If Perry truly believed that this vaccination would halt the spread of HPV, then why didn’t he require teenage boys to get it too?
Teenage boys are spreading the virus. A teenage girl will usually have fewer partners then a boy. So while a girl may spread it to a couple of boys, a boy carrying the HPV virus may spread it to a dozen girls. And yes, they have proven it works on males. So I ask again, if Perry truly believed that this vaccination would halt the spread of HPV, then why didn’t he require teenage boys to get it too?
Forget the charges of campaign payoffs, instead ask him if he would again make the same misogynistic choice not to require of males that which he would require of females.
That was almost 5 years ago.
July 2011 - A Vaccine May Shield Boys Too Until recently, Gardasil was a girls-only proposition. Approved for young women ages 9 to 26, the vaccine promised a great benefit: protection against four strains of sexually transmitted human papillomavirus (HPV), including two that can lead to cancer of the cervix, vagina and vulva.
Yet the vaccine has been a tough sell. It requires three shots, often painful, over the course of seven months. So far, only one in four teenage girls younger than 18 have completed all three shots.
Now, in the wake of new research suggesting that the vaccine protects against other cancers, Gardasil is increasingly marketed as an important vaccine for boys, too. The Food and Drug Administration has approved it for young men ages 9 to 26, expanding the list of indications just last December. ....."
At the time, it was not approved for males. I believe that if you asked Perry what should be done now, as a matter of public health, he would say that he believes the vaccine should be mandatory for ALL children.
As far as I know, the only point Perry has walked back from is obtaining the effect by the mechanism of executive order.