nothing to do with this pre-cog territory you can’t attend school now at the age of 11 without said vaccine since you may get cancer in ten+ years from sex.

Bottom line, it was a Perry earmark. Oink. Now let him tell me again how much he deplored good ol’ “George’s” spending. And on another George note, George III wouldn’t have surveillance of pre-pubescent girls cervixes. (Mohammed and his other brother Mohaumed is another story.) Soft tyranny is none the less tyranny.

FeFe on August 16, 2011 at 10:53 AM

Soft tyranny is none the less tyranny.

FeFe on August 16, 2011 at 10:53 AM

On another note, how can Governor Gardasil credibly claim now to want to make government “inconsequential?” Mandating a vaccine for an STD sure as sh!t isn’t making government “inconsequential.” Oh, he’s a “federalist,” you say? I guess the burden of proof for that assertion is on Perry and his supporters.

gryphon202 on August 16, 2011 at 10:57 AM

And Jazz, in the future I would encourage you to remember that when you insult people for taking part in a heated (and admittedly uncivil) argument, you may also be insulting people such as myself who didn’t take part.

gryphon202 on August 16, 2011 at 11:19 AM

I might be in a bad mood on this one, what with the fact that I in the middle of helping my cousing through her cancer due to HPV and the fact I have an 11 year old and a 16 year old daughter.

But to have to sit through three pages of the crap that I am reading here is amazing. I am watching my cousin suffer through cancer, a cancer I can have my girls vaccinated for, but I cant right now, because I cant afford it. However, if it was a mandated vaccine, I could put it on my insurance and have it covered. Crazy, I know.

Then when I talk to my doctor, because I tend to get my medical information from her, not a bunch of crazies on the internet, I learn that my daughters can pik up HPV from toilet seats, because it is a virus, it has a longer life, so they are at risk even if they are not sexually active. My cousin is a lesbian, has never had sex with a man and still managed to get HPV cervical cancer. (Do I also lose conservative points because I have a ghey in my family?)

But since reading all of this and I believe that this drug should be mandated, I am now a CINO or a RHINO, or whatever. Ooh, I also am for the ban on cigarettes, because I have asthma, so I dont think I should have to suffer so some a**hole can light up wherever.

I believe a drug should be mandated, with the option to OPT OUT if you parents dont want to, like they can with every other drug.

by the way, Merck will not make that much money off of a vaccine after it is mandated, companies do not get their money from vaccines.

Also, it is a 1 in a 100,000 death rate for the vaccine, and of the deaths that did occur, they cannot 100% say it was caused to the vaccine.

Jazz, you just jumped the shark. Everyone knows I don’t hold punches when in the comments…but when you’re the article writer, and you insult everyone who disagrees with you, you’ve just gone full retard. You’ve adopted the tactics of elitist windbags, left or right. Rather disappointing.

MadisonConservative on August 16, 2011 at 10:50 AM

This is rich coming from you Madcon.

akerralls on August 16, 2011 at 12:45 PM

Oh and by the way, it is not the contributors on this site who are turning this into LGF, it is commentors who call other commentators names for daring to not agree with everything they beleive in.

akerralls on August 16, 2011 at 12:47 PM

Roughly 30,000 men annually are infected with HIV through gay sex, with an estimated 282,000 dying from the disease in the 30 or so years since it was first categorized (a death rate of roughly 8k, twice cervical cancer). Will Jazz support and endorse public bans on gay sex as a health hazard? – northdallasthirty on August 15, 2011 at 11:17 PM

And, as we are doing that let’s ban smoking, drinking and fast food. Your antipathy towards gays is noted. I suppose that girls that get the HPV deserve it along with gay males that contract AIDS. Do you also believe as Bachman that gays and lesbians are part of Satan…………and, at the same time does not judge them.

SC.Charlie on August 16, 2011 at 1:36 PM

Solution – adopt some libertarian principles. Advise people that the HPV vaccine is a good thing. Use the state’s buying power to get a deal. Pass the deal along to the parents. But do not require the vaccination. Simply let them know they can save their daughter’s life and save money doing it.

Furthermore, if their “Christian Values” are so Islamic in nature that the daughter MUST be forced to suffer if she strays and has sex then either the parents are neglecting their children’s educations or the parents are as unfit to be members of human society as the creature who dictated the Qur’an to his scribes.

{^_^}

herself on August 16, 2011 at 1:45 PM

Prove, right here and right now, that every single girl in this country who does not or chooses not to receive Gardasil will die.

Come on, Jazz. You’re calling this a death sentence; prove that it is one.

By the way, you’re full of crap, because there have been literally BILLIONS of women who were born, lived, and thrived quite nicely BEFORE THIS VACCINE WAS EVEN INVENTED.

You can’t even prove that this prevents cervical cancer in every single case.

What you’re trying to do is bluster your way into an argument. You have stated that, unless a girl receives this vaccine, she will die of cervical cancer.

Prove it. With facts, with peer-referenced studies. Right here, right now.

Or walk back your words.

northdallasthirty on August 15, 2011 at 10:59 PM

Apparently you missed basic science classes in medical school, so I won’t flog you publicly for being a dolt and not knowing the difference between risk and incidence.

I’ll also refer you to Epstein and Barr who’s viral discovery led to the identification of a virus that causes lymphoma just so you know what causes what. Hep B causes hepatocellular carcinoma, we have a vaccine for it too. I guess in your world because its transmitted by body fluids and good god, we don’t know how that happened.

Proving that it prevents it in every single case? Are you farking retarded? You can’t prove anything in every single case, but taken as a whole, we work to try and prevent as many cases as possible because people ARE people!! They are going to do things which YOU won’t approve of. WHODATHUNKIT?

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/HPV

Lastly, just because they lived before the vaccine was available doesn’t mean they didn’t die of something that would have been preventable!! Idiocy is not limited to Huffington Post I gather. Its made its way around here. Wow. Just wow.

Make sure you avoid the MMR vaccine too, after all, there is no way to be sure they will ever come in contact with measles virus, mumps, or rubella and after all, its a govt mandated vaccine in most schools.

JP1986UM on August 16, 2011 at 1:51 PM

And, as we are doing that let’s ban smoking, drinking and fast food. Your antipathy towards gays is noted. I suppose that girls that get the HPV deserve it along with gay males that contract AIDS. Do you also believe as Bachman that gays and lesbians are part of Satan…………and, at the same time does not judge them.

SC.Charlie on August 16, 2011 at 1:36 PM

As is your inability to read what a person says.

The annoying part about this is that I’m not a fan of banning gay sex, and were I a parent, I certainly would be considering very hard having my daughter vaccinated. I would also be supportive of, for something like this, subsidizing vaccination costs with tax dollars so that those who wanted it and couldn’t afford it having access.

northdallasthirty on August 16, 2011 at 12:02 AM

You clearly lack the ability to intelligently and fairly read and review a person’s remarks. You just proved that you cherry-pick phrases and try to smear people based on them while ignoring things to the contrary of your argument.

You are a bigot. No surprise, then, that you support the ovewhelming number of bigots in the gay and lesbian community.

And frankly, given that the bigots you support and endorse in the gay and lesbian community have no problem with HIV-positive adults having sex with children or dressing toddler-age girls as slaves to take to a sex fair and “show off” for adults, you have no credibility in talking about childrens’ health, either.

northdallasthirty on August 16, 2011 at 2:57 PM

Apparently you missed basic science classes in medical school, so I won’t flog you publicly for being a dolt and not knowing the difference between risk and incidence.

That would make much more sense if we didn’t have this example right here.

I want to thank you for making that argument. So, in essence, you have determined that a young girl who may grow up in a family where she is given no guidance about her sexual behavior, who may never have the benefit of your wisdom, who makes a mistake, should be delivered a death sentence because she engaged in behavior which you do not approve of. You have effectively removed any choice from her. She shall simply die, regarless of her circumstances, because she failed to live up to your standards. I thank you for your response again. You have proven exactly what I was trying to say. You are the judge, jury and executioner of this girl and no excuse shall be tolerated and no quarter given.

Jazz Shaw on August 15, 2011 at 10:08 PM

You notice that? Jazz says that it is a 100% certainty that this girl will die if she isn’t vaccinated – which means “every single case”. He screams that anyone who dares argue against his postulate is EXECUTING people.

And you come here trying to blast me for confusing risk and incidence? You belittle my intelligence and knowledge while you support and endorse Jazz’s patently unscientific statements?

Is this what you tell your patients? Do you tell them that, unless their daughter receives this vaccine, she will die, and they are responsible for killing her? Do you in any way support Jazz’s rhetoric calling anyone who disagrees with him an “executioner” who just wants to kill people?

Jazz made a stupid and idiotic statement. You can hold him accountable and retain some shred of credibility. Otherwise, you just look like a freaking hypocrite.

northdallasthirty on August 16, 2011 at 3:14 PM

I believe a drug should be mandated, with the option to OPT OUT if you parents dont want to, like they can with every other drug.

Or you could just allow parents to opt in, like they do with virtually every other non-essential medication, etc.

The problem here is that you don’t want to pay for it. You want someone else to pay your medical bills for you.

So go ask someone else to pay for it. At least be upfront and say you need the charity; you’ll be surprised at how many people will help you, if it’s that important to you.

northdallasthirty on August 16, 2011 at 3:19 PM

No northdallasthirty, I dont have a problem paying for it, that is not the point at all. The point is, why have a cancer saving drug that 100% of the population cant afford? I can save for a few months to get my girls their, but what about single mothers whose daughters have a high risk for cervical cancer, we should let them go ahead and take the risk because you think it is charity to have affordable vaccinations for all?

akerralls on August 16, 2011 at 4:31 PM

And you come here trying to blast me for confusing risk and incidence? You belittle my intelligence and knowledge while you support and endorse Jazz’s patently unscientific statements?

Is this what you tell your patients? Do you tell them that, unless their daughter receives this vaccine, she will die, and they are responsible for killing her? Do you in any way support Jazz’s rhetoric calling anyone who disagrees with him an “executioner” who just wants to kill people?

Jazz made a stupid and idiotic statement. You can hold him accountable and retain some shred of credibility. Otherwise, you just look like a freaking hypocrite.

northdallasthirty on August 16, 2011 at 3:14 PM

Good questions.
As I mentioned before, if those who are for mandating using children as guinea pigs for new STD drugs were to offer to assume full, unlimited financial responsibility for the girls who have suffered and died as a result of the drugs, then their opinion would garner a bit more cred.

At any rate, aren’t those who are for pushing this on the little girls who died the ones who are actually guilty of murder?

whatcat on August 16, 2011 at 4:50 PM

I can save for a few months to get my girls their, but what about single mothers whose daughters have a high risk for cervical cancer, we should let them go ahead and take the risk because you think it is charity to have affordable vaccinations for all?

akerralls on August 16, 2011 at 4:31 PM

Yes, it is charity. And in charity, I can contribute whatever amount I choose, based on what I feel comfortable with doing and in line with my own opinions.

What you want is welfare, where you decide how much I should give, when I should give it, and to where it goes — and if I disagree, you threaten me with imprisonment and confiscation of my money and property for which I worked at gunpoint.

What gives you the right to spend my money? I work hard to earn it; why should you be allowed to take it?

Better yet, what gives you the right to smear and attack me and claim that I want the children of single mothers to be killed?

You’re a piece of welfare filth. You won’t pay your own bills and then you shamelessly exploit other peoples’ misfortune to try to get others to pay for you.

If you are so worried about “single mothers”, start pumping your own cash into it. I wager your “concern” will magically disappear when you can’t hoodwink or shame other people into paying the bill for it.

northdallasthirty on August 16, 2011 at 5:03 PM

Here are the problems with Perry’s actions in this situation.

1) He acted unilaterally, with no consultation with members of the legislative branch.
2) It is questionable whether or not Perry had the authority under the Texas Constitution or statutory law to impose the requirement.
3) Perry and his aides argued that not only did he have the right to issue the executive order, but that the Texas Legislature lacked the authority to overturn his actions or prohibit the use of state money to fund the vaccination program.
4) HPV is different from every other disease for which the state of Texas requires vaccination as a condition of enrollment in school. The others can be easily passed in a normal classroom setting in the course of the ordinary activity of going to school. HPV, on the other hand, is not ordinarily passed under such conditions — therefore the nexus between school enrollment and the vaccine is lacking.
5) If Perry’s reasoning is accepted as legitimate, then there is no legitimate barrier to a future governor issuing an executive order mandating that girls receive Norplant as a condition of enrolling in school beginning in sixth grade. After all, given the multitude of societal problems caused by teen pregnancy and the negative impact on the future of girls who do become pregnant, there is a compelling argument that such a mandate is beneficial to society and the girls — religious, moral, legal, and constitutional questions notwithstanding — and that argument is every bit as compelling as the argument for Gardasil (actually more so, given the number of teen pregnancies every year)…

RhymesWithRight on August 16, 2011 at 12:38 AM

The preceding is the best summation of all the arguments against Perry’s decision, except for the second most important reason, after #5 above. It is that Perry acted unnecessarily quickly after his re-election, well in advance of the next school year. Why is that? Might it be because one of his campaign donors was Merck? Might it be because his former chief of staff, Mike Toomey, had become one of Merck’s lobbyists? Were the normal bounds of law and government sacrificed for payback to a donor? Were the children of Texas acted upon by the decision of just ONE man to take care of his friends? That is Crony Capitalism or Corporatism, simply another form of Statism.
Don’t we already have a man ruling by executive order, and paying back his corporate friends? This not the only instance of this by Perry. Something to think about

kevinsoberg on August 16, 2011 at 6:30 PM

Car crashes can’t be prevented by a shot. You fail, try again.

Uncle Sams Nephew on August 15, 2011 at 10:18 PM

Did you read my comment?

Ban children from cars and no children will be killed in car crashes.

mockmook on August 16, 2011 at 10:53 PM

getting upset because the Governor of Texas, in a “moment of weakness,” tried to do something about it. And some of you managed to get him to back down.

In a moment of weakness, Perry bypassed the normal process for adding the HPV vaccine to the State required list of vaccinations…Did the person heading the TX Dept. of Health declare a health emergency thus the reason Perry went the EO route? Was the TX legislature not in session? Were the elected members of the TX legislature unavailable to be called into a “Special Session”? Would the EO have been put in force if there wasn’t a Merck connection to Perry’s office?

NOT the actions of a conservative, no matter how many times “but the TX Legislature stopped him” is repeated…

Gohawgs on August 17, 2011 at 2:09 AM

northdallas,

you are an absolute idiot. All of the drugs that kids get now are mandated, they are covered under insurance, my insurance that I pay for. I dont know where you get welfare or where you get the right to tell me I want you to pay for it. I want it mandated so my freaking insurance covers it. Do you understand that or are you so against this that you cant read anything without twisting it in your small little head? Do you even know how insurance works?

I am sure you would have been screaming at all of those welfare people when polio, mumps, measles, etc. where being mandated. I hear you in your best snotty northeastern elite voice, “Just let them get their dirty little diseases. I give charity where I want”.

akerralls on August 17, 2011 at 11:00 AM

Jazz, you are a real idiot.

Mcguyver on August 17, 2011 at 9:13 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3