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 ...
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?
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.