Perry requires HPV vaccine

When State Rep Jessica Farrar (D-Houston) introduced HB 215 requiring these vaccinations, I objected to making the vaccine mandatory. And I think that other pro-choice progressives should too.

This vaccine is possibly a way of wiping out *some* of the most common strains of HPV that can cause cervical cancer, and I applaud the well-intended efforts to address this public health issue.

However, this vaccine is very expensive and is not without its risks. As a parent, I think that health decisions for children should belong with parents. This vaccine does contain aluminum, as did the placebo used in the control, thus not establishing side effects of the aluminum compound. The primary study of the vaccine lasted only 3.9 years.

I think that it's very fishy for Governor Good-Hair, who's taken money from Merck and Merck-supported groups, would side-step the legislature and require this vaccine. Farrar's bill had some good points, but the bill deserved debate, and could have been amended to address the rights of parents who prefer not to vaccinate based on informed decisions. It could also have provided some answers to how this is going to be funded. I have heard now that the series of 3 injections costs $360. It is not clear whether most insurance plans will cover this, or how the uninsured will pay for it. Further, efforts could have been made to negotiate with Merck over the price, since Merck is the only manufacturer.

I do hope that some good comes of this, but I also am concerned that some years down the road we may see unintended consequences, and in the shorter term, parents that must choose between vaccination and paying the rent.

I question not only the authority of the Governor in doing this, but also his motives.

Steve Southwell
WhosPlayin? Blog: http://www.whosplayin.com

If this is truly an attempt on Perry's part to protect Texas children, then fine. A perpetual Cynic, though, I am unable to put too much trust in the health decisions of a man who opposes choice, stem cell research, and sex education.
This is a new and relatively untested vaccine. The FDA approved it, sure. Just like they did Fen-phen, fosamax, and vioxx (It is worth pointing out that two of those, Fen-phen and vioxx, were also Merck Drugs).
Also, I bristle at the thought of any executive at any level of government being able to simply write an order that has such sweeping implications for children (not to mention the state's coffers).
In a perfect world, Perry's terrible legacy would be brightened by this one effort to positively effect the lives of kids. Realistically, this is a sweetheart deal to a drug giant that could prove to be a terrible mistake. I hope I'm wrong.

This was sort of uncharacteristically optimistic of me.

I admit that I don't know a ton about the vaccine itself. And I had forgotten about the fact that some parents aren't crazy about vaccines of any kind, probably because I'm not a parent.

I still think the net overall result of this - assuming the drug doesn't have any unknown, terrible, side-effects, and I would be remiss if I discounted the possibility of that entirely - will end up as a positive one. But both of your arguments are well-formed and totally logical.