Skip to comments.Rising GOP star Haley has own history with HPV vaccine fallout
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 ...
From Perry's own statement on this EO, dated 2/5/07. Your continual lies are discrediting your argument.
AUSTIN Gov. Rick Perry today issued the following statement regarding his HPV vaccine executive order:
Never before have we had an opportunity to prevent cancer with a simple vaccine. While I understand the concerns expressed by some, I stand firmly on the side of protecting life. The HPV vaccine does not promote sex, it protects womens health. In the past, young women who have abstained from sex until marriage have contracted HPV from their husbands and faced the difficult task of defeating cervical cancer. This vaccine prevents that from happening.
Providing the HPV vaccine doesnt promote sexual promiscuity anymore than providing the Hepatitis B vaccine promotes drug use. If the medical community developed a vaccine for lung cancer, would the same critics oppose it claiming it would encourage smoking?
Finally, parents need to know that they have the final decision about whether or not their daughter is vaccinated. I am a strong believer in protecting parental rights, which is why this executive order allows them to opt out.
This isn't the only mistake in your remarks, but I'll address just this one, by linking to the legislation that was passed, and to Perry's remarks at the time the bill was presented to him.
I have wrestled for a few days with whether to veto this bill, or let it become law without my signature. But the fact of the matter is, it will become law no matter what because the voice of the Legislature is clear. And rather than allowing this issue to be held captive one more day by legislative politics, and the inevitable posturing that will ensue during a veto override debate, I have decided to let it become law without my signature.
People who read the article?
Therefore, to be consistent, whatever angle is used against Rick Perry...whatever one, no exceptions, can be used legitimately against Nikki Haley.
It can? There's an enormous difference between a legislator backing a bill and then changing their mind vs a governor meeting with the manufacturer of a product, taking money from that manufacture through various avenues, and then mandating it by executive fiat.
No matter how you slice it, the two actions are not even close to being comparable no matter how bad Perry fans might like it to be.
I dont subscribe to the distortions that you use to describe what happened in Texas.
You mean the truth? You can ignore it all you like, but facts are facts.
I have proven that he did not, could not, have done what he did unless he believed the people of tx would welcome this addition to the school vaccine program.
I think you might need a refresher course on the definition of the word 'proven'.
Otherwise, you would have to stupidly believe that he wanted to have the people rebuff him, that he wanted to be embarrassed for life that he had to backtrack when he heard the voice of the people.
LOL! That's the funniest thing I've read yet about this.
That proves he would not have gone ahead, Merck or no Merck, let me repeat, he would not have gone ahead, Merck or no Merck, if he had not thought it would be welcomed Cancer protection for kids, not rejected and thrown back in his face as an embarrassment for all time to come.
Again, it doen't 'prove' anything. It doesn't even make a persuasive case for it.
Likewise, Nikki Haley obviously thought it was the thing to do. Let me repeat, she obviously thought it was the thing to do.
Maybe she did. Let me repeat, maybe she did. Obviously, she changed her mind and didn't try and impose her will on the entire state before that. Let me repeat, obviously, she changed her mind and didn't try and impose her will on the entire state before that.
Incorrect: that the Legislature had to override. No, it didnt come to that.
Seriously, how about looking at this thing objectively without the whole 'defend the candidate at all costs' glasses on? It seems you're not being honest with people reading this or even with yourself about this.
Will Folks made her do it!
Gee...I guess it’s ok for Bachmann to get campaign funds from the Big Pharma producing a competeing drug to Mercks Gardisil.
Maybe if Merck throws some cash her way she’ll all of a sudden like Gardisil.
In 2003, the TX legislature passed HB 2292 (HB 2292 - Enrolled Bill Text) which broadened the vaccine opt out justification from "medical or recognized religion" to "medical, religion, or conscientious objection." The legislation says that in order to receive exemption from immunization, the child's parent or guardian must request a child-specific form in writing, sign it and have the signature notarized, and submit the signed form to the school within 90 days of notarization.
In 2004, the state health department promulgated rules along those lines (97.62 Exclusions from Compliance), including that the written request for the child-specific form could be delivered via mail, facsimile, or in person.
The state health department rules have conscientious objection affidavits expire in 2 years even though the legislation does not require expiration.
In February 2007, Governor Perry ordered the state health department to make the request for the child-specific affidavit form available online (RP65 - Text of EO).
Rules. The Health and Human Services Executive Commissioner shall adopt rules that mandate the age appropriate vaccination of all female children for HPV prior to admission to the sixth grade. ...
Parents' Rights. The Department of State Health Services will, in order to protect the right of parents to be the final authority on their children's health care, modify the current process in order to allow parents to submit a request for a conscientious objection affidavit form via the Internet while maintaining privacy safeguards under current law.
The "opt out" that Perry provided was "you can request the form via the internet." That's it.
Because one of the reasons our economy needs to be 'unf***ked' is because of all of the political cronyism that is picking winners and losers and destroying the upward mobility of ordinary citizens.
When one of the GOP candidates has a documented history of involvement in EXACTLY those kinds of deals, it does cast a shadow of doubt on his ability to 'unf***k' anything.
The problem with that plan is that it won't work very well on girls AFTER they reach puberty , even if they never had sex until 35 and got the shots at 18. Best protection rates are only found in studies when the vaccine is given at a young age. It doesn't have a damn thing to do with before having sex if that happens at an older age. It HAS to be given at that age to get the best protection.
You lied. There was an opt-out. You are making false claims. Meanwhile, the other leading GOP candidate literally MANDATED that the citizens of his state carry health insurance or pay a fine.
Yet you continually post lies about an opt-out which was available. I question your motives...
You mean like Bachmann:
Bachmann received $146,400 from the pharmaceutical industry over the course of her career.
Perry got a total of $28,500 in contributions from Mercks political action committee from 2002 to 2010.
Perry got a total of $28,500 in contributions from Mercks political action committee from 2002 to 2010.
Including $5k on the DAY HE SIGNED THE ORDER. Plus money given through lobbyists and through the RGA.
One thing's for sure though, Rick HATED CANCER so much and cared so much about lives that he didn't bother waiting for Merck's check to clear before mandating their product in the State of Texas. What a guy!
That’s a heron, not a finch.
The Perry EO was a mandate (with an opt-out), a true conservative would have never done it that way, you are defending a big gumbmint program that was being forced on the public. Thankfully the Texas legislature ko'd the program.
No, actually it isn’t. You and your little friend are ignorant.
What the picture is, is posted as a response to the pathetic, lame excuse that you Perrycites use to excuse your corrupt candidate’s disgusting actions.
A PerryKrisha red Heron?
Yet you continually post lies about an opt-out which was available. I question your motives... --
Slow down a bit, and take the time to point to a claim that is false.
The opt out for vaccines, the one that includes the conscientious objection justification, was created by the Texas legislature, in 2003. That's a fact, I posted a link to the creation of the legislation.
I suppose my remark that Perry's EO didn't include an opt-out was technically false, because the opt-out existed for years before he issued the EO, and would automatically apply.
I also showed, with links to the source materials, what change to the process Perry worked. He directed the health department to make the application for the state-issued affidavit available via an internet application process.
You might reflect a moment on whether or not your accusation of calling me a liar who continuously posts lies is well taken.
More attempting to confound the issue by making the discussion about Gardasil itself. Aside from Bachmann’s rantings, the issue is solely about the method Perry used to impose it in Texas, bypassing the legislature and mandating its use, while having close ties to Merck folks (therefore having at least the appearance of impropriety).
This real issue is further compounded by the phony “opt out” (there is no such thing in the EO, only a directive to make an existing paper form available via the Internet) and by Perry’s lies about the fallout of the EO — he claimed to have humbly accepted the legislature’s rebuke when in fact he claimed they didn’t have the authority to overturn the EO and blamed those who voted to do so for any cancer case in the future, surrounding himself with victims while issuing the condemnations.
Did Haley do any of that?
“State Rep. Kris Crawford, a physician who led the debate to discredit the policy resulting in the bill’s demise, said even though Haley voted against the bill like everybody else he wondered why she didn’t remove herself as a bill sponsor if she opposed the mandate.”