Posted on 09/19/2011 8:54:44 AM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
As the debate over Texas Gov. Rick Perry mandating the HPV vaccine continues between Republican presidential candidates, a woman whose endorsement is coveted by all them, South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, has her own complicated history on the issue.
In 2007, shortly before Perry issued an executive order requiring that schoolgirls be vaccinated against the sexually transmitted human papillomavirus, or HPV, that causes most cervical cancers, Haley was throwing her support behind a similar bill in South Carolina. At the time she was in her second term as a state representative.
State Rep. Joan Brady introduced the Cervical Cancer Prevention Act in South Carolina, and the Republican corralled more than 60 legislators, including Haley, to sponsor the bill. Unlike the executive order for which Perry is taking heat, this legislative mandate did not include a provision for parents to opt out of inoculating their daughters.
Within months, fierce opposition mounted, and legislative records back up accounts from sources who recall sponsors "dropping like flies" before a unanimous vote killed the bill on April 18, 2007.
(Excerpt) Read more at articles.cnn.com ...
You should ask your doctor about having the full round of vaccines for yourself. If it’s good for your daughters, then it’s good for you. You could get HPV that turns to cancer and have to undergo costly treatments and even death. But it’s up to you to decide.
That's one wat to look at it. The following is from Reuters, May 8, 2007 Texas governor backs down on HPV vaccine effort:
The Republican-majority Texas Legislature passed a bill last month contravening the order by preventing the vaccination program for at least four years. Several other states are also considering requiring the vaccine.
Perry announced on Tuesday he would not to veto that bill, meaning it will become law. Perry said a veto was futile because the legislature would vote to override it. He blasted the legislature for its decision.
They are, now. Use in males was approved late in 2009, IIRC.
A better reason for targeting females first is that a female's chance of serious complications from HPV infection, although minuscule, is greater than a male's chance.
You don’t seem to get it.
Of course there was a firestorm. Why do you waste bandwidth trying to prove something everyone knows.
The point is, if Rick Perry had known ahead of time that this firestorm would come at him, he would not have issued the order. Likewise, since this thread is about Nikki Haley, I comment that she, too, was at first for it in her state of South Carolina, but she, too, did not anticipate the firestorm there, and when it happened, she changed her mind as Rick Perry changed his.
She no more anticipated the firestorm in her state than Perry anticipated the firestorm in his.
How do we know this? It is so simple I could have reasoned it as a young child. If they had anticipated it, they would never have pushed it in the first place. It has brought them nothing but embarrassment and grief. And because he is running for President, that is especially true of Perry right now.
And I commented, bottom line, this belief they had that their actions would be welcomed, is exactly what proves that they did not do this for ill motives but wrongly believed the people would be for it, and they saw it as a medical issue of Cancer vs. young people.
No one would deliberately push such a program if they realized what bad things would come upon them and haunt them forever for having done so.
So simple, so indisputably true, a child...at least I could have as child...could correctly reason this.
I don’t get why you don’t get it.
What is the difference between Bachmann getting cash from 4 Drug companies that are pushing the competeing drug to Gardisil and then publically calling it a Mental retardation drug (big LIE).
Perry received 28,500 from Merck over 10 years. Do you really think $2850.00 per year buys a pol. maybe the local dog cathcher but not in the big politics.
“Well, Perry’s EO didn’t “include an opt out.””
That’s not correct. All vaccines in Texas are opt-out.
Indeed, if you don’t go to public school, there are no required vaccines.
All the procedure did was make sure the Hispanic population (who, sadly has kids at 11) gets the vaccine in a timely fashion and it is paid for with taxpayer money.
Their lobbyist also donated to him. Lord knows how many other ‘groups’ gave Rick money. Then, there’s the RGA.
One thing is clear from his record: it doesn’t cost a whole heck of a lot to buy Rick Perry. he’s pretty free flowing with the taxpayer dollars for his donors.
I don’t think you’ve made your case on Bachmann. Are there 4 drug companies making competing drugs to Gardasil? Did she call it a ‘mental retardation drug’ or did she repeat that a mother had told her that?
Show me, not only the appearance of impropriety in Bachmann’s case, but please also show me the long record of similar shady behavior in her that Perry has. I doubt you can.
By now you have probably read on, and captured my repetition of what that entire paragraph meant to convey. I'd have better said "didn't create an opt-out," so as to not get mired in debating the verb "include."
At the time, Rick Perry didn't change his mind. The Texas legislature changed it for him and he blasted them for it.
Nikki Haley wasn't a Governor and had no power to force a vaccine or anything else on her state.
Perry did have that power and he did force it on his state, all by himself, despite opposition from his base.
Then, he refused to repeal his Executive Order when legislators came to him and asked him to, so they did it for him.
I'm posting articles from that time so people can read it for themselves. It's called 'vetting'.
If that's wasting bandwidth, then I be guilty.
Perhaps the states could have saved MORE lives by mandating the flu vaccine, but, again, looking at it through the eyes of all our states, all of them implementing Gardasil programs at that time, take a look at the compulsive and significant information that the CDC and almost all other major health agencies and organizations were providing to all those states at that time. Right or wrong as we know it now, at least we can understand why HPV was an issue of national importance back then and why Gardasil programs were starting up all across the country during that time period.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr56e312a1.htm
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/rr/rr5602.pdf
http://www.oralcancerfoundation.org/dental/pdf/guidelines_for_vacination_2008.pdf
http://www.hu.ufsc.br/projeto_hpv/NEJM%2007%20OPORTUNIDADES.pdf
http://www.medscape.org/viewarticle/551247
http://www.childrensmemorial.org/ce/online/article.aspx?articleID=190
I know those above links are all old links, but I think it is good for people to understand why all the states were implementing Gardasil programs back then. The CDC, American Cancer Society, Department(s) of Health, hospital researchers, physicians, and all kinds of reputable health organizations were promoting HPV as a significant health problem in the U.S. AT THAT TIME, and the states were listening and implementing Gardasil programs all across the country.
Granted, a couple years later a different vaccine, Ceravix (Michele Bachmann’s choice for HPV vaccinations) did become available, and some states then switched from Gardasil to Ceravix, but Ceravix was not approved or available until 2010 or so, well after all the states had already started with Gardasil.
Here are the two points:
1. ALL states were implementing Gardasil programs during that same time period. This also goes to the fact that Merck wasn’t receiving funds from just one state; it was receiving fund from ALL of them (on possibly varying levels though as you pointed out).
2. All states were implementing these Gardasil programs because of the warnings and recommendations the major health agencies and organizations (including The American Cancer Society and the CDC) were promoting to all the states. If you read the above information going out to all the states at that time period, you can see why the states became so concerned and jumped in with these Gardasil programs so passionately all across the country.
And here is a third point:
3. It is easier to see with hindsight than it is to know at the time what the future will see or what the future may hold.
So I’ll take your thought that perhaps the flu has touched more people than cancer, but I do think it helps to see why all our states were so concerned with HPV at that time and WHY they were all implementing Gardasil programs (and then Gardasil or Ceravix) programs.
***
I have enjoyed our back and forth here. You have made many good points, and it has been good you were able to provide some actual information here to help in the process of America trying to figure this entire issue out. Thanks for sharing all you did!
Your entire argument depends on making Halley and Perry "push" activities, in making public policy, equivalent.
But the simple, basic facts of the news reports make an equivalence characterization absurd.
And as far as I know, all still are. But only Texas, Virginia, and Washington DC implements a public policy of "mandatory" vaccination. Texas' mandate was implemented unilaterally, with no public debate, by Perry, and was subsequently reversed. Virginia's mandate was reversed by the Virgina House this past February, bu the DEMs in the Senate committee refused to allow it to come to a vote in the VA Senate.
-- So I'll take your thought that perhaps the flu has touched more people than cancer, but I do think it helps to see why all our states were so concerned with HPV at that time and WHY they were all implementing Gardasil programs (and then Gardasil or Ceravix) programs. --
I have no problem with states being involved in this, and long ago I said I figured the vaccine was a net benefit, although it was useful for a small fraction of the population.
Perry was WAY out of line implementing a mandatory vaccination via EO, and the decision reeks of cronyism (not quid pro quo, mind you, just cronyism). He is also spinning a bit, now, inflating the significance of his contribution to the "opt-out" and leading most causal observers to mistaken belief.
His conduct then and now has ruined any chance he had at earning my trust.
Bachmann stated it was ok for her to lie (about Mental retardation) because she’s not a Doctor.
There are no good reasons for lying or misleading. Frankly I don’t want a Prez that continues the old standard “it’s according to what the meaning of is..is.”
We will not agree on Bachmann. She has absolutely no credibility with me.
‘It is a vaccine most vile.’
With you there, and you’ve probably read way more than I, tho.
Since the ‘70’s, we have been very cautious with vaccines.
The first horror I think of is putting awful ingredients in the adjuvant and injecting it directly into the CLOSED bloodstream.
We think it’s ‘criminal’to inject tiny babies with this junk.
And look at the increase of recommended shots for kids. And so many vaccines per shot. Absolutely ridiculous.
How the He__ did we all survive up until now??!
If there happens to be no immediate side effects from a shot, there is the possiblity down the road of these awful ingredients affecting our DNA.
It is said a vaccine is ‘tricking’ the immune sysem into action to fight whatever.
Many times the immune system has a ‘trick’ of it’s own, in response, and not in a good way.
‘____the “opt-out” was provided_____________’
Chiming in with something I’m having a hard time spotting in this whole thread.
Part of the anger with Perry’s EO was that it didn’t require parental consent, I do believe.
Know this may be obvious to some, but the rest of us need to see it plainly:
The shot would be given without PARENTAL CONSENT.
That is one of the scariest things out there.
The ignorance surrounding this vaccine of FR continues. Every day, I read something new and idiotic about it. Thanks for supplying today's version!
GARDASIL is a vaccine indicated in girls and women (and boys and men) 9 through 26 years of age for the prevention of the following diseases caused by Human Papillomavirus (HPV) types included in the vaccine:
She only put her support behind a bill...Didn’t order kids to have it. Now if as Gov. she did this I might have a problem. I think some reporter sees a political future for Gov. Haley....They think maybe in 2020 she will be ready to be President Haley! Yes I will go ahead and say it Haley/Rubio 2020!!!! LOL
LOL Are you just a bit tightly wound?
Gardasil seems to be the only vaccine that is not recommended for me and my husband. I wonder why my girls are so valuable.
No, it required consent. But consent was "coerced" by making the vaccination mandatory for entry to school, or mandatory the same way MMR, DTP and other vaccines are.
In the universe of possibilities, there are family situations where parental consent is not required (incarcerated juvenile, emancipated juvenile, adjudicated mature juvenile), but those are the exception, not the norm.
Perhaps you could do us a favor and educate yourself on how medicines and vaccines get FDA approval, and how they are subsequently pulled from the market? Then you wouldn't look so ignorant when you're offering your negative opinion on a vaccine that literally saves lives. I wouldn't mind if someone knowledgeable offered up valid reasons for Gardasil to be pulled off of the market, like Merck did with Vioxx, and that the FDA has done with other medicines that show post-market concerns via study and analysis. Problem is, I've yet to find that person on FR, so all we get is “well, why don't you take it if it's so safe”, which is an absurd statement when one actually knows how the FDA works, and how that impacts the medical community.
So, if I'm “tightly wound”, it's only because I've seen more ignorance on this subject (Gardasil’s safety, not Perry's EO) than I have on any other in my 7+ years on FR.
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.