Posted on 09/17/2011 7:29:48 AM PDT by Askwhy5times
The short answer is no. The long answer is also no. It is true that trying to implement this vaccine regime by EO was wrong. Perry readily admits that mistake. However, the vaccine is actually a good idea. It is not an assault on innocent 12-year old girls as Michelle Bachmann claimed. It also does not cause retardation as Michelle Bachmann misinformed the American public. The misconception in many people's mind is, since HPV is a sexually transmitted disease, the government is preparing 12 old girls for sexual activity at an early age. That is false. In order for this vaccine to work correctly, it has to be given at that age. The protection they get is a few years down the road. Waiting until the girls are adults and can make their own informed decision will not work. It will be too late for them to take advantage of this potentially lifesaving vaccine. Heather Borden Herve over at Wilton Patch explains:
HPV is also the most common sexually transmitted disease today.A better approach for Gov. Perry would have been to offer the vaccine for free and promote it to parents through a public education program, but hindsight is always 20-20. BTW, the story about Rick Perry sitting at the deathbed of a friend dying of cervical cancer is true. Here name was Heather Burcham.A-ha! Is that what makes this issue hot and—pardon the media parlance pun—sexy? Because somehow when the topic of “innocent little 12 year old girls” gets mixed up with protecting them from a virus that gets transmitted through sexual contact, it suddenly gets to be co-opted by politicians on the basis of protecting moral values—and it gets them airtime.
In full disclosure, I grew up in a household that was comfortable talking about science, medicine and fact. My dad is an OBGYN, so we weren’t afraid of using correct anatomical terminology or talking about human sexuality. It’s formed the basis for the way I approach issues like this one.
The science shows that in order for this vaccine to work it needs to be administered before a person becomes sexually active. According to a statement released by the American Academy of Pediatrics following the media uproar after Bachmann’s comments, they “recommend that girls receive [the] HPV vaccine around age 11 or 12. That’s because this is the age at which the vaccine produces the best immune response in the body, and because it’s important to protect girls well before the onset of sexual activity.”
That recommendation was echoed by the CDC and American Academy of Family Physicians....
"The American Academy of Pediatrics would like to correct false statements made in the Republican presidential campaign that HPV vaccine is dangerous and can cause mental retardation. There is absolutely no scientific validity to this statement. Since the vaccine has been introduced, more than 35 million doses have been administered, and it has an excellent safety record."
This isn't just a woman's issue. HPV is also a major risk factor for penile cancer.
So you are against all required vaccines in all states?
Unless required by a public health emergency, unequivocally yes. That is simply not the proper role of government.
So only after many more thousands, tens of thousands, die, not before?
Thanks.
Women and children hit worst?
Come on, if you believe in that line of argument there's no big-government overreach you can't justify.
I’m trying to understand where you would draw the line. Some believe we have already passed that point, some don’t.
If we have an effective early warning system for a disease, where treatment can be more likely successful with early dectection, and the dectection is widely used, and still results in thousands of deaths per, is that enougH?
Or does it need to be ten thousand deaths per year, or one hundred thousand per year?
You stated: “required by a public health emergency, unequivocally yes”.
I wanted to know how many would need to die before you agree it is an appropriate infringement of liberty.
It appears we agree there is a time and place for the government to do so, we just disagree when that is. Would you accept that only after a million die per year?
Once you accept that government can demand specific medical care of its citizens, there is NO significant impediment left on the slippery slope to socialized medicine or fascist Obamacare. As the old saying goes, once you accept that role for government, "We’ve established what you are. [in this case, a socialist]. Now we’re just negotiating over the price."
Those are nice fancy words, but what do they mean? Vaccines are used against contagious disease. The need for them isn't known until after death and crippling effect. The people that make the decisions have to draw a line somewhere. At what point will you draw that line? A actual number, for that is what has to be used to meause when your phrase above is met.
And after it has been shown to have that result, would you agree to continue it to prevent it from happening again, even decades later?
Once you accept that government can demand specific medical care of its citizens
In Texas, we can choose to opt out, for no other reason than we don't want to participate. Some other states require a medical necessity. Some allow religious reasons but then apply to all vaccines. In Texas, we get to choose we don't like a single one and opt out of it alone.
We’ve established what you are. [in this case, a socialist]. Now we’re just negotiating over the price."
I believe we both agree there is a place, you just may want millions dead before we agree to the actions.
Rationale that sharing the cost to make it more affordable required that it be a "mandatory" vaccine are once again, betrayals of conservative principle. Yes I know there was an opt-out, but what I wonder is (and would like to hear from any FReepers who know first-hand):
1. Was the opt-out difficult and cumbersome with paperwork, a go-out-of-your way process?
2. Was the opt-out such that the parent could opt-out for that particular vaccine and keep the others?
The reason I ask is that I've read anecdotal stuff that indicates that the opt-out protocol was complicated and a hassle, and that you didn't have the choice of ONLY opting out of the HPV vaccine, but it was an all-or-nothing opt-out. Don't know if it's true, and REGARDLESS --
Santorum said it best: that the purpose of mandated vaccines for school-age children is to prevent the immediate spread of certain sicknesses, that one kid getting sick endangered all, and that was the reason for the vaccines. This HPV vaccine is STRICTLY a presumptuous act of a nanny state, especially because a) it isn't to prevent the contagious spread of a disease, but to shield against consequences once the disease is contracted AND b) it addresses a potential health problem that won't even happen until the subject of the vaccine is very near adulthood. The HPV shots are pure nanny statism, an orange compared to the applies of childhood vaccines against measles, polio, etc.
Perry, Merck, the medical establishment, and any other entity, are welcome to encourage parents to use the vaccine for their girls in order to protect them in the future, but to mandate it with an opt-out is a betrayal of limited government conservatism. With the other vaccines, there's at least a little bit of sense and logic to the mandating of polio, whooping cough, mumps, etc. vaccines in school kids. But mandating the HPV shots because it would force the sharing of costs to lower the prices, was pure and simple overstepping of bounds.
BUMP!
They mean if people are not going to die in significant numbers in the short term with no other way to protect themselves, then it's not the government's business.
Once you start dealing with long-term diseases, government has no role in the issue. People can make their own long-term decisions and they have plenty of time to make them and decide for themselves what to do.
The people that make the decisions have to draw a line somewhere.
And the "people that make the decision" in America is We the People, not our Lord High Masters the elected official. They are our servants not our masters.
You need to get your head away from the "government makes decisions for the people" line of thinking. That is not what government is about. Government is the servant of the people. Its function to act according to our will, not to force us to act according to its will.
Get the master-servant relationship straight and all these difficult questions are very straightforward. All you need to do is not be afraid of the concept that individuals are free men who have both the right and the responsibility to make decisions for themselves.
I believe we both agree there is a place, you just may want millions dead before we agree to the actions.
That is practically word-for-word the hardcore lefty argument for socialized medicine.
Oh yeah, since this gets the guys worried about their willie, stab them girls with Gardasil.
How about it just gets mandated for guys, then they don’t have to worry?
That little tidbit from your post indicates that you might be every bit as emotional and hot-headed as the women you rail against.
Quite a few of us -- I would venture to say MOST of us -- like Perry but see his statist tendencies, and when asked if the HPV thing was "outrageous" or not, are saying, Yes, it Was. As for Bachmann, a lot of us, myself included, like her politics but recognize her sad lack of skill; putting her in the presidency would be like putting a good amateur baskebatll player in the NBA and thinking he was ready for game. Bachmann is NOT "ready for prime time."
You, on the other hand, appear to be of the emotion-driven "If you disagree with me, you're an insane idiot who discounts eveyrthing good about my favorite candidate and who thinks your candidate is 100 percent perfect." It is a hot-headed emotional response wholly lacking in sense or logic.
1. Was the opt-out difficult and cumbersome with paperwork, a go-out-of-your way process?
2. Was the opt-out such that the parent could opt-out for that particular vaccine and keep the others?
I am a parent living in Texas, with a teenage and younger daughters.
In 2003, Texas changed our opt out such that you could opt out of any single vaccine, or all of them. Also it included the reason to opt out for person conviction, not just medical necessity or religious beliefs.
That was in place at the time of the Executive Order. Perry's EO added the option for the opt to both be requested and submitted by the internet.
Since that time, the Health Department has added additional red tape, requiring it be renewed every 2 years. After the 2003 action, you could do it once and be done for life.
Today you can request the form online, but a notarized completed form is required for the schools to accept it.
More information is available at:
http://vaccineinfo.net/exemptions/index.shtml
Perry's mistake was that he listened to his campaign donor instead of the people who entrusted him with power. That was their mistake.
So what is a significant number? Why do avoid that question? Why only short term? If the people are going to die, but it takes years to start and typically years after detection to die, why is that exempted.
Once you start dealing with long-term diseases, government has no role in the issue.
Really? After you find you have cancer, then you get to decide? The vaccine will not stop a HPV infection, it will only prevent it, and only six months at best after the first dose with any dependancy.
We the People, not our Lord High Masters the elected official. They are our servants not our masters.
Each individual could opt out in Texas, as we do for the other vaccines. But for your "imminent public health emergency", it takes an elected official. We agree on that. I am trying to learn what you define as that emergency. Why do avoid that description when you agree there is a situation that would require it?
That is good news and merits a checkmark on the "plus" side for Perry.
Depends on the population. I'd say that if the number exceeded 0.01% of the population that starts to get into significant numbers.
Why do avoid that question?
I can't avoid a question that nobody asked.
Why only short term?
Because anything longer than short term is not an emergency and thus there is no justification for the government to usurp a citizen's inalienable rights to life and liberty.
Really? After you find you have cancer, then you get to decide?
You can decide for yourself at any time.
The vaccine will not stop a HPV infection, it will only prevent it, and only six months at best after the first dose with any dependancy.
Who cares about the vaccine? The question at hand is whether the government has the right to make that decision. If you believe it does you are a socialist and the only remaining question is to what degree.
Each individual could opt out in Texas, as we do for the other vaccines.
"Opt-out" is BS when the government can (and does, often) make that a bureaucratic nightmare to accomplish.
But for your "imminent public health emergency", it takes an elected official. We agree on that. I am trying to learn what you define as that emergency. Why do avoid that description when you agree there is a situation that would require it?
See above. Can't avoid a question you didn't ask. Now that you've asked it you've got your answer.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.