First of all, any mandatory vaccine law that includes an "opt-out" doesn't impinge on parental rights.
But ignoring the opt-out -- Mandatory public school impinges on parental rights. Which candidate opposes that? Mandatory vaccines impinge on parental rights. Which candidate has fought to overturn mandatory vaccines in their states? Alaska? has them. Pennsylvania? Has them. Minnesota? has them. Mass.? Has them.
This isn't about mandates that impinge on parental rights. If it were, we would be talking about scrapping vaccine laws altogether, along with the public school laws and the child safety seat laws, all of which mandate parental actions that impinge on parental control.
It's about GARDISIL. It's about picking a PARTICULAR vaccination and making it mandatory. For some, it's about giving children the ability to have sex without the fear of getting a sexually transmitted disease -- and they oppose that. For others, it's about forcing little girls to have sex. Well, not really, but that's how they talk about it, and what is meant by "innocent little girls". Does Bachmann believe their are "guilty little girls" for whom the vaccination would be OK? No, what she is implying is that the vaccine "takes away their innocence". That is absurd -- it's not sex, it's a vaccine that protects you from a sexually transmitted disease.
For others (me included in this one), it's about a vaccine that wasn't yet tested sufficiently to make mandating it worth the risk, relative to the rather low reward. I wrote two op-ed articles for my local paper about this subject. The problem is, that valid argument is hardly a reason to reject somebody for President. He listened to a few people, who convinced him the reward was worth the risk. I think he was wrong, he made a bad decision, but everybody makes bad decisions.
That is why opponents make this about "mandates that impinge on parental rights", even though it has nothing to do with that.
If Merck had come up with a vaccine that would prevent HIV, I'm guessing some people would still be upset because HIV is also spread by sexual contact, and I guess they feel it's not the state's job to encourage people to get protected from life-threatening disease if it means they can have sex with less risk. We are so afraid of "encouraging" sex? That we'd rather have our kids at risk of death or lifelong disease, just so we can use that risk to help convince them to wait until marriage? Even though they might marry some guy with HPV and end up dead?
Or are we thinking they can get the vaccine the week before the wedding? Or are we so sure our daughters will choose husbands who never had sex, never had oral sex, and will never fall into sin and have sex with some other woman who has the disease?
I oppose making it a mandatory school vaccine. But I reject the argument that there is no good reason to consider it, and I certainly reject the argument that Perry knew it was wrong but did it because he got a $5000 Merck donation.
I think he did it because his former Chief of Staff sold him on it.
What about the child's rights? The out of wedlock birth rates for blacks is 71% and for Hispanics 50%. Why not have a opt in provision vice an opt out? The former takes an overt, positive act while the latter just requires tacit approval, which could just be the product of a lack of interest by the parent. The vaccine in question is not the same kind as those made mandatory by states to prevent communicable diseases.
Perry was wrong not only on the issue of process but also substance.