Texas orders HPV vaccine for all girls

by Unknown (Subscribe to Unknown's posts) Feb 4th 2007 3:08PM

Here's some news from my home state of Texas: Texas Governor, Rick Perry issued an executive order on Friday that said all schoolgirls must get the vaccine that guards against HPV and some types of cervical cancer.

Perry issued the executive order in order to bypass the legislature and conservative groups that say the vaccine will encourage premarital sex.

Starting next years, girls in the sixth grade will have to get the shot. Most sixth grade girls are about 11 or 12-years-old. He also mandated that girls between the ages of 9 and 18 who are uninsured or whose insurance doesn't cover vaccines get the vaccine for free.

The pharmaceutical company Merck has helped fund lobbying in Texas and other states to get them to require the vaccines for girls. Texas is the first state to make it a mandate. Perry's former chief-of-staff is now a Merck lobbyist he also received $6,000 from Merck's political action committee during his re-election campaign.

Nobody besides Perry can change the rule, not even the legislature, which has angered many parents.

This is a tricky issue and I'm trying my best not to get into politics on here, but, as a Texan and a mother of a female child, it irks me that Rick Perry has decided to do his own thing and make the rules, especially considering he has ties to the company that produces the drug.

What do you think? If you live in Texas, how do you feel about the issue?

Comments (34)

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)

Sheri 2-04-2007 @ 3:30PM

It prevents CANCER for goodness sake.

Sarah 2-04-2007 @ 3:37PM

I can understand that it would be distressing to have someone else making health decisions for your child, but in the end, why on earth wouldn't anyone want to protect their daughters against cervical cancer? In all honesty, and I know this might offend some people, if parents are so concerned about morality and "encouraging premarital sex" that they wouldn't guard their children against cancer, then I'm glad someone else is making the call. Because what's really worse, premarital sex (and what if someone's husband was a hpv carrier?) or CANCER? The sad thing is, some people think that's a serious question.

jen 2-04-2007 @ 3:54PM

I am not a US citizen or resident, so I can't come at this from the political angle. As a bystander, though, I am so glad that someone in the US - especially in quite a conservative state - has had the guts to walk past the legislature and do what I consider is the right thing.

Yes, I think it's a bit dubious because of the politician's link to the drug company - if it were anything else, I'd have 'issues' - but as previous commenters have eloquently put it - it prevents CANCER. And the fact that it's being made available to uninsured girls - that's just fine by me.

It will be interesting to see how this decision affects other states' approach to this vaccine.

I hope that by the time my children are old enough, that this will be available in the UK. For something that is evidently preventable, and so life-destroying if not prevented - well, it's a no-brainer. And this coming from someone who lives in a country where the MMR has been rejected for the last few years due to unfounded Autism links.

Stephanie 2-04-2007 @ 4:21PM

Merk sure has a sweet deal. At $360 for the required 3 doses, Gardasil is the most expensive vaccine ever made. Right now most insurance companies will only reimburse doctors for about half that cost. (see link below) The doctors have to cover the rest themselves, which they simply can't do for every insured girl in Texas.

It's great that uninsured girls will get vaccinated for free, but who's paying for this? Will the Texas government give Merk $360 for every uninsured girl? Since he Gov. Perry received $6,000 from Merck’s political action committee during his re-election campaign, he should feel free to call them up and ask why Gardasil costs so much. The Texas law sounds like a real good deal for Merk as long as the price stays this high.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/conditions/02/02/cancer.vaccine.ap/index.html

SKL 2-04-2007 @ 5:11PM

The incidence of cervical cancer is not all that high, and it is extremely low for women who were not sexually active during their adolescence / early adulthood.

That said, if this will allow most girls to skip pap tests for the rest of their lives, I'm all for it. Can I sign up too?

LB 2-04-2007 @ 5:12PM

I support state funding of vaxes parents want but can't afford.

However, Perry has painted with too wide a brush here. It's very icky in view of his relationship to Merck. This shot should not be mandated for school.

Ever heard that old expression..if it seems too good to be true-

Gaurdasil's research has quite a few gaps. The long term research was sketchy. From the NYT-

“Merck has tested the cervical cancer vaccine in clinical trials of more than 20,000 women (about half of them got the shot). The health of the subjects was followed for about three and a half years on average. But fewer than 1,200 girls under 16 got the shots, among them only about 100 9-year-olds, Merck officials said, and the younger girls have been followed for only 18 months."

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9E06E7DF163FF93BA25754C0A9609C8B63

I have no beef with parents or women who choose Guardasil, but it's not right to mandate this shot or to get so hepped over it as the greatest thing since sliced bread. It is a reasonable health care choice, but not the only one.

rachel 2-04-2007 @ 6:14PM

Although I am not expecting my daughters to have premarital sex, and am very PRO abstinence, I would gladly give my daughters this vaccine AFTER it has been proven to be effective and that there are no serious side effects. I do not agree with taking away my decision as a parent to figure out what is best for my child. Many times in recent history, there have been medications that have come out that were thought to be great, and only years down the road do we now know that they were dangerous or ineffective. What if it prevents cancer, but causes some other side effect that is not known yet? Would I trade cancer protection for possible kidney failure or higher incidence of heart problems? (Not that these are associated with this vaccine) I should have the right to do research and make decisions for my childrens healthcare based on the information that I find, and not have it legistated for me. THE PARENT is the best decision maker for what is right for their childs health. Why not make it available, inform the public of the reasons for and against the vaccine, offer public assistance to pay for the uninsured, and leave it at that? The connection between the governor and Merck make me very nervous, and cast a shadow on their true intentions.

emjaybee 2-04-2007 @ 7:43PM

First of all, there is an opt out clause. If you're truly troubled, or don't trust the research, then you can fill out a form and send it to your daughter's school. She won't have to get the shot.

But yeah...cervical cancer is nasty. A pretty horrible way to go. Could you live with yourself if she got it and died as a young woman because she didn't get the shot? I don't trust Perry, I know that there is probably a sweet deal for Merck included and that Perry is gunning for a Pres run someday and needs good press. But I still think this is a good idea, and if it was my daughter, I'd be concerned about her life first and taxpayer funding second.

Christina 2-04-2007 @ 8:05PM

While I think the vaccine shows promise, and I have no moral objections to giving it to teens, I don't like this idea one bit. First, it's clear that Perry's ties to Merck helped to push this through. This vaccine stands to make Merck millions and millions of dollars, thanks to requiring every girl in Texas to get it. It's no wonder they pushed so hard for this.

My problem lies in the long-term studies. Long term studies conducted so far are not complete, and possible side effects are unknown. What's far worse, they have not established that the vaccine will remain effective for a woman's lifetime. What if all of these girls are vaccinated in 6th grade, and many years later they find the effectiveness wears off after 4-5 years? Then all of these women, thinking they are protected as they finish high school or go off to college - periods of time when many women tend to become sexually active - will be at risk for HPV.

The vaccine is a huge step forward in preventing cervical cancer. But they need to slow down and finish the needed research on this, to know how long it will work, and to be certain there are no side effects.

Kellie 2-04-2007 @ 8:25PM

Over my dead body would I inject that into my child. It's to new a vaccine to know the long term effects.

Since we are moving to Texas in one month this could be something that I have to deal with eventually. Not thrilled.

Ron 2-04-2007 @ 8:37PM

Merck also made Vioxx by the way.

Kira 2-04-2007 @ 10:32PM

It bugs me that people like Perry assume parents can't make the right choices for their children. We are raising them, not the government.
I think the vaccine is a good thing, but I don't like this way of going about it.

Sandyone 2-04-2007 @ 11:53PM

The governor has no right to mandate this vaccine for anyone. He compared it to polio, but he's way wrong on that. You don't catch HPV from casual contact, so there is not going to be any herd immunity. This vaccine protects only the individual, unlike many other childhood vaccines.

I'm not sure which word I'm looking for here...it's related to extortion...witholding education from girls who don't have this vaccine. Blackmail? "You can't come to school until you have this vaccine." It's not the governor's job to ensure that girls/women don't catch HPV.

The governor should feel free to promote this vaccine, get it for his own daughters, encourage others, etc. He has *no right* to mandate medical care for every girl in Texas.

I wonder if he considered mandating complete abstinence...that's a surefire way to not get HPV, too!

Nancy Toby 2-05-2007 @ 8:24AM

Heck, if Merck only paid $6000 to the PAC, then they got the cheapest ho in politics.

I don't for a minute believe that is the basis of this decision.

Keri 2-05-2007 @ 8:56AM

I'm all about choices. If parents want their child to have the vaccine, by all means, go for it. But if parents (like me) don't want their children to be vaccinated, their wishes should be respected. There is a "religious waiver" for vaccines in every state which many parents aren't aware of. Vaccines are completely optional although doctors and politicians don't always mention that.

I rather educate my children on sexuality and have my daughters have a pap smear annually (this procedure does NOT only detect cervical cancer but other abnormalities). You know the saying: "Give a man a fish, feed him for the day. Teach a man to fish, he feeds himself for life." This applies to this situation. Even with the HPV vaccine, we STILL need to teach our children to protect themselves, i.e. AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases which are far more prevalent than cervical cancer.

wookie 2-05-2007 @ 10:09AM

I think it's unlikely that this decision was made for completely altruistic reasons. I would also like to see more research on long term effects before the vaccine is injected into one of my kids (who at 2 and 4 are unlikely to need it all that soon).

But from the Canadian perspective, I boggle that it costs period, let alone that much. Do the pharmecutical companies in the US really have ya'll by the short and curlies, because it sure looks like it.

Abstinence hasn't been practiced in the last 6000 years of recorded human history, what makes anyone think it's going to suddenly become en vouge now?

Kelly 2-05-2007 @ 11:38AM

I agree with the previous poster. Yes, the vaccine might prevent cancer--a cancer largely spread by STDs (so controllable other ways). The pharmaceutical industry has WAY too much power in this country. This hasn't been tested enough over time, but folks are lining up to put their daughters in the guinea pig pen. Zheesh, unbelievable. Of COURSE the deal was struck because Merck has an in with the Texas governor. Maybe it is a good idea. But altruistic? Puh-leeze. Wake up.

Christine 2-05-2007 @ 4:06PM

Wow... I now regret that I registered to vote while living in Texas just to vote against Rick Perry. Great job for not bowing and doing the right thing!

Sheri 2-05-2007 @ 6:28PM

So, how are you going to be certain that your daughter's husband-to-be is a virgin? What are the rates for HPV now anyway? 1 in 4?

SKL 2-05-2007 @ 7:12PM

Sheri has a good point. I know someone who contracted HPV and got cervical cancer in her mid-twenties, and she has never been with anyone but her husband. HPV is unfortunately very common.

I'm not saying the vaccine should be required, but assuming it's proven safe and effective, it's not a bad idea to get it before the first sexual activity occurs.

| 1 | 2 | Most Recent | Next 20 Comments