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 ...
I have spent a lot of time over the past few days reading up about Gardasil.
It is a vaccine most vile. Anyone who would try to force this dangerous vaccine on people needs a few doses of it themself first.
Well said. Perry had every reason to believe it would be welcomed.
Gov. Haley's experience underscores the outrage is driven by the vaccine being against a sexually transmittable virus. If this had been a vaccine against breast cancer, it would've been received much differently.
I've offered the backstory before but it's worth repeating for those who may not have seen it:
In 2005, recognizing 1,100 new cervical cancer diagnosis in Texas yearly, with one-third ending in death, the legislature passed HB 2475 which says, "This bill requires the Department of State Health Services to develop a strategic plan to eliminate mortality from cervical cancer by the year 2015 " "The strategic plan must be developed and delivered to the governor and legislature no later than December 31, 2006."
A 47 page report (Acrobat PDF) called "Texas Cervical Cancer Strategic Plan," December 2006, by Texas Department of State Health Services in collaboration with The Texas Cancer Council was delivered.
Page 8, "Executive summary" Armed with this new HPV vaccine, we can achieve the moment when we know our goal eliminating cervical cancer death and suffering is in reach.
Page 20, "Access to Care" - "Women must have access to cervical cancer screening to eliminate cervical cancer in Texas. The National Cancer Institute reports that groups of women with high cervical cancer mortality:...
"Widespread vaccination is a key to reducing cervical cancer incidence in Texas"
In 2007, when he signed the order, there was just a single approved HPV vaccine: Merck's Gardasil.
It wasn't until 2009 that GlaxoSmithKline's vaccine was FDA approved.
There was only one governor who all by himself made an executive order mandating the shots. There is no excuse for what Perry did, it ought to be a huge red flag.
Pharmaceuticals/Health Products $146,390
Hey, can you share a link or two? I know little about the vaccine itself.
In my mind, the crony charge lies in the friendships, mostly. The guy who was Perry's chief of staff became Merck's chief lobbyist in Texas. There is some other worker/family tie, between the governor and Merck. Something like somebody's mother in law.
Perry can have mixed motives. I believe he is interested in improving the health of the people of Texas. But at what cost? (not just money, also in the sense of mandating a medical action). Obviously, he didn't expect the kind of blowback he got, and continues to get; but I'll bet he knew his EO would be controversial, and he may have deliberately been bypassing the legislature, based on knowledge the legislature would NOT mandate the vaccine.
-- These people need to start putting this all into a historical and contextual perspective. --
It helps to have an accurate history, when doing that.
Point of order, here:
It "causes" most cervical cancers, or "is linked to many" cervical cancers.
No, seriously, I'm asking.
Perry’s former chief of staff was a lobbyist for Merck at the time and a good sized donor to Perry.
Perry’s actual chief of staff at the time was the mother-in-law of the head of a group called Women in Government that Merck created to push Gardasil mandates.
Perry met with Merck the day he signed the executive order. They gave him $5000 on the day he mandated their product for all teenage girls in Texas.
Nope, can’t see how any cronyism charge came about there. No sireee Bob.
Hoping to preemptively destroy a potential presidential/vp contender before she gets started.
Another political party, one on the left, would see this for what it is: racism and sexism. But since that same party is the perp here, it’s just good old business as usual.
Meh. Let Carling pick her nits. If I changed it heron, it would be just as wrong, so it’s hardly worth it.
Plus, she’s just trying to get me to stop posting it. Not because of the name of the bird, but because she doesn’t like that it is an effective way of countering the dishonest arguments of Perry supporters.
I think this accurate. 100% of the cervical cancers show evidence of an HPV infection. Gardasil targets four strains of HPV, two of which are present in 70% of the cancer cases; the other two not having any known relationship to cancer. But, and this is an important factor, millions of people are infected with HPV at any given time, and most of them cure. Similar to influenza, lots of people "get it," and some people die of complications from having it. The risk of serious complications from influenza infection is greater than from HPV infection.
The first thing in your comment I saw was the phrase “genital warts,” and I thought you were talking about John Kerry.
With an opt-out which anybody but the least-involved parents could easily have submitted, maintaing control of their own children's lives and welfare. Hey, I home schooled so I would not give up my parental rights at ALL. I don't think asking parents to care about their kids enough to take their OWN parental control with such an easy way is asking too much of good parents.
Although, come to think of it, there really ARE too many parents who don't even care enough to take charge of their children's best interest, so maybe Rick Perry was actually expecting too much of those parents.
That said, usually conservatives applaud states trying to use conservative - local - private funding ways to implement programs, but in this case, all the other governors using tax payer money to pay for their Gardasil programs (happening NATION-WIDE) at that time seems to be the route of choice for today's conservatives here. Go figure.
Now we ALL are stuck with paying Mereck through tax payer funding.
Marty, really. Even Perry supporters should be able to tell the difference between donations from ‘the pharmaceutical industry’ and donations from a single company to a politician who happened to mandate one of that company’s products on the very day they gave him a check for $5k.
If you want to accuse Bachmann of impropriety, have at it. However, there is a clear case of at least the appearance of impropriety in Perry’s case. If it’s there with Bachmann, I haven’t seen it yet. If it’s there, Perry should attack her with it.
Not meant to challenge the label "easy", or to assert that the process is "hard," but it's good to know what the process is.
There’s a plot behind this all.
I’m sure of it.
Here is one. I will send you a few later on. Have to go out awhile.
This is a very dangerous vaccine. Several countries in Europe have banned it. Truth is, nobody knows the long term effects and it is, at this time, only good for 4-6 years.
You know what people say about it is true because all the bad symptoms seem to be the same.
I would never force this on my kids.
All you have to do is google it.
No plot, as far as I can see. Just an attempt by several media sources to confuse the issue and turn that twisted form of the issue into a club to beat good conservatives with.
As far as I’m concerned, there are only two people involved in this issue that matter: Bachmann, for her statements on Gardasil itself and how it might feed anti-vaccine hysteria, and Perry, whose use of the EO process to mandate the treatment was far enough outside of normal “channels” that it warrants a closer look.
Here is another.
Pay no attention to the site name. It is a fair assessment.
I spent several hours reading up on different sites. There are so many.
Make sure you click on the pink link where it says 10 things you need to know. It is an update.
So you are in favor of forced vaccination of HPV.
I’ll check them out, LOL about the site name.
Yes, a plot. A plot! A plot, I tell you!
I have spent a lot of time over the past few days reading up about Gardasil.
It is a vaccine most vile. Anyone who would try to force this dangerous vaccine on people needs a few doses of it themself first.
Your ignorance is astounding, and you should be embarrassed for yourself.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts, and they are very reasonable points.
I actually don’t think Perry’s route to funding the program in Texas would have worked out well. It would have depended on parents caring enough to submit their opt-out... too many parents either don’t care or just aren’t involved enough in their children’s lives.
The route Rick Perry took also did not have a good “PR” appearance to it at all. While he was trying to figure out a way to fund that program locally with private funds instead of using federal, tax-payer funds as all the other states were at that time, if he was against the state legislature at that time who apparently wanted to just use tax payer money to pay for the vaccines instead, he should have kept his actions beyond reproach. While in effect, he was not giving any more money to Mereck to pay for the vaccines than any other state or any other governor to pay for their vaccines in all the other states, nor would he have been giving Merck any more money through private funding as opposed to public funding, his little self-push against the legislature did and still does not come off well.
Still, to pound on Perry for payments for the vaccines from private funds - as opposed to the other states using tax payer funds to pay for them - just doesn’t ring well with me as far a crony capitalism. OK, a lobbyist for that company worked on Perry’s staff. ALL the states and ALL the governor’s were implementing Gardasil programs. Those vaccines were going to cost something, and Merck would get money for those vaccines REGARDLESS of how they were paid. Should all the other states implementing Gardasil at that time be charged with crony capitalism for giving Merck tax-payer money they took to pay them, or should we just blame Perry for trying to keep the funding and oversight at the local level?
Yes, and an effective distraction at that. The default (legislative opt out) exists when he is silent on the point, just like in South Carolina.
He made opting out of ALL vaccines easier by making the application possible via internet. That change wasn't to be applicable only to the HPV vaccine; and that change (application via internet) is available now, even though HPV vaccination has been stricken from the state schedule of "mandatory" vaccinations.
You lied by saying there was no opt-out clause. Show some personal integrity and admit you were either ignorant or lying about the opt-out. Spinning the supposed difficulty of opting out of this EO that never went into effect distracts from the fact there was an opt-out, and that Perry mentioned it in his brief press release after issuing the flawed EO.
The insurance law in Texas is that if a vaccine is mandatory, then it must be 100% covered by insurance. Providing this benefit is a condition of selling insurance in Texas. So, mandating the vaccine would certainly cause more sales of Gardasil - and that is the point, even if the motivation is to reduce the number of cervical cancers.
What would have happened is that insurance rates would have gone up, to cover the cost of the mandatory benefit. Uninsured and poverty patients are/were covered by public health programs - that's that case even now, with Gardasil being an optional vaccine. There is strong interest to increase the rate of vaccination, and public money is spent, today, to do so.
-- Should all the other states implementing Gardasil at that time be charged with crony capitalism for giving Merck tax-payer money they took to pay them, or should we just blame Perry for trying to keep the funding and oversight at the local level? --
Other than Texas, the only states that mandated Gardasil are Virginia and Washington, DC (not a state, I know). The Republicans in Virginia passed a reversal of the mandate this past January, but the Democrats in the Virginia Senate prevented that from passing.
It's much harder to make a charge of cronyism stick, when a great number of policy-makers are involved in vetting and implementing the policy.
Cronyism isn't just about money. George Bush nominated Harriet Miers, in part because she was a friend. She was not the best available choice for the job, or for the country.
That is good to see. Thank you for providing that!
Just sent you a response right before this one, and it actually applies to this. I had mentioned Rick Perry probably did expect too much of too many parents.
These steps are not particularly difficult, but this process does involve parental involvement, and many parents are not involved enough to go out of their way even this much. Those parents who have already given up a lot of their parental rights by putting their children in government schools, handing their kids over to the government in partial to raise, are not always the most involved parents to begin with. Not all, but many. If they don’t care enough already than to relinquish their oversight during school hours to the government, why should we really expect them to care enough to opt-out?
I wish he would have found another way to have kept this at a local level in his quest to accept the federal funds (which would have come with federal oversight), and as I mentioned in my last response to you, his persistence of keeping it local IN THE WAY HE TRIED, has turned out to be a PR nightmare for him.
My only complaint is that this should not constitute a “crony” charge to it when Merck, regardless of their lobbyists, was getting paid by ALL the states, whether they were getting their funds through a conservative, local funding process or through a tax-payer funded processes as most of the other states implemented.
I don’t think we are light years apart, actually.
Involving the insurance companies required the process Perry took. It created a situation where the vaccine payments were covered for everyone, but it also required thevaccines to be made mandatory for the insurance companies to PAY for them. To offset that, then he had to create an opt-out so parents who did not want their children vaccinated could simply opt-out.
I can see the problems you are describing from trying to fund the Texas Gardasil program through insurance coverage. I agree this caused OTHER problems.
I’m also glad to see others who have examined the situation as a whole, including what was going on everyplace else in America at that time, sees a crony charge as being a far stretch of the imagination. That characterization of this ONE state among all the others, not taking all the others into account, just seems like a way to cast a deeper shadow than is really deserved.
Against my better judgment, I'm going to be polite toward you for this one more post.
What I said in the first place was this:
Well, Perry's EO didn't "include an opt out." What it did was direct the relevant agency to add "apply via internet" to the methods available (mail, fax, in person) for requesting the state-issued opt-out affidavit. The opt-out itself was created by the Texas legislature, in 2003.You isolated part of that in order to claim I said there was no opt-out clause. But most readers will see I put "include an opt out" in scare quotes; said that Perry directed a state agency to accept applications for the opt-out affidavit via internet; and said that the op-out was created by the legislature in 2003.
"Include an opt out" was in care quotes because it's important to read on, to discern what is meant. If Perry had been mute on opt out, an opt out would exist. The same opt-out existed before and after his EO. The legislature made it in 2003.
In post 26 of this thread, I provided substantiation for every one of my fact contentions, and restated the general point that the opt-out option predated the EO, and other than giving one more means to apply for the affidavit, made no change to the existing procedure (which is available for ALL vaccines, not just the HPV vaccine).
At any rate, that post reproduces the words of Perry's EO respecting the opt-out, so it's hard for me to see how you can support the claim that I maintain "there was no opt-out clause." My point has been to describe the meaning and effect of "the opt out clause," and as between the legislature and Perry, who provided what part of that meaning and effect.
Seeing that you took post 29 as more lies, I said this, to you, later ...
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.
And in response, you say I am either a liar or ignorant, and you challenge me to show some personal integrity.
The ball is in your court.
His EO didn't create the opt-out. The opt-out was created by the legislature in 2003, and is in place now.
Regardless of the exact source of funds, the manufacturer expects to be, and should be, paid. As I noted above, the effect of making the vaccine mandatory shifts the cost to those who pay insurance premiums; as well as "forcing" them to obtain the vaccine.
He'd save more lives by making influenza vaccines mandatory.
I stick by what I say. You check into it and tell those kids or mothers if they care if Carling says they should be embarrassed.
I tend to put more stock in those who have taken it, or had bad experiences with it.
They have nothing to gain because they already did the losing with the constant nightmare of once vital and lively girls suffering all kinds of ailments as a result.
There is really nothing more ignorant than a person shilling for a politician at the expense of other peoples kids.
But, you will be happy to know that this vile vaccine is mandated in Obamacare. Cause Obama cares about cancer.
Perhaps 'crony' is the wrong word. Not sure what the right one is. The following is from an AP story : Texas Gov. Orders Anti-Cancer Vaccine reported in WaPo, Friday, February 2, 2007:
Merck is bankrolling efforts to pass state laws across the country mandating Gardasil for girls as young as 11 or 12. It doubled its lobbying budget in Texas and has funneled money through Women in Government, an advocacy group made up of female state legislators around the country.
Perry has ties to Merck and Women in Government. One of the drug company's three lobbyists in Texas is Mike Toomey, Perry's former chief of staff. His current chief of staff's mother-in-law, Texas Republican state Rep. Dianne White Delisi, is a state director for Women in Government.
The governor also received $6,000 from Merck's political action committee during his re-election campaign.
Maybe they are thinking of the Clinton years
That doesn't seem to be the case, but regardless, there was an immediate "firestorm" as a result of his mandate.
This is from the : Republican National Coalition for Life
The firestorm of controversy generated by Texas Governor Perry's Executive Order mandating that all little girls entering the sixth grade in 2008 be vaccinated against four strains of the human papillomavirus, the primary cause of cervical cancer, with a product named Gardasil, has not abated.
26 of the 31 state senators have signed a letter to Governor Perry asking him to withdraw his order which usurps the right of parents to make decisions regarding their minor children's medical care and, because the Governor bypassed and blindsided the Legislature in this matter, tramples on the separation of powers. People in Texas are ANGRY!
Pretty soon you won’t have a choice. It is in Obamacare as a mandate.
God help the poor kids who have adverse and horrible reactions.
They will probably get the red or blue pill.
I remember when Obama was wheeling and dealing with drug companies prior to the passing of Obamacare.
Another done deal, and the drug company will get protection from any lawsuits. That is the real thing they go for.
Merck has paid millions for Vioxx lawsuits. They needed this to help pay the bills.
The tried an proven vaccines used to be fine. But the more you add, the worse it gets. Also, with this vaccine, there is no guarantee a person won’t get cervical cancer.
Having been in High School in the early 50's I can assure you that just because everyone wanted to do it, doesn't mean they did do it.
Those that did often wound up with a wife, via a ceremony commonly known as a shotgun wedding.
We now have more unwed mothers than we do wed mothers, so how did the notion that everyone does it work out for us.
Just stop it, that crap is designed to effect maximum participation. I was in education when they figured out they could get much better indoctrination by just offering opt out, rather than opt in. The homosexual agenda has been expanded to the point that the majority of high school students now think homosexuality is normal.
If it was a good thing, everyone would opt in, right?
“Perry had every reason to believe it would be welcomed”
How dare you say that? Never mind it’s the truth. You just can’t say that here. LOL
Thanks. He didn’t, and Nikki didn’t, anticipate the overwhelmingly negative reaction. How do I know that? Easy. If either one of them had anticipated the overwhelmingly negative reaction - which would embarrass them no end and force them to back down - neither one would have ever supported it in the first place. It brought them nothing but grief, and especially so for RP. Nobody, nobody, would knowingly bring that down upon their own heads. LOL Not for Merck, not for 5 thou or 500 thou. Not for ANYTHING.
And when they heard the roar of the people, they stopped. It’s clear what mattered to them. So.very.clear.
Thanks for having the guts.
Makes my day.
I”m not going to dig thru the rules but regarding the ‘opt out’ I think the internet option made it easier for anyone to apply. As I understand the process you had to go personally to the location and pick up a form that had the correct seal on it. The internet allowed for the securing of the form via an internet request rather than a personal visit. I maybe wrong in that understanding.
For one thing, the vaccine is not without potential serious side effects.
Of the 11,813 people who received Gardasil in the clinical trial leading to its approval, nine developed arthritis, indicating an autoimmune reaction to the inoculation, according to a report by cancer expert Dr. Ralph Moss.
If 2 million girls were vaccinated annually, that would put the anticipated number of arthritis cases each year at about 1,520 -- not an insignificant figure, especially considering that transmission of the virus is preventable by other means, and that cervical abnormalities caused by HPV can be detected by Pap tests and treated before they become cancerous.
I posted a link to all the rules upthread, and also summarized the process. It was never true that a person had to apply in person. The application could be made via mail, fax, or in person. It is correct that the form has to have the correct seal. That is true now, and Perry did nothing to change that. Otherwise, your understanding is correct - the internet application process makes it easier to get the ball rolling.
The health depart also requires a opt-outer to opt-out each two years. The form expires. The legislature does not require an expiration, this is something that "Perry added" (I'm sure he didn't do it personally, but it's part of an administrative rule under the control of the executive (and the rule was promulgated under Perry's watch), not part of legislation).
My daughter received it and didn’t become a tramp. That’s because she had good parenting. There is only BS moonbat testimony that the vaccine does anything other than what it is intended to do - reduce the chances of cervical and Head and Neck cancer. Over 50% of all head and neck cancers in men are due to HPV, and 26% in women.
I think you are talking to the wrong person. I never said that people that took the vaccine were tramps.
The gay guys are all excited to take it because of all the rectal cancer they are getting.
They are the sluts.
Have you had the vaccine yet?
It was pointed out upthread - Perry issued an EO. It caught people by surprise! He didn't back down until 2011, and he's still spinning.
Mandatory vaccination is a big deal. To implement such a public policy "by surprise" shows a lapse of good judgment - a lapse that Haley didn't have, as she introduced a proposal for discussion and possible implementation. Perry said "Do it."
I do agree, in hindsight, that Perry probably wishes either he didn't do this, or it goes away as an election issue. OTOH, if he has the courage of his stated conviction, that it is good public policy, then he will push it as public policy.
-- And when they heard the roar of the people, they stopped. --
Perry didn't stop until the legislature overruled his order, and Perry was pissed about the decision being reversed. Perry did NOT intend to revers his order based on the negative feedback he was getting, and he was getting it. Mandatory HPV Vaccination for Texas 6th Graders Bypasses Democracy Feb 6, 2003.
In contrast, Haley voted against her own proposal, after it had been openly debated in the legislature.
It is not recommended for people in my age group, but if it was I would roll up my sleeve.
“Over 50% of all head and neck cancers in men are due to HPV.”
Why aren’t boys given the HPV vaccine? Could it be that there’s another agenda driving this campaign?