• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Rick Perry vs. the Religious Right, Anti-Vaxers

Puppycow

Penultimate Amazing
Joined
Jan 9, 2003
Messages
31,992
Location
Yokohama, Japan
Surprise, surprise. I just ran across an article, from a left-wing site, that improves my opinion of Rick Perry:

Rick Perry’s Vaccine Push Sparked Backlash From Left And Right Alike

In January 2007, Gardasil's manufacturer, Merck, lobbied state governments to require schoolchildren to be vaccinated with the newly approved treatment. They quickly found an ally in Perry, who offered a relatively straightforward argument: why not reduce Texan girls' exposure to cancer?

But before the legislature could take up the issue, Perry signed an executive order mandating that sixth-grade girls receive the drug before entering middle school, with an opt-out for parents who objected. Lawmakers revolted almost immediately over being cut out of the process, demanding that he rescind the requirement until they could review it first.
. . .
In the end state lawmakers forced Perry's hand, passing a law overturning his decision with veto-proof majorities in both chambers. Perry acknowledged defeat and announced he would withdraw his efforts to implement the policy, but went down in spectacularly defiant form, lashing out at members of his own party. At a press conference, he played a video message from a 31-year old cervical cancer patient hooked to an oxygen tube, who was too sick to testify earlier at the statehouse.

"I challenge legislators to look these women in the eyes and tell them, `We could have prevented this disease for your daughters and granddaughters, but we just didn't have the gumption to address all the misguided and misleading political rhetoric,'" Perry said.

Maybe he doesn't always take marching orders from the Religious Right? :boxedin:
 
Sorry, this just lowers my opinion of Perry still further. I agree with mandatory vaccination when dealing with diseases that are spread through the air or by casual contact. But this is a mandatory vaccination for something caused by sexual intercourse. Can you tell me why an abstinent girl, or a lesbian, or someone who only has protected sex should have her bodily autonomy violated in this way? There are still some risks with vaccination, and no rewards for members of those groups. For others, I think that the HPV vaccination should be encouraged but not legally required, as people can decide for themselves whether to engage in actions that are risky for HPV transmission.
 
Last edited:
Sorry, this just lowers my opinion of Perry still further. I agree with mandatory vaccination when dealing with diseases that are spread through the air or by casual contact. But this is a mandatory vaccination for something caused by sexual intercourse. Can you tell me why an abstinent girl, or a lesbian, or someone who only has protected sex should have her bodily autonomy violated in this way? And for all sixth-graders?

The vaccine is only effective is administered at that approximate age. It's a protection against a completely preventable deadly disease that must be administered years before (mostly) the risk factors are introduced into the lives of the recipients. I don't think that sixth grade girls or their parents can reasonably predict which of them will be abstinent, have only protected sex, or grow up to be a lesbian, or whatever. Nor should the state try to figure that out.

I don't get why the distinction between sexual transmission and other modes of transmission is a meaningful difference here. We have ample precedence for requiring childhood vaccines for preventable deadly diseases. This is for the protection of the individual and the community at large.

The right-wing opposition has been centered on the idea that HPV-vaccinated girls will be more motivated to have sex because they feel safe from HPV, and you know how wingers hate girls having sex.
 
The vaccine is only effective is administered at that approximate age. It's a protection against a completely preventable deadly disease that must be administered years before (mostly) the risk factors are introduced into the lives of the recipients. I don't think that sixth grade girls or their parents can reasonably predict which of them will be abstinent, have only protected sex, or grow up to be a lesbian, or whatever. Nor should the state try to figure that out.

I don't get why the distinction between sexual transmission and other modes of transmission is a meaningful difference here. We have ample precedence for requiring childhood vaccines for preventable deadly diseases. This is for the protection of the individual and the community at large.

The right-wing opposition has been centered on the idea that HPV-vaccinated girls will be more motivated to have sex because they feel safe from HPV, and you know how wingers hate girls having sex.

Agree completely.

When my daughter got hers last week she asked me what HPV was. I told her it was a vaccine to prevent a cancer that is transmittable. We talked about how most cancers were not thought to be transmittable, but that this one was. She was not happy about getting the shot but was happy she wouldn't have to worry as much about the cancer.

Not taking this action would mean that my daughter would have to live her life in absolute fear of every sexual encounter. This cancer is not just about intercourse, oral sex is a high risk behavior when it comes to HPV.

Sorry, she is too small to think of her doing these things, but she is also to precious for me to take such things away from her future self.

PS: Agreeing with Rick Parry on this issue hurts my head. I wonder if this will come to help him or hurt him in the campaign. I think it will hurt in the primaries, but could help in the general.
 
Last edited:
First of all, there's an opt-out so nobody is being forced to have a vaccination. That said, there's a question as to whether it should be considered neglect for a parent to deny their children vaccinations that could prevent diseases. This one is no different from any other vaccination that's usually given to children at an early age.

The only reason this particular vaccine isn't given routinely to children is that it prevents cervical cancer caused by HPV, which abstinence would also prevent, so it's somehow an admission that the girl might have premarital sex if she's vaccinated. Stupid argument, really.

One angle of this that has not been mentioned is that Perry apparently has financial ties with Merck, which is what drew a lot of the criticism against him.

-Bri
 
Last edited:
I don't think that sixth grade girls or their parents can reasonably predict which of them will be abstinent, have only protected sex, or grow up to be a lesbian, or whatever. Nor should the state try to figure that out.

No, the state shouldn't try to figure that out. The individual and her parents should figure it out.

I don't get why the distinction between sexual transmission and other modes of transmission is a meaningful difference here. We have ample precedence for requiring childhood vaccines for preventable deadly diseases. This is for the protection of the individual and the community at large.

Please name another disease that is not transmitted through the air or casual contact that is the subject of mandatory vaccination. I can't think of any. And here, the difference is that the vaccination has nothing to do with school. Vaccination against, say, measels is a different matter because the individual could transmit it to others at school. Or are there rampant cases of girls having sex with others in the classroom?

The right-wing opposition has been centered on the idea that HPV-vaccinated girls will be more motivated to have sex because they feel safe from HPV, and you know how wingers hate girls having sex.
.

That's certainly their reason, not mine. But a girl just might grow up to be a right-winger and resent the government forcing an action upon her.
 
No, the state shouldn't try to figure that out. The individual and her parents should figure it out.

For the record, I do expect the government to enforce childhood vaccinations against preventable deadly diseases. What I was referring to the state not trying to figure out was who is going to ultimately need that protection and who won't. If you don't agree that the government should enforce vaccination, then we don't have much to talk about.

Please name another disease that is not transmitted through the air or casual contact that is the subject of mandatory vaccination. I can't think of any. And here, the difference is that the vaccination has nothing to do with school. Vaccination against, say, measels is a different matter because the individual could transmit it to others at school. Or are there rampant cases of girls having sex with others in the classroom?

I don't know why you think that transmission in school is the sin qua non of the vaccine requirement. It's another meaningless distinction. This is a public health measure that addresses disease transmission, period -- not disease transmission in a particular location.

(But, if you want to be picky about it, then you should know that kids are having sex in school.)

That's certainly their reason, not mine. But a girl just might grow up to be a right-winger and resent the government forcing an action upon her.

This right-winger topic in my post was an aside, and not crucial to the point. I would rather have girls resentful of vaccines than dying from a preventable disease.

Do you know any adult who resents having been vaccinated?
 
Last edited:
No, the state shouldn't try to figure that out. The individual and her parents should figure it out.



Please name another disease that is not transmitted through the air or casual contact that is the subject of mandatory vaccination. I can't think of any. And here, the difference is that the vaccination has nothing to do with school. Vaccination against, say, measels is a different matter because the individual could transmit it to others at school. Or are there rampant cases of girls having sex with others in the classroom?

.

That's certainly their reason, not mine. But a girl just might grow up to be a right-winger and resent the government forcing an action upon her.

If they invented a vaccine for AIDS that had to be given before a child is 1 year old, would you object?
 
For the record, I do expect the government to enforce childhood vaccinations against preventable deadly diseases. What I was referring to the state not trying to figure out was who is going to ultimately need that protection and who won't. If you don't agree that the government should enforce vaccination, then we don't have much to talk about.

I've stated very clearly the circumstances that I feel the government should enforce vaccination: when the disease is spread through the air or through casual contact, so it cannot be easily avoided. By contrast, girls in their early teens can choose to be abstinent or have only protected sex. Or they can CHOOSE to have the vaccination. It's their CHOICE.


I don't know why you think that transmission in school is the sin qua non of the vaccine requirement. It's another meaningless distinction. This is a public health measure that addresses disease transmission, period -- not disease transmission in a particular location.

If the distinction is meaningless and it addresses public health period, please explain why it only applies to girls going to school. Why does it not apply to every girl whether or not she goes to school?

And mandatory vaccination for school was instituted to protect other children in that school from receiving that disease. Absent rape or voluntary disobedience of the rules against sex on school grounds, nobody would receive HPV in school.

By the way, I note your evasion of my challenge to name another disease subject to mandatory school vaccination that is not spread by casual contact. I assume you concede that point.


This right-winger topic in my post was an aside, and not crucial to the point. I would rather have girls resentful of vaccines than dying from a preventable disease.

Do you know any adult who resents having been vaccinated?

The main reason that I am worked up about this is that I am very much opposed to routine infant circumcision. And one of the issues that proponents bring up is that it decreases HPV transmission. In previous discussions on JREF, at least regarding circumcision and AIDS, the large majority of posters say that it should be up to the individual, that the individual can practice protected sex or take other steps to minimize transmission. Yet here, people are turning the argument on the head, saying that no girl can be trusted to manage her own sex life. Why is that?

So if you liken it to circumcision, I'm one person who objects to it having been done to me without my consent.
 
Last edited:
If they invented a vaccine for AIDS that had to be given before a child is 1 year old, would you object?

If the vaccine had to be given before the child was one year old and would be useless after that, I'd tend to favor mandatory innoculation. In that case, individual choice is not affected as one-year-olds cannot make their own choices. And I'm sure most older people would, in retrospect, prefer to be vaccinated. But these facts to not remotely apply to the HPV vaccine so I do not see your point.
 
Even kissing can transmit oral HPV.

Duncanthrax: do you have BenBurch on ignore?

HPV is a virus that can lead to cancer. It does not require sex to be transmitted. The vaccine is most effective if given at an age well before the patient becomes sexually active.

To the extent that it is a violation, it is very modest as compared to circumcision. A quick look at Wiki shows that it is in fact a very safe vaccine.

I really don't understand where you are coming from on this.
 
I've stated very clearly the circumstances that I feel the government should enforce vaccination: when the disease is spread through the air or through casual contact, so it cannot be easily avoided. By contrast, girls in their early teens can choose to be abstinent or have only protected sex. Or they can CHOOSE to have the vaccination. It's their CHOICE.

It has not explicitly about having sexual contact in their early teens. It's about a lifetime of sexual contact. Girls have to vaccinated at the early age in order for the vaccine to be effective for the rest of their lives. Don't you know this? You keep talking like you don't get it.

If the distinction is meaningless and it addresses public health period, please explain why it only applies to girls going to school. Why does it not apply to every girl whether or not she goes to school?

I don't know how many adolescent girls aren't in school. Probably not a significant number. School rosters are a good place to identify all the candidates for vaccination, and also a good place to give them the vaccine, since they happen to be gathered there already.

And mandatory vaccination for school was instituted to protect other children in that school from receiving that disease. Absent rape or voluntary disobedience of the rules against sex on school grounds, nobody would receive HPV in school.

Got it. The penalty for breaking the rules is death by cancer. I hope you understand by now -- this is not about sex in school. This is about a lifetime of sex.

By the way, I note your evasion of my challenge to name another disease subject to mandatory school vaccination that is not spread by casual contact. I assume you concede that point.

Concede what point? That there is no other example of a disease not spread by casual contact that is avoidable by vaccination? Again - it's a meaningless distinction. I don't care how it's spread. If it's a deadly disease, killing many people, preventable by vaccine, then it's a good candidate for mandatory vaccination.

The main reason that I am worked up about this is that I am very much opposed to routine infant circumcision. And one of the issues that proponents bring up is that it decreases HPV transmission.

I am also opposed to child circumcision (not that I want to outlaw it). I don't say that because of the spread of HPV, so you can take that argument up with someone else.

In previous discussions on JREF, at least regarding circumcision and AIDS, the large majority of posters say that it should be up to the individual, that the individual can practice protected sex or take other steps to minimize transmission. Yet here, people are turning the argument on the head, saying that no girl can be trusted to manage her own sex life. Why is that?

You're arguing against a strawman. I never said those things. If you can find someone who did, then cuss them out.

So if you liken it to circumcision, I'm one person who objects to it having been done to me without my consent.

You're not the only one. I also object, and wish my genitalia were in tact. I don't object because I object to mandatory vaccinations; I object because I was likely robbed of a significant amount of sexual sensation, and I could have lived just as healthy a life with the foreskin attached. I don't liken it to circumcision. It's not at all comparable. To remove a normal, functioning body part is not the same giving a vaccine against a deadly disease.
 
Duncanthrax: do you have BenBurch on ignore?

HPV is a virus that can lead to cancer. It does not require sex to be transmitted. The vaccine is most effective if given at an age well before the patient becomes sexually active.

To the extent that it is a violation, it is very modest as compared to circumcision. A quick look at Wiki shows that it is in fact a very safe vaccine.

I really don't understand where you are coming from on this.


Let me make it clear - I'm not opposed to the HPV vaccine. I favor it. I just feel it should be an individual choice.
 
It has not explicitly about having sexual contact in their early teens. It's about a lifetime of sexual contact. Girls have to vaccinated at the early age in order for the vaccine to be effective for the rest of their lives. Don't you know this? You keep talking like you don't get it.

They can CHOOSE to get the vaccine. Or they can choose not to and take measures to minimize the risks of transmission.


I don't know how many adolescent girls aren't in school. Probably not a significant number. School rosters are a good place to identify all the candidates for vaccination, and also a good place to give them the vaccine, since they happen to be gathered there already.

There are large numbers of girls who are homeschooled or attending cyber school who would not be covered by this.

Got it. The penalty for breaking the rules is death by cancer. I hope you understand by now -- this is not about sex in school. This is about a lifetime of sex.

Precisely my point. It is not about school, so why should attendance at school be conditioned on it?


Concede what point? That there is no other example of a disease not spread by casual contact that is avoidable by vaccination? Again - it's a meaningless distinction. I don't care how it's spread. If it's a deadly disease, killing many people, preventable by vaccine, then it's a good candidate for mandatory vaccination.

As one example, Hepatitis A is covered by mandatory vaccination in some states, as it can be spread by casual contact. Hepatatis B, which is spread by contact with bodily fluid, is not covered by mandatory vaccination in any state.


You're not the only one. I also object, and wish my genitalia were in tact. I don't object because I object to mandatory vaccinations; I object because I was likely robbed of a significant amount of sexual sensation, and I could have lived just as healthy a life with the foreskin attached. I don't liken it to circumcision. It's not at all comparable. To remove a normal, functioning body part is not the same giving a vaccine against a deadly disease.

The argument proponents make is that removing that normal, functional body part will save some people from a deadly disease, much like a vaccine. It looks like the same principle to me. And I don't want mandatory circumcision in the name of saving girls' lives.
 
Maybe he doesn't always take marching orders from the Religious Right? :boxedin:

Yes, he does! This is just a case a broken watch and all that.

While you may agree with his point of view on this paticular issue his motivation for it is still from the right wing right to life because sky daddy says so fairy tale.
It just demonstrates how no matter how much religion you have it's still neve good enough for some people so if you don't believe like I do your less then human, yuo'll burn in hell and we have the right to take awy your rights.
 
The penalty for breaking the rules is death by cancer.

Are you insinuating that if a boy or girl doesn't get Rick Perry's Gardasil vaccination (cha-ching) they will die of cancer?
 
Last edited:
Since hpv is a public health hazard, I can't understand the "it should be a choice" position.
 
If the vaccine had to be given before the child was one year old and would be useless after that, I'd tend to favor mandatory innoculation. In that case, individual choice is not affected as one-year-olds cannot make their own choices. And I'm sure most older people would, in retrospect, prefer to be vaccinated. But these facts to not remotely apply to the HPV vaccine so I do not see your point.

I was under the impression that the shot had to be given young to be effective.

Wikipedia says 9 years old and up. So I'm not seeing your inability to see my point. The vaccine works better the earlier you get it. And it saves lives. I was just trying to see where your arbitrary line was being set.
 

Back
Top Bottom