Perry’s vaccination problem

Texas governor and GOP presidential candidate Rick Perry got hit hard in the recent debate over his executive order to vaccinate young girls against a sexually-transmitted disease.  My friend Rich Shipe was telling me even before Perry threw his hat in the ring that a lot of social conservatives oppose him for that reason.  Here is the story:

Four years ago, Gov. Rick Perry put aside his social conservative bona fides and signed an order requiring Texas girls to be vaccinated against HPV.

The human papillomavirus is a sexually spread virus that can cause cervical cancer, and he says his aim was protecting against that cancer. But it didn’t take long for angry conservatives in the Legislature to override a measure they thought tacitly approved premarital sex, and for critics to accuse Perry of cronyism.

Now Perry’s taking heat on the issue anew as he runs for the presidential nomination of a GOP heavily influenced by conservatives who are sour on the government dictating health care requirements. Illustrating the delicate politics at play, he’s both defending himself and calling his action a mistake.

“If I had it to do over again, I would have done it differently,” Perry said Tuesday night as he debated his rivals, insisting that he would have worked with the Legislature instead of unilaterally acting. But he did not back down from his stance that girls should be vaccinated against the virus, which is generally spread by sexual contact. He argued that it wasn’t a mandate and noted that he included the right for parents to opt out of the vaccinations.

“This was about trying to stop a cancer,” he said. “I am always going to err on the side of life.”

Not that the explanation satisfied his GOP opponents. . . .

It all began when Merck, which won approval for the first HPV vaccine a year earlier, was spending millions lobbying state legislators to require girls to be vaccinated with the new product, Gardasil. The company also was donating money to a national organization called Women in Government, which in Texas was led by state Rep. Dianne White Delisi, who chaired the House public health committee. She was also the mother-in-law of Perry’s chief of staff at the time, Deirdre Delisi — the same woman who now is one of Perry’s top presidential campaign aides.

Schedule and campaign finance reports show that on one day — Oct. 16, 2006 — Deirdre Delisi held a staff meeting to discuss the vaccine and Merck’s political action committee gave Perry $5,000. The drug maker had previously given $6,000 in donations. Perry’s office called the timing of the donation a coincidence.

A review of campaign finance reports shows that Merck’s political action committee continued to contribute, a total of $17,500 to Perry’s campaign fund between 2008 and 2010 even though Perry’s order was eventually overturned.

By early 2007, Toomey and Dianne White Delisi were working to overcome opposition among lawmakers to a bill to require the vaccination. But conservatives said they feared the requirement would infringe on personal liberties and signal approval of premarital sex. Rather than wait for the Legislature to act, Perry signed an executive order on Feb. 2, 2007, requiring the vaccination — with an opt-out provision. It surprised even his allies who acknowledged that it was out of step with his limited-government stance.

Perry explained his action by pointing to his long-documented passion about fighting cancer. He had signed a host of legislation to that end, including a constitutional amendment in Texas that created a cancer research institute funded with $3 billion from bond sales.

“We have a vaccine that’s going to save young women’s lives,” Perry said in 2007. “This is wise public policy.”

The governor quickly found that Texas parents didn’t like the idea of the government telling preadolescents to be vaccinated against a sexually transmitted disease. Within three weeks, the House public health committee approved a bill negating the order but Perry persisted in defending his initiative. By May 8, when it was clear the Legislature was going to pass the bill stopping his order, Perry said he would stop fighting.

via Perry facing new criticism for Texas vaccine order – CBS News.

What do you think about this?  Is there a legitimate “pro-life” reason to order a vaccine that might prevent deaths from cancer?  What about the appearance of “crony capitalism”?  If you disapprove of what the governor did, do you consider this a deal-breaker in your ability to support Perry?  Does that apply just to the primary, or also, if he becomes the Republican nominee, if he runs against President Obama?

HT:  Rich Shipe

About Gene Veith

Professor of Literature at Patrick Henry College, the Director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, a columnist for World Magazine and TableTalk, and the author of 18 books on different facets of Christianity & Culture.

  • Pete

    This is motorcycle helmet laws revisited and proof of how entrenched the nanny state is. As a non-sexually promiscuous citizen, my choices are these: I can fund a vaccine that prevents a disease that is wholly avoidable by practicing what many would consider sensible sexual ethics (and, in that funding, enabling more of the wrong behaviors.) Or, I can permit you to engage in stupid – dare I say immoral – behaviors (be promiscuous = get HPV = get cervical cancer or ride a motorcycle without a helmet = get a disabling brain injury) but then pick up the tab for the subsequent expensive medical repercussions. They’re both bad choices. In a perfect world, everyone would be free to practice whatever sexual ethics they want or ride their motorcycle without a helmet, but would not be shielded from the inevitable consequences by the nanny state. Unfortunately, we’ve gone so far down the wrong road as a society that we’re going to pay either way. And if it becomes a purely economic decision, Perry may be right – the less expensive option might be to vaccinate. But I’m not sure – it depends on how you crunch the numbers.

  • Pete

    This is motorcycle helmet laws revisited and proof of how entrenched the nanny state is. As a non-sexually promiscuous citizen, my choices are these: I can fund a vaccine that prevents a disease that is wholly avoidable by practicing what many would consider sensible sexual ethics (and, in that funding, enabling more of the wrong behaviors.) Or, I can permit you to engage in stupid – dare I say immoral – behaviors (be promiscuous = get HPV = get cervical cancer or ride a motorcycle without a helmet = get a disabling brain injury) but then pick up the tab for the subsequent expensive medical repercussions. They’re both bad choices. In a perfect world, everyone would be free to practice whatever sexual ethics they want or ride their motorcycle without a helmet, but would not be shielded from the inevitable consequences by the nanny state. Unfortunately, we’ve gone so far down the wrong road as a society that we’re going to pay either way. And if it becomes a purely economic decision, Perry may be right – the less expensive option might be to vaccinate. But I’m not sure – it depends on how you crunch the numbers.

  • Stephen

    See the American Cancer Society’s webpage on this virus. I don’t think there is any way this is a public health threat that requires gov’t intrusion into the family. Some highlights include:

    12,000 women a year get cancer from it. Is that a number worthy of this scare? Not sure. Doesn’t seem like a lot.

    Most women who get HPV DO NOT get cancer.

    The cancer is not caused by the virus but by an infection that can be treated.

    Though not curable, regular PAP smears can detect it early and it is treatable so that caner does not occur.

    Seems to me if Perry was really concerned about women he’d take that vaccine money and spend it on women’s health in the form of PAP smears for those who cannot afford it. That way they can be screened for other things as well, which would then lower health care costs through prevention. I mean, hey, isn’t the whole premise for his move that nothing can be done about young women having sex? So PAP smear seems like a no-brainer.

    He did it for the money. He’s a career politician and a lightweight. Another “coincidence” in Perry’s career was when he added an Enron exec to his Public Utilities Commission (02 campaign I believe it was – I’m a Texan and he’s been around forever!). The next day he got a campaign check from Ken Lay for $25,000. Perry called that “coincidental” too.

    He wouldn’t support a ban on smoking in public places, but did lower taxes on chewing tobacco. He’s supported attempts to make it more difficult for children to receive healthcare through CHIP even though it is supported by federal matching funds in a state with the highest number of uninsured and the most minimum wage jobs. He vetoed legislation by his own party to make texting while driving illegal even though “death by cellphone” is on the rise. Hmm. And do you think is doing much of that texting Maybe teenage girls he says he wants to protect?

    And then there’s the fires . . .

  • Stephen

    See the American Cancer Society’s webpage on this virus. I don’t think there is any way this is a public health threat that requires gov’t intrusion into the family. Some highlights include:

    12,000 women a year get cancer from it. Is that a number worthy of this scare? Not sure. Doesn’t seem like a lot.

    Most women who get HPV DO NOT get cancer.

    The cancer is not caused by the virus but by an infection that can be treated.

    Though not curable, regular PAP smears can detect it early and it is treatable so that caner does not occur.

    Seems to me if Perry was really concerned about women he’d take that vaccine money and spend it on women’s health in the form of PAP smears for those who cannot afford it. That way they can be screened for other things as well, which would then lower health care costs through prevention. I mean, hey, isn’t the whole premise for his move that nothing can be done about young women having sex? So PAP smear seems like a no-brainer.

    He did it for the money. He’s a career politician and a lightweight. Another “coincidence” in Perry’s career was when he added an Enron exec to his Public Utilities Commission (02 campaign I believe it was – I’m a Texan and he’s been around forever!). The next day he got a campaign check from Ken Lay for $25,000. Perry called that “coincidental” too.

    He wouldn’t support a ban on smoking in public places, but did lower taxes on chewing tobacco. He’s supported attempts to make it more difficult for children to receive healthcare through CHIP even though it is supported by federal matching funds in a state with the highest number of uninsured and the most minimum wage jobs. He vetoed legislation by his own party to make texting while driving illegal even though “death by cellphone” is on the rise. Hmm. And do you think is doing much of that texting Maybe teenage girls he says he wants to protect?

    And then there’s the fires . . .

  • Stephen

    That’s 12,000 women NATIONWIDE who get HPV. Sheesh! The gall!

  • Stephen

    That’s 12,000 women NATIONWIDE who get HPV. Sheesh! The gall!

  • Pete

    Stephen appears to have crunched some of the numbers.

  • Pete

    Stephen appears to have crunched some of the numbers.

  • Joe

    Take the pre-marital sex issue out of it. This is not a public health issue period. Unlike measles, mups, rubella or polio you can’t transmit this through causal contact. A person can’t sneeze and give you HPV. Failing to wash your hands after a trip to the bathroom can’t lead to the spread of HPV.

  • Joe

    Take the pre-marital sex issue out of it. This is not a public health issue period. Unlike measles, mups, rubella or polio you can’t transmit this through causal contact. A person can’t sneeze and give you HPV. Failing to wash your hands after a trip to the bathroom can’t lead to the spread of HPV.

  • SKPeterson

    Joe – I think there’s plenty of causal contact involved in transmission. ;)

  • SKPeterson

    Joe – I think there’s plenty of causal contact involved in transmission. ;)

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    The goal is commendable, the means is deplorable. I am not antivax, but I am against mandatory vaccination. I wanted to face plant on my keyboard the first time I read about Perry’s vaccination plan, but I have an expensive keyboard and decided Perry’s faux paux not worth the replacement cost. It was a dumb move on Perry’s part, the legislature recognized it as such and voted it down, no harm done. Hopefully, Perry learned his lesson and will give greater consideration to any bill he supports.

    So is this a deal breaker? Eh, probably not, partially because I don’t want to see Romneycare anymore than I want Obamacare.

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    The goal is commendable, the means is deplorable. I am not antivax, but I am against mandatory vaccination. I wanted to face plant on my keyboard the first time I read about Perry’s vaccination plan, but I have an expensive keyboard and decided Perry’s faux paux not worth the replacement cost. It was a dumb move on Perry’s part, the legislature recognized it as such and voted it down, no harm done. Hopefully, Perry learned his lesson and will give greater consideration to any bill he supports.

    So is this a deal breaker? Eh, probably not, partially because I don’t want to see Romneycare anymore than I want Obamacare.

  • Jonathan

    Vaccines are what the government should be doing to promote the general welfare of its citizens.

    People do stupid stuff, like being promiscuous, and riding two-wheel vehicles without helmets.

    Do we really want people getting cancer that’s preventable with a simple vaccine?

    That’s somehow promoting promiscuity, really?

    If there were an HIV/AIDS vaccine, same result? Really?

    This is such a non-issue.

  • Jonathan

    Vaccines are what the government should be doing to promote the general welfare of its citizens.

    People do stupid stuff, like being promiscuous, and riding two-wheel vehicles without helmets.

    Do we really want people getting cancer that’s preventable with a simple vaccine?

    That’s somehow promoting promiscuity, really?

    If there were an HIV/AIDS vaccine, same result? Really?

    This is such a non-issue.

  • Joe

    Jonathan – the gov’t does not need to mandate a vaccine that prevents a virus that only 12,000 people get a year which may if untreated lead to an infection that might lead to cancer. How far down the rabbit hole are we going to go.

    Gov’t should respond to legitimate public health crises – this does not mean any health issue that might affect a small percentage of the population. It means a disease that if left unchecked will run rampant through the population leaving dead in its wake.

    My objection is not based on the pre-marital sex angle. Sexual contact is only relevant because it demonstrates the transmission method of the virus.

  • Joe

    Jonathan – the gov’t does not need to mandate a vaccine that prevents a virus that only 12,000 people get a year which may if untreated lead to an infection that might lead to cancer. How far down the rabbit hole are we going to go.

    Gov’t should respond to legitimate public health crises – this does not mean any health issue that might affect a small percentage of the population. It means a disease that if left unchecked will run rampant through the population leaving dead in its wake.

    My objection is not based on the pre-marital sex angle. Sexual contact is only relevant because it demonstrates the transmission method of the virus.

  • Kyralessa

    The US has a population of roughly 300 million. 12,000 people means 1 out of every 25,000 people.

  • Kyralessa

    The US has a population of roughly 300 million. 12,000 people means 1 out of every 25,000 people.

  • DonS

    It’s great that there is a vaccine available. Those who have a lifestyle putting them at risk for HPV should have themselves and their children vaccinated. But it’s not a public health issue, and the state has no business mandating yet another vaccine that does not pose a dangerous risk of infection communicable through ordinary human contact, even if that’s what a big pharmaceutical corporation wants.

    We don’t know the long-term effect of forcing our young children to be vaccinated against over 20 different diseases — the number of mandatory vaccines has mushroomed over the past 40 years. There is certainly a large uptick in autoimmune disease incidence in recent years — might there be a connection? Let the parents make an informed voluntary choice in the case of vaccines not essential to protect the public health.

    I think most social conservatives would overlook this one issue, particularly if the choice is Rick Perry or four more years of Obama. At least I hope so. To me, the bigger thing to come out of that debate was Perry’s response to Bachmann: “So, you think I can be bought for a $5,000 contribution?” He had better hope that line doesn’t show up in a TV commercial. ;-)

  • DonS

    It’s great that there is a vaccine available. Those who have a lifestyle putting them at risk for HPV should have themselves and their children vaccinated. But it’s not a public health issue, and the state has no business mandating yet another vaccine that does not pose a dangerous risk of infection communicable through ordinary human contact, even if that’s what a big pharmaceutical corporation wants.

    We don’t know the long-term effect of forcing our young children to be vaccinated against over 20 different diseases — the number of mandatory vaccines has mushroomed over the past 40 years. There is certainly a large uptick in autoimmune disease incidence in recent years — might there be a connection? Let the parents make an informed voluntary choice in the case of vaccines not essential to protect the public health.

    I think most social conservatives would overlook this one issue, particularly if the choice is Rick Perry or four more years of Obama. At least I hope so. To me, the bigger thing to come out of that debate was Perry’s response to Bachmann: “So, you think I can be bought for a $5,000 contribution?” He had better hope that line doesn’t show up in a TV commercial. ;-)

  • Lou

    DonS, agreed. I thought the same thing and asked to myself: what exactly is his price tag, then? I don’t really think he meant to suggest that he could be bought if the price was right, but his statement is ample fodder for his opponents to quote during the election.

  • Lou

    DonS, agreed. I thought the same thing and asked to myself: what exactly is his price tag, then? I don’t really think he meant to suggest that he could be bought if the price was right, but his statement is ample fodder for his opponents to quote during the election.

  • Grace

    If there were a Vaccine that would stop HIV/AIDS I wonder what the reaction would be? Would boys be required to have the Vaccine? – OR would everyone stand by and moan about how the government is meddling in the lives of Americans? Let’s look at it another way —- those who live sexually active promiscuous lives, and that most certainly includes the teens, cannot expect the rest of us to pay for their diseases. This means that if there is a vaccine that will help save lives, keep STDS at a much lower rate, save billions of dollars, that should be reason enough to require the vacination.

  • Grace

    If there were a Vaccine that would stop HIV/AIDS I wonder what the reaction would be? Would boys be required to have the Vaccine? – OR would everyone stand by and moan about how the government is meddling in the lives of Americans? Let’s look at it another way —- those who live sexually active promiscuous lives, and that most certainly includes the teens, cannot expect the rest of us to pay for their diseases. This means that if there is a vaccine that will help save lives, keep STDS at a much lower rate, save billions of dollars, that should be reason enough to require the vacination.

  • kerner

    Nobody usually objects to widespread vaccinations to wipe out disseases. Is it the sexually transmitted nature of this dissease that people object to?

    My father once told me that, when he was a child, hospitals routinely sprinkles silver nitrate into the eyes of every newborn child. This was a public health practice aimed at preventing blindness in children whose mothers had been exposed to gonorrhea.

    According to this, in a lot of states, the law still requires it:
    http://www.givingbirthnaturally.com/silver-nitrate.html

    To get a marriage license, everyone used to have to get a “blood test”, but I don’t think they were checking for high cholesterol. I don’t know that we can say that this country has never required wide spread tests or treatments aimed at preventing the spread of STDs before.

    As it turns out, this particular vaccine may have been of limited value while having dangerous side effects. While I think this was a bad call, I’m not sure it’s fair to characterize Perry’s decision as a threat to the Republic.

  • kerner

    Nobody usually objects to widespread vaccinations to wipe out disseases. Is it the sexually transmitted nature of this dissease that people object to?

    My father once told me that, when he was a child, hospitals routinely sprinkles silver nitrate into the eyes of every newborn child. This was a public health practice aimed at preventing blindness in children whose mothers had been exposed to gonorrhea.

    According to this, in a lot of states, the law still requires it:
    http://www.givingbirthnaturally.com/silver-nitrate.html

    To get a marriage license, everyone used to have to get a “blood test”, but I don’t think they were checking for high cholesterol. I don’t know that we can say that this country has never required wide spread tests or treatments aimed at preventing the spread of STDs before.

    As it turns out, this particular vaccine may have been of limited value while having dangerous side effects. While I think this was a bad call, I’m not sure it’s fair to characterize Perry’s decision as a threat to the Republic.

  • Grace

    Kerner @14

    YOU WROTE: “To get a marriage license, everyone used to have to get a “blood test”, but I don’t think they were checking for high cholesterol. I don’t know that we can say that this country has never required wide spread tests or treatments aimed at preventing the spread of STDs before.”

    The reason for a blood test to obtain a marriage license was usually “syphilis” –

    Times have changed, STDS, including HIV/AIDS rampant sexual partners is taking another turn – we have no choice but to test, and find ways to vaccinate against such dreaded disease.

    The site below gives state by state requirements for marriage licenses.

    US Marriage Laws

    “Marriage license Laws in the United States, here is what you need to bring with you, and what you need to know about the United States marriage license laws before filling out your state’s marriage license application.”

    Another excerpt…..

    “There are also certain medical requirements that have to be completed such as proof of immunity or vaccination for certain diseases. Most states have done away with mandatory physical exams or blood tests. Some states still require for venereal diseases such as syphilis, and some also test for rubella, tuberculosis, and sickle-cell anemia”

    http://usmarriagelaws.com/

  • Grace

    Kerner @14

    YOU WROTE: “To get a marriage license, everyone used to have to get a “blood test”, but I don’t think they were checking for high cholesterol. I don’t know that we can say that this country has never required wide spread tests or treatments aimed at preventing the spread of STDs before.”

    The reason for a blood test to obtain a marriage license was usually “syphilis” –

    Times have changed, STDS, including HIV/AIDS rampant sexual partners is taking another turn – we have no choice but to test, and find ways to vaccinate against such dreaded disease.

    The site below gives state by state requirements for marriage licenses.

    US Marriage Laws

    “Marriage license Laws in the United States, here is what you need to bring with you, and what you need to know about the United States marriage license laws before filling out your state’s marriage license application.”

    Another excerpt…..

    “There are also certain medical requirements that have to be completed such as proof of immunity or vaccination for certain diseases. Most states have done away with mandatory physical exams or blood tests. Some states still require for venereal diseases such as syphilis, and some also test for rubella, tuberculosis, and sickle-cell anemia”

    http://usmarriagelaws.com/

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    @#13 Nobody should be required to get any treatment including vaccines. Politicians should not be given that level of control over people. It would be unethical and fraught with danger of abuse.

    Should insurance companies offer benefits/discounts to people who vaccinate? Sure, it makes medical and financial sense.

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    @#13 Nobody should be required to get any treatment including vaccines. Politicians should not be given that level of control over people. It would be unethical and fraught with danger of abuse.

    Should insurance companies offer benefits/discounts to people who vaccinate? Sure, it makes medical and financial sense.

  • Jon

    Enter Palin. Perry’s decision to mandate the vaccine, together with the plausible charge, “He did it for the money,” (see Stephen @2), and his support of in-state tuition for undocumented Texans, will eventually cause the TP to sour on him. Bachmann, meanwhile, drops like a stone.

    Enter Palin. She’s no fan of Perry and will watch him twist in the wind; the evangelicals will never support LDS Romney.

    Enter Palin. Everyone knows her, she’s got an organization, and she can raise a ton of cash. Her nomination will result in a defeat of epic proportions, but the nomination will satisfy the ideologues. Revelations about Palin in McGuinness’s book later this month will only solidify her supporters. The demand for her entry into the race will be deafening. She won’t disappoint her fan base.

    I say again, enter Palin.

  • Jon

    Enter Palin. Perry’s decision to mandate the vaccine, together with the plausible charge, “He did it for the money,” (see Stephen @2), and his support of in-state tuition for undocumented Texans, will eventually cause the TP to sour on him. Bachmann, meanwhile, drops like a stone.

    Enter Palin. She’s no fan of Perry and will watch him twist in the wind; the evangelicals will never support LDS Romney.

    Enter Palin. Everyone knows her, she’s got an organization, and she can raise a ton of cash. Her nomination will result in a defeat of epic proportions, but the nomination will satisfy the ideologues. Revelations about Palin in McGuinness’s book later this month will only solidify her supporters. The demand for her entry into the race will be deafening. She won’t disappoint her fan base.

    I say again, enter Palin.

  • Grace

    Jon @17

    Your ‘routine “enter Palin” is nonsense – she doesn’t have the background, experience to be president – further more her cutsey ‘socker mom routine has grown old, she really is a PTA president hopeful, but not the Oval office !

  • Grace

    Jon @17

    Your ‘routine “enter Palin” is nonsense – she doesn’t have the background, experience to be president – further more her cutsey ‘socker mom routine has grown old, she really is a PTA president hopeful, but not the Oval office !

  • Stephen

    Isn’t anyone the least bit concerned about Perry’s obvious cronyism? You can argue all you want about whether the gov’t should be allowed to mandate vaccines, but please! Is that really the issue with this guy? I mean, c’mon folks. He’s a repeat offender. Ken Lay and Enron!!!

    There’s always Buddy Roemer.

  • Stephen

    Isn’t anyone the least bit concerned about Perry’s obvious cronyism? You can argue all you want about whether the gov’t should be allowed to mandate vaccines, but please! Is that really the issue with this guy? I mean, c’mon folks. He’s a repeat offender. Ken Lay and Enron!!!

    There’s always Buddy Roemer.

  • DonS

    I’m shocked, SHOCKED, to find cronyism in politics! Of all things! ;-)

    Seriously, Stephen, we have to fill the office.

  • DonS

    I’m shocked, SHOCKED, to find cronyism in politics! Of all things! ;-)

    Seriously, Stephen, we have to fill the office.

  • Kyralessa

    “Enter Palin. She’s no fan of Perry and will watch him twist in the wind; the evangelicals will never support LDS Romney.”

    Good gravy, I’m so sick of this line. And I’m not even an evangelical.

    Those of us who dislike Romney don’t dislike him because he’s LDS. We dislike him because he’s not a social conservative.

    Or at least he wasn’t when he was governor of Massachusetts. Either he’s *still* not, in which case we don’t want him, or he *is* a social conservative now, in which case his beliefs in that area don’t come from deep conviction, but bend to the requirements of politics. Either way, not a good option, regardless of his religion.

  • Kyralessa

    “Enter Palin. She’s no fan of Perry and will watch him twist in the wind; the evangelicals will never support LDS Romney.”

    Good gravy, I’m so sick of this line. And I’m not even an evangelical.

    Those of us who dislike Romney don’t dislike him because he’s LDS. We dislike him because he’s not a social conservative.

    Or at least he wasn’t when he was governor of Massachusetts. Either he’s *still* not, in which case we don’t want him, or he *is* a social conservative now, in which case his beliefs in that area don’t come from deep conviction, but bend to the requirements of politics. Either way, not a good option, regardless of his religion.

  • Grace

    Kyralessa @21

    “Those of us who dislike Romney don’t dislike him because he’s LDS. We dislike him because he’s not a social conservative.”

    WRONG – I would not vote for anyone who is devoted to a ‘CULT’ – Because Romney cannot see the fairytale cultsmanship of Mormonism, he would never be able to grasp the truth of all the problems this country has, or the world at large.

  • Grace

    Kyralessa @21

    “Those of us who dislike Romney don’t dislike him because he’s LDS. We dislike him because he’s not a social conservative.”

    WRONG – I would not vote for anyone who is devoted to a ‘CULT’ – Because Romney cannot see the fairytale cultsmanship of Mormonism, he would never be able to grasp the truth of all the problems this country has, or the world at large.

  • kerner

    “WRONG – I would not vote for anyone who is devoted to a ‘CULT’ – Because Romney cannot see the fairytale cultsmanship of Mormonism, he would never be able to grasp the truth of all the problems this country has, or the world at large.”

    But couldn’t you say that about any non-Christian religion? I’d never defend the LDS religion, but I’m not sure I can say I’d never vote for a Mormon.

  • kerner

    “WRONG – I would not vote for anyone who is devoted to a ‘CULT’ – Because Romney cannot see the fairytale cultsmanship of Mormonism, he would never be able to grasp the truth of all the problems this country has, or the world at large.”

    But couldn’t you say that about any non-Christian religion? I’d never defend the LDS religion, but I’m not sure I can say I’d never vote for a Mormon.

  • Jon

    @21 I said Romney’s LDS is not acceptable to evangelicals based on info obtained during ’08, particularly in southern states. Plainly, there are lots of reasons to not support Romney, but for many, many evangelicals his religion ranks high among the reasons. Which means Romney will always have an anti-Romney (first, Bachmann, then Perry) to contend with for the nomination, no matter what positions he stakes out (no pun intended); the TP is sifting through those alternatives; in my view, they will settle on Palin soon.

  • Jon

    @21 I said Romney’s LDS is not acceptable to evangelicals based on info obtained during ’08, particularly in southern states. Plainly, there are lots of reasons to not support Romney, but for many, many evangelicals his religion ranks high among the reasons. Which means Romney will always have an anti-Romney (first, Bachmann, then Perry) to contend with for the nomination, no matter what positions he stakes out (no pun intended); the TP is sifting through those alternatives; in my view, they will settle on Palin soon.

  • Grace

    Kerner @23

    YOU WROTE: “But couldn’t you say that about any non-Christian religion? I’d never defend the LDS religion, but I’m not sure I can say I’d never vote for a Mormon.”

    I would never vote for a Mormon – anyone who can believe what Joseph Smith taught does not have the basic analytical skills to lead the United States of America. But more important, he is devoted to a cult, and a leader who has led millions astray – Who could trust such a man?

    “I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book.”
    History of the Church, Vol. 4, page 461

    “God is in the still small voice. In all these affidavits, indictments, it is all of the devil–all corruption. Come on! ye prosecutors! ye false swearers! All hell, boil over! Ye burning mountains, roll down your lava! for I will come out on the top at last. I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam. A large majority of the whole have stood by me. Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from Him; but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet”
    History of the Church, Vol. 6, p. 408-409).

  • Grace

    Kerner @23

    YOU WROTE: “But couldn’t you say that about any non-Christian religion? I’d never defend the LDS religion, but I’m not sure I can say I’d never vote for a Mormon.”

    I would never vote for a Mormon – anyone who can believe what Joseph Smith taught does not have the basic analytical skills to lead the United States of America. But more important, he is devoted to a cult, and a leader who has led millions astray – Who could trust such a man?

    “I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book.”
    History of the Church, Vol. 4, page 461

    “God is in the still small voice. In all these affidavits, indictments, it is all of the devil–all corruption. Come on! ye prosecutors! ye false swearers! All hell, boil over! Ye burning mountains, roll down your lava! for I will come out on the top at last. I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam. A large majority of the whole have stood by me. Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from Him; but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet”
    History of the Church, Vol. 6, p. 408-409).

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grr. If you know me, you know how much I hate changing my opinion in public, because it involves admitting I was wrong about something, but…

    In discussing things over on a different thread with Joe and DonS, I came to rethink my position on this HPV vaccination issue. I hadn’t really been thinking about why it’s the government’s business to require vaccinations.

    That answer, of course, is because we have compulsory schooling in this country. I’m so not going right now into whether that is a good idea or whatever. I’m taking it as a given.

    But if the government requires children to attend schools (with public schools being the free — yes, I know why you want to quibble with that word; let it go — default), then it is also requiring children to gather together and spend lots of time near each other in relatively tight quarters. As such, it is in the government’s interest to ensure that public schools do not become breeding grounds for disease. Thus, mandatory vaccinations for students attending those schools.

    What Joe got me to understand is why this would not apply to just any type of disease for which we might have a vaccine. A child with HPV is not a threat to other students at the school inasmuch as compulsory education is considered. Because sexual activities between students, though quite probable, are not part of compulsory education, nor are STDs a threat to any student in the course of attending school.

    To summarize: the government has a reasonable interest in ensuring that our public schools are not disease vectors. They do not have a reasonable interest in preventing any individual — even if they are a student — from being a disease vector. Except, of course, inasmuch as that would also result in the school being a vector.

    I also think Stephen’s number-crunching (@2) is useful, although secondary in this particular case, given that HPV is only spread through sexual (i.e. non-school-related) contact. Accounting like that certainly would be important, though, in determining which commonly contractable threats to address through vaccination.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grr. If you know me, you know how much I hate changing my opinion in public, because it involves admitting I was wrong about something, but…

    In discussing things over on a different thread with Joe and DonS, I came to rethink my position on this HPV vaccination issue. I hadn’t really been thinking about why it’s the government’s business to require vaccinations.

    That answer, of course, is because we have compulsory schooling in this country. I’m so not going right now into whether that is a good idea or whatever. I’m taking it as a given.

    But if the government requires children to attend schools (with public schools being the free — yes, I know why you want to quibble with that word; let it go — default), then it is also requiring children to gather together and spend lots of time near each other in relatively tight quarters. As such, it is in the government’s interest to ensure that public schools do not become breeding grounds for disease. Thus, mandatory vaccinations for students attending those schools.

    What Joe got me to understand is why this would not apply to just any type of disease for which we might have a vaccine. A child with HPV is not a threat to other students at the school inasmuch as compulsory education is considered. Because sexual activities between students, though quite probable, are not part of compulsory education, nor are STDs a threat to any student in the course of attending school.

    To summarize: the government has a reasonable interest in ensuring that our public schools are not disease vectors. They do not have a reasonable interest in preventing any individual — even if they are a student — from being a disease vector. Except, of course, inasmuch as that would also result in the school being a vector.

    I also think Stephen’s number-crunching (@2) is useful, although secondary in this particular case, given that HPV is only spread through sexual (i.e. non-school-related) contact. Accounting like that certainly would be important, though, in determining which commonly contractable threats to address through vaccination.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    All that said, I’m still of the opinion that much of the opposition to Perry and this vaccine is based both on moralistic legalism and bad science. Because that’s what I hear a lot of.

    Consider Pete’s comment (@1), and how he ties his opposition to the vaccine to “sexual ethics” and “immoral behaviors”. The idea being that disease is to be desired as a moral curb.

    And then there’s Don’s apparent suggestion (@11) that vaccines might, what, be behind any number of autoimmune diseases, based on nothing more than guesswork/correlation. The same guesswork, by the way, that was behind the now-very-discredited idea that vaccines cause autism. That, my friends, is bad science and fearmongering.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    All that said, I’m still of the opinion that much of the opposition to Perry and this vaccine is based both on moralistic legalism and bad science. Because that’s what I hear a lot of.

    Consider Pete’s comment (@1), and how he ties his opposition to the vaccine to “sexual ethics” and “immoral behaviors”. The idea being that disease is to be desired as a moral curb.

    And then there’s Don’s apparent suggestion (@11) that vaccines might, what, be behind any number of autoimmune diseases, based on nothing more than guesswork/correlation. The same guesswork, by the way, that was behind the now-very-discredited idea that vaccines cause autism. That, my friends, is bad science and fearmongering.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Kyralessa (@21), given that you’re not an evangelical, what makes you think that your personal anecdote can in any way be used to refute a general claim about evangelicals?

    And why do you think a claim about how evangelicals think applies to you?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Kyralessa (@21), given that you’re not an evangelical, what makes you think that your personal anecdote can in any way be used to refute a general claim about evangelicals?

    And why do you think a claim about how evangelicals think applies to you?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Oh, look! There’s an actual “Evangelical” (@22) who validates Jon’s claim (@17) that “the evangelicals will never support LDS Romney”:

    I would not vote for anyone who is devoted to a ‘CULT’ – …

    I would never vote for a Mormon

    Pretty sure the empirical evidence here is leaning away from your claim, Kyralessa.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Oh, look! There’s an actual “Evangelical” (@22) who validates Jon’s claim (@17) that “the evangelicals will never support LDS Romney”:

    I would not vote for anyone who is devoted to a ‘CULT’ – …

    I would never vote for a Mormon

    Pretty sure the empirical evidence here is leaning away from your claim, Kyralessa.

  • Joe

    tODD – I’m glad you came around. To be honest I figured you would.

    I don’t disagree with your belief that many folks don’t like the vaccination issue for the reasons you stated. I hear it to. My comment @ 5 was an attempt to get people to focus on the real issue.

  • Joe

    tODD – I’m glad you came around. To be honest I figured you would.

    I don’t disagree with your belief that many folks don’t like the vaccination issue for the reasons you stated. I hear it to. My comment @ 5 was an attempt to get people to focus on the real issue.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Joe (@30), go easy on me. If you press the point, I’ll revert to my old position out of spite. ;)

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Joe (@30), go easy on me. If you press the point, I’ll revert to my old position out of spite. ;)

  • Kyralessa

    @tODD, why should he? It’s not as if you go easy on anyone else.

    To answer your question to me, it seems like you’re refuting my empirical claim with one of your own based on the testimony of one or two evangelicals. I submit that this doesn’t make your case any stronger than mine.

    I did grow up an evangelical (well, Churches of Christ, so technically perhaps you could say evangelicals were my spiritual cousins). Owing to that, I feel like I’m a bit more familiar with how evangelicals think than most members of the mass media, who are the ones who most commonly spin this particular narrative about Romney. There are plenty of reasons not to vote for Romney regardless of his religion.

  • Kyralessa

    @tODD, why should he? It’s not as if you go easy on anyone else.

    To answer your question to me, it seems like you’re refuting my empirical claim with one of your own based on the testimony of one or two evangelicals. I submit that this doesn’t make your case any stronger than mine.

    I did grow up an evangelical (well, Churches of Christ, so technically perhaps you could say evangelicals were my spiritual cousins). Owing to that, I feel like I’m a bit more familiar with how evangelicals think than most members of the mass media, who are the ones who most commonly spin this particular narrative about Romney. There are plenty of reasons not to vote for Romney regardless of his religion.

  • Grace

    32 Kyralessa

    YOU WROTE: “To answer your question to me, it seems like you’re refuting my empirical claim with one of your own based on the testimony of one or two evangelicals.”

    WRONG – I don’t know many who are true Evangelicals that would vote for a cultist. Anyone who can believe their false teaching could believe just about anything.

    I have studied the cults extensively, they are no one to follow, in any way shape or form. The belief system is skewed, false.

  • Grace

    32 Kyralessa

    YOU WROTE: “To answer your question to me, it seems like you’re refuting my empirical claim with one of your own based on the testimony of one or two evangelicals.”

    WRONG – I don’t know many who are true Evangelicals that would vote for a cultist. Anyone who can believe their false teaching could believe just about anything.

    I have studied the cults extensively, they are no one to follow, in any way shape or form. The belief system is skewed, false.

  • DonS

    tODD @ 26, 27: It takes a man of character (or woman) to consider arguments and revise and change his opinion, publicly, based on those arguments. I’ve had to do it, on occasion, and it’s tough to do, but engenders respect from others, more than anything else.

    My reasons for opposing, specifically, the HPV vaccine are the same as Joe’s, as I stated earlier on both threads. My comment about autoimmune diseases is an add-on, explaining why we (my wife and I) personally opt our children out of some of the required vaccinations, including HPV, where we don’t believe the disease being vaccinated against is a serious health thread to our children. However, that comment doesn’t have any direct bearing on this specific discussion, which is purely about the conflict between public health mandates and parental rights.

  • DonS

    tODD @ 26, 27: It takes a man of character (or woman) to consider arguments and revise and change his opinion, publicly, based on those arguments. I’ve had to do it, on occasion, and it’s tough to do, but engenders respect from others, more than anything else.

    My reasons for opposing, specifically, the HPV vaccine are the same as Joe’s, as I stated earlier on both threads. My comment about autoimmune diseases is an add-on, explaining why we (my wife and I) personally opt our children out of some of the required vaccinations, including HPV, where we don’t believe the disease being vaccinated against is a serious health thread to our children. However, that comment doesn’t have any direct bearing on this specific discussion, which is purely about the conflict between public health mandates and parental rights.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Honestly, Kyralessa (@32), it’s not all about you. Literally.

    Jon’s original point (@17) was about how “evangelicals will never support LDS Romney”. You are, by your own admission, not an Evangelical. So this really isn’t about you. The fact that you, a non-Evangelical, dislike Perry because “he’s not a social conservative” has zero bearing on what Evangelicals may or may not think about him.

    But it is painfully obvious that your blanket statement (@21) that “Those of us who dislike Romney don’t dislike him because he’s LDS” is false. Grace, who is an Evangelical has proven that over and over (@22, 25, 33).

    Do you routinely take offense at statements made about groups to which you claim you don’t belong?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Honestly, Kyralessa (@32), it’s not all about you. Literally.

    Jon’s original point (@17) was about how “evangelicals will never support LDS Romney”. You are, by your own admission, not an Evangelical. So this really isn’t about you. The fact that you, a non-Evangelical, dislike Perry because “he’s not a social conservative” has zero bearing on what Evangelicals may or may not think about him.

    But it is painfully obvious that your blanket statement (@21) that “Those of us who dislike Romney don’t dislike him because he’s LDS” is false. Grace, who is an Evangelical has proven that over and over (@22, 25, 33).

    Do you routinely take offense at statements made about groups to which you claim you don’t belong?

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    I know an LCMS guy who said he would not vote for a Mormon. That was before his kid became a Mormon. I wonder what he would say now.

    Anyway, as for some folks objecting to Romney’s religion, from what I can tell the alt. right seems to lean toward Romney because he doesn’t talk about religion. I think all the religious talk is a distraction because the president isn’t a religious position anyway.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    I know an LCMS guy who said he would not vote for a Mormon. That was before his kid became a Mormon. I wonder what he would say now.

    Anyway, as for some folks objecting to Romney’s religion, from what I can tell the alt. right seems to lean toward Romney because he doesn’t talk about religion. I think all the religious talk is a distraction because the president isn’t a religious position anyway.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “I’m shocked, SHOCKED, to find cronyism in politics! Of all things!”

    LOL Obama is the poster boy of cronyism!

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “I’m shocked, SHOCKED, to find cronyism in politics! Of all things!”

    LOL Obama is the poster boy of cronyism!

  • Jonathan

    @34 Have you ever changed your opinion publicly on this blog? I find virtualy all exchanges with you to follow these lines:

    DonS – It’s perfectly clear that Fords are better than Chevys.
    Reader: – Are you serious? Fords are better than Chevys?
    DonS – I never said Fords are better than Chevys.
    Reader: Yes, you did. Here’s the quote.
    DonS – Can you prove that Fords are NOT better than Chevys? Is that what you’re saying? Because, clearly, you’ve misinterpreted what I said.
    Reader: Quotes DonS again.
    DonS: Why are you so rude? Why do you so disdain what I believe? When I disagree with someone, I make a point of being very respectful.
    Someone: (gives up).

  • Jonathan

    @34 Have you ever changed your opinion publicly on this blog? I find virtualy all exchanges with you to follow these lines:

    DonS – It’s perfectly clear that Fords are better than Chevys.
    Reader: – Are you serious? Fords are better than Chevys?
    DonS – I never said Fords are better than Chevys.
    Reader: Yes, you did. Here’s the quote.
    DonS – Can you prove that Fords are NOT better than Chevys? Is that what you’re saying? Because, clearly, you’ve misinterpreted what I said.
    Reader: Quotes DonS again.
    DonS: Why are you so rude? Why do you so disdain what I believe? When I disagree with someone, I make a point of being very respectful.
    Someone: (gives up).

  • Grace

    tODD

    I agree with DonS @34, as he stated: “tODD @ 26, 27: It takes a man of character (or woman) to consider arguments and revise and change his opinion, publicly, based on those arguments. I’ve had to do it, on occasion, and it’s tough to do, but engenders respect from others, more than anything else.”

    I have done it seldom, but when I have, it was ‘painful. I thank you Todd. :)

  • Grace

    tODD

    I agree with DonS @34, as he stated: “tODD @ 26, 27: It takes a man of character (or woman) to consider arguments and revise and change his opinion, publicly, based on those arguments. I’ve had to do it, on occasion, and it’s tough to do, but engenders respect from others, more than anything else.”

    I have done it seldom, but when I have, it was ‘painful. I thank you Todd. :)

  • kerner

    I don’t know if I’m convinced that only health problems caused by casual contact can generate a “public health issue”. As I said, public health laws aimed at curbing the spread or effects of STDs have been on the books for decades. That said, I think that “opt out” clauses in public health laws are appropriate in a free society.

    And that said, maybe the original issue of this post has been obscured. Does anyone think that Perry’s mistake (and I do think it was one) will cost him so many votes that his campaign will fail? I don’t. There are a lot of things a politician can do to lose me, but nobody has demonstrated why this ought to be one of them.

  • kerner

    I don’t know if I’m convinced that only health problems caused by casual contact can generate a “public health issue”. As I said, public health laws aimed at curbing the spread or effects of STDs have been on the books for decades. That said, I think that “opt out” clauses in public health laws are appropriate in a free society.

    And that said, maybe the original issue of this post has been obscured. Does anyone think that Perry’s mistake (and I do think it was one) will cost him so many votes that his campaign will fail? I don’t. There are a lot of things a politician can do to lose me, but nobody has demonstrated why this ought to be one of them.

  • Grace

    Kerner,

    You WROTE: “As I said, public health laws aimed at curbing the spread or effects of STDs have been on the books for decades. “

    Yes they have, but sex and sexual behavior have escalated, and at a much younger age.

    If you have friendship with any OB/GYN’s ask them about STDs and how easily they are spread, and the effects of all the diseases that people get. Ask them the precentage of women who come to their offices with STD’s. Ask about ‘herpes’ that is a horrid disease.

    You WROTE: “Does anyone think that Perry’s mistake (and I do think it was one) will cost him so many votes that his campaign will fail? I don’t. “

    I don’t think it will cost him votes – Rick Perry has opened up, and stood tall regarding the Vaccine. He has opened the eyes of many parents who think their little ‘Liz or Andy’ could never be having sex, never mind the possiblity of an STD.

  • Grace

    Kerner,

    You WROTE: “As I said, public health laws aimed at curbing the spread or effects of STDs have been on the books for decades. “

    Yes they have, but sex and sexual behavior have escalated, and at a much younger age.

    If you have friendship with any OB/GYN’s ask them about STDs and how easily they are spread, and the effects of all the diseases that people get. Ask them the precentage of women who come to their offices with STD’s. Ask about ‘herpes’ that is a horrid disease.

    You WROTE: “Does anyone think that Perry’s mistake (and I do think it was one) will cost him so many votes that his campaign will fail? I don’t. “

    I don’t think it will cost him votes – Rick Perry has opened up, and stood tall regarding the Vaccine. He has opened the eyes of many parents who think their little ‘Liz or Andy’ could never be having sex, never mind the possiblity of an STD.

  • Stephen

    Jonathan @ 38

    That was delicious! Do it again!

  • Stephen

    Jonathan @ 38

    That was delicious! Do it again!

  • Kyralessa

    _sigh_

    Really it’s my fault, though. If I’m going to post something as argumentatively as I did at 21 up there, I shouldn’t be surprised if I attract the attention of the most shrill and argumentative person on the site, should I?

    Run along, tODD, and find something else to talk about. You may regard it as a win and chalk up a point. I don’t really care as much as you seem to, so you can have it. None of the evangelicals in the United States will vote for Romney, purely because he’s LDS.

  • Kyralessa

    _sigh_

    Really it’s my fault, though. If I’m going to post something as argumentatively as I did at 21 up there, I shouldn’t be surprised if I attract the attention of the most shrill and argumentative person on the site, should I?

    Run along, tODD, and find something else to talk about. You may regard it as a win and chalk up a point. I don’t really care as much as you seem to, so you can have it. None of the evangelicals in the United States will vote for Romney, purely because he’s LDS.

  • Stephen

    “We have to fill the office.” Well then, that explains it.

    To answer Dr. Veith’s question, of course it won’t cost him any Republic votes, not if the discussion here is any indication. Let me say it again if I haven’t been clear – this had nothing at all to do with protecting teenage girls. It’s not about public health, or being pro-life, or morals or any of that. It’s about lining his pockets. It’s obvious! But right, that’s okay because everyone does it. Now there’s a teenage excuse. Sure, let’s have an engaging discussion about vaccines and when the gov’t ought to mandate their use. Yeah, that make sense.

    Oh I see, the party of personal values and morals doesn’t actually care whether or not their candidate has any, because, well neither does the other guy. That’s the best you can come up with? The whole premise of this discussion is off by a mile. What do the kids say? “As if!”

    The assumption that Perry gives a rip about teenage girls is false. He cares less for the well-being of their education than any governor Texas has ever had. Here’s a little bit of history for you. The first public schools in the state were started by the first Republican governor. He was the first governor to live in the governor’s mansion which burned recently. And what does Perry choose to do? He lives in a home that taxpayers shell out $10,000 a month to rent for him. Where’s the outrage over your tax dollars on that one?

    Yet the assumption here remains that he tried to do something for girls, and, at worst, it was just a bad political move. It’s no coincidence either that in Texas we were bombarded with TV ads for Gardisil in the run up to this action. And no one seems to have a problem with yet another gov’t intrusion into the family for no good reason, something which flies in the face of conservatism.

    Let’s see . . . 12,000. Hey, that’s about how many people die from gun violence annually too! Perry’s solution? Let college kids carry guns on campus. Yeah, that will be great when the frat boys start drinking.

    My guess is that most independent voters will see right through this vapid “Governor Goodhair” and turn away. And as far as Romney goes, he’s not just a Mormon, he’s a moron. If I hear another one of these buffoons make a lame analogy I’m going to puke, right after I have an asthma attack from laughing (paper towels/ napkins, smartphones, blah, blah – that’s supposed to be rhetoric?). I can’t believe you all take these hairdos seriously AT ALL!!! Well, I’ll just be disgusted for you.

    Oh well, at least if Perry is elected I can say I shook his hand. He’s taller than he looks on TV, and a lot more wrinkly. Did I say that what he did had nothing to do with protecting young women? ;)

  • Stephen

    “We have to fill the office.” Well then, that explains it.

    To answer Dr. Veith’s question, of course it won’t cost him any Republic votes, not if the discussion here is any indication. Let me say it again if I haven’t been clear – this had nothing at all to do with protecting teenage girls. It’s not about public health, or being pro-life, or morals or any of that. It’s about lining his pockets. It’s obvious! But right, that’s okay because everyone does it. Now there’s a teenage excuse. Sure, let’s have an engaging discussion about vaccines and when the gov’t ought to mandate their use. Yeah, that make sense.

    Oh I see, the party of personal values and morals doesn’t actually care whether or not their candidate has any, because, well neither does the other guy. That’s the best you can come up with? The whole premise of this discussion is off by a mile. What do the kids say? “As if!”

    The assumption that Perry gives a rip about teenage girls is false. He cares less for the well-being of their education than any governor Texas has ever had. Here’s a little bit of history for you. The first public schools in the state were started by the first Republican governor. He was the first governor to live in the governor’s mansion which burned recently. And what does Perry choose to do? He lives in a home that taxpayers shell out $10,000 a month to rent for him. Where’s the outrage over your tax dollars on that one?

    Yet the assumption here remains that he tried to do something for girls, and, at worst, it was just a bad political move. It’s no coincidence either that in Texas we were bombarded with TV ads for Gardisil in the run up to this action. And no one seems to have a problem with yet another gov’t intrusion into the family for no good reason, something which flies in the face of conservatism.

    Let’s see . . . 12,000. Hey, that’s about how many people die from gun violence annually too! Perry’s solution? Let college kids carry guns on campus. Yeah, that will be great when the frat boys start drinking.

    My guess is that most independent voters will see right through this vapid “Governor Goodhair” and turn away. And as far as Romney goes, he’s not just a Mormon, he’s a moron. If I hear another one of these buffoons make a lame analogy I’m going to puke, right after I have an asthma attack from laughing (paper towels/ napkins, smartphones, blah, blah – that’s supposed to be rhetoric?). I can’t believe you all take these hairdos seriously AT ALL!!! Well, I’ll just be disgusted for you.

    Oh well, at least if Perry is elected I can say I shook his hand. He’s taller than he looks on TV, and a lot more wrinkly. Did I say that what he did had nothing to do with protecting young women? ;)

  • kerner

    So, Stephen…do you think Perry did a good thing for the wrong reason or a bad thing for the wrong reason? Or, since it was for the wrong reason, does it even matter whether it was good or bad?

  • kerner

    So, Stephen…do you think Perry did a good thing for the wrong reason or a bad thing for the wrong reason? Or, since it was for the wrong reason, does it even matter whether it was good or bad?

  • Jonathan

    What would you say to your daughter, who developed HPV-derived cervical cancer?

    “Sorry, Dear, I decided that you shouldn’t have the HPV vaccine, because I thought that you’d grow up to be a good girl, and that I weighed the probability against you being one in 12,000 who develop this disease, and that you really deserve to get it if you’re promiscuous, and, besides, I don’t like Rick Perry’s creepy smirk”?

    As was said early on in this debate, this is about a motorcycle helmet law revisited.

    The Government is smart to protect people from doing stupid stuff that cost the rest of us.

  • Jonathan

    What would you say to your daughter, who developed HPV-derived cervical cancer?

    “Sorry, Dear, I decided that you shouldn’t have the HPV vaccine, because I thought that you’d grow up to be a good girl, and that I weighed the probability against you being one in 12,000 who develop this disease, and that you really deserve to get it if you’re promiscuous, and, besides, I don’t like Rick Perry’s creepy smirk”?

    As was said early on in this debate, this is about a motorcycle helmet law revisited.

    The Government is smart to protect people from doing stupid stuff that cost the rest of us.

  • Stephen

    Kerner,

    You sound like Donald Rumsfeld. That’s quite a koan you’ve constructed. Are those my only choices? How about this says something about his character, that he’s willing to pander to the emotions of the electorate as some sort of champion for young women when he’s every bit the opposite. Or, he casts himself as so very concerned about cancer when he is so not. Chewing tobacco over secondhand smoke – hmm let’s see. He chooses to ease up on the thing that causes oral cancer, esophageal cancer, and pancreatic cancer as well as heart disease and not support legislation that would protect people, like children, from obnoxious and deadly secondhand smoke.

    How about he’s a career politician and a liar who doesn’t give a damn about the citizens he serves. It wasn’t just the wrong reason as if it were simply an honest mistake or even a poor political move. It’s a pattern of “coincidences.” He’s also trying to wreck UT with the same methods. He did this Gardisil thing willingly, purely for the $$, and couched it all in heroic terms to make himself look good. There’s nothing heroic at all to it, even on the face of it. There is no imminent threat here, and like I said, he could care less. Regardless of what he says, this is the cynical way he operates.

  • Stephen

    Kerner,

    You sound like Donald Rumsfeld. That’s quite a koan you’ve constructed. Are those my only choices? How about this says something about his character, that he’s willing to pander to the emotions of the electorate as some sort of champion for young women when he’s every bit the opposite. Or, he casts himself as so very concerned about cancer when he is so not. Chewing tobacco over secondhand smoke – hmm let’s see. He chooses to ease up on the thing that causes oral cancer, esophageal cancer, and pancreatic cancer as well as heart disease and not support legislation that would protect people, like children, from obnoxious and deadly secondhand smoke.

    How about he’s a career politician and a liar who doesn’t give a damn about the citizens he serves. It wasn’t just the wrong reason as if it were simply an honest mistake or even a poor political move. It’s a pattern of “coincidences.” He’s also trying to wreck UT with the same methods. He did this Gardisil thing willingly, purely for the $$, and couched it all in heroic terms to make himself look good. There’s nothing heroic at all to it, even on the face of it. There is no imminent threat here, and like I said, he could care less. Regardless of what he says, this is the cynical way he operates.

  • Grace

    Stephen @ 44

    “My guess is that most independent voters will see right through this vapid “Governor Goodhair” and turn away. And as far as Romney goes, he’s not just a Mormon, he’s a moron. If I hear another one of these buffoons make a lame analogy I’m going to puke, right after I have an asthma attack from laughing (paper towels/ napkins, smartphones, blah, blah – that’s supposed to be rhetoric?). I can’t believe you all take these hairdos seriously AT ALL!!! Well, I’ll just be disgusted for you.”

    I heard another ‘hysterical poster use the word “shrill” which I see illustrates your situation, and outburst, but NOT the one they were ‘shrilling over’ and to whom the comment was made, that was false. That which is bolded appears to be what you’ve either done, or are in the midst of. Good luck with the paper towels, and all the other afflictions you appear to be having.

  • Grace

    Stephen @ 44

    “My guess is that most independent voters will see right through this vapid “Governor Goodhair” and turn away. And as far as Romney goes, he’s not just a Mormon, he’s a moron. If I hear another one of these buffoons make a lame analogy I’m going to puke, right after I have an asthma attack from laughing (paper towels/ napkins, smartphones, blah, blah – that’s supposed to be rhetoric?). I can’t believe you all take these hairdos seriously AT ALL!!! Well, I’ll just be disgusted for you.”

    I heard another ‘hysterical poster use the word “shrill” which I see illustrates your situation, and outburst, but NOT the one they were ‘shrilling over’ and to whom the comment was made, that was false. That which is bolded appears to be what you’ve either done, or are in the midst of. Good luck with the paper towels, and all the other afflictions you appear to be having.

  • Grace

    43 Kyralessa

    You’ve managed, along with another to “shrill” yourself into first position. A “shrilling” contest is almost always won by the one who attempts to label another!

  • Grace

    43 Kyralessa

    You’ve managed, along with another to “shrill” yourself into first position. A “shrilling” contest is almost always won by the one who attempts to label another!

  • Stephen

    Jonathan,

    You need to read up on this thing. It’s not THAT serious. The government doesn’t mandate flu shots, yet if you look at the CDC stats on it, it has killed many more people on average than this thing. Even when we had the swine flu scare, there were no politicians (such as Perry) running to the mic saying the government would make shots mandatory.

    As far as what I would tell my daughter, I will tell her about STDs, and that promiscuity is not only a problem in terms of self-respect and real love for neighbor, but that it can also kill you – ya know, AIDS and all that too.

    I don’t get the “deserve to get it if you are promiscuous” thing. When did I ever even hint about that. If you think Perry gives one wit about saving girls from promiscuity, well then I’d say you’ve been hoodwinked. He doesn’t care!

    But if you are asking about my won feelings on gov’t mandates for vaccination, this does not merit that kind of intrusion in my view. Flu shots would actually make more sense since it is contracted much more easily. A kid comes to school with the flu and he can get everyone in the entire school sick in no time.

    Oh yeah, using condoms can help prevent HPV, but we know how conservatives feel about passing them out to kids. The value of Abstinence Only seems to have gone right out the window in defense of Mr. Perry.

  • Stephen

    Jonathan,

    You need to read up on this thing. It’s not THAT serious. The government doesn’t mandate flu shots, yet if you look at the CDC stats on it, it has killed many more people on average than this thing. Even when we had the swine flu scare, there were no politicians (such as Perry) running to the mic saying the government would make shots mandatory.

    As far as what I would tell my daughter, I will tell her about STDs, and that promiscuity is not only a problem in terms of self-respect and real love for neighbor, but that it can also kill you – ya know, AIDS and all that too.

    I don’t get the “deserve to get it if you are promiscuous” thing. When did I ever even hint about that. If you think Perry gives one wit about saving girls from promiscuity, well then I’d say you’ve been hoodwinked. He doesn’t care!

    But if you are asking about my won feelings on gov’t mandates for vaccination, this does not merit that kind of intrusion in my view. Flu shots would actually make more sense since it is contracted much more easily. A kid comes to school with the flu and he can get everyone in the entire school sick in no time.

    Oh yeah, using condoms can help prevent HPV, but we know how conservatives feel about passing them out to kids. The value of Abstinence Only seems to have gone right out the window in defense of Mr. Perry.

  • Stephen

    Jonathan,

    Now I get the “deserve to get it” thing. You mean because they are poor and don’t have health care which would help this situation immensely. But because Rick Perry took it away, we will all be punished by the spread of it to the point where Rick Perry can justify forcing ALL girls to get it so he can, coincidentally, line his pockets. So they are being punished for being poor, and we will be punished for voting for him. I get it.

  • Stephen

    Jonathan,

    Now I get the “deserve to get it” thing. You mean because they are poor and don’t have health care which would help this situation immensely. But because Rick Perry took it away, we will all be punished by the spread of it to the point where Rick Perry can justify forcing ALL girls to get it so he can, coincidentally, line his pockets. So they are being punished for being poor, and we will be punished for voting for him. I get it.

  • Grace

    Stephen

    You wrote: “Oh yeah, using condoms can help prevent HPV, but we know how conservatives feel about passing them out to kids. The value of Abstinence Only seems to have gone right out the window in defense of Mr. Perry.”

    To put it bluntly, ‘condoms don’t take care of all the problems, sores that are on the gential area, oral sex …. a “condom” will not help. I suggest Stephen, that you familiarize yourself with STDS instead of tagging along without proper information.

    All the Abstinence education has not slowed sexual diseases, or the rise in younger children having sex. Kids don’t give one care about condoms. Where have you been during all the educational briefing we parents have been through? Have you not read the statistics? Or are you just ‘shrilling away at those who support a man who honestlly cares about kids and their future?

    And then YOU, making fun of Perry who stands tall, and hopes to change this evil tide of disease among our youth!

    Texas and jobs = Rick Perry

    She laughed and said, “Come again.

    On The Right
    A Labor Chief As Clueless As The President
    By RALPH R. REILAND Posted 09/13/2011 05:43 PM ET

    Solis: What do right-to-work laws and oil drilling have to do with jobs? AP View Enlarged Image
    On Aug. 31, with job creation grinding to a complete halt, U.S. Labor Secretary Hilda Solis was asked this question: “Why do you think there have been so many jobs created in the last decade in Texas?”

    She laughed and said, “Come again.”

    The questioner rephrased his query, adding a citation: “The Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas estimates about half of the jobs created in the U.S. in the last decade have been created in Texas. Why do you think that is?”

    Replied Solis, “I haven’t done a lot of research in terms of the economic growth in Texas.”

    It appears that Labor Secretary Solis had no interest in looking at how a state with 8% of the nation’s population had created nearly half of the nation’s new jobs over the past 10 years.

    That interchange occurred on the final day of a month in which the United States experienced zero net job growth — the first time that’s happened in the U.S. since 1945.”

    http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/584630/201109131743/A-Labor-Chief-As-Clueless-As-The-President.htm

  • Grace

    Stephen

    You wrote: “Oh yeah, using condoms can help prevent HPV, but we know how conservatives feel about passing them out to kids. The value of Abstinence Only seems to have gone right out the window in defense of Mr. Perry.”

    To put it bluntly, ‘condoms don’t take care of all the problems, sores that are on the gential area, oral sex …. a “condom” will not help. I suggest Stephen, that you familiarize yourself with STDS instead of tagging along without proper information.

    All the Abstinence education has not slowed sexual diseases, or the rise in younger children having sex. Kids don’t give one care about condoms. Where have you been during all the educational briefing we parents have been through? Have you not read the statistics? Or are you just ‘shrilling away at those who support a man who honestlly cares about kids and their future?

    And then YOU, making fun of Perry who stands tall, and hopes to change this evil tide of disease among our youth!

    Texas and jobs = Rick Perry

    She laughed and said, “Come again.

    On The Right
    A Labor Chief As Clueless As The President
    By RALPH R. REILAND Posted 09/13/2011 05:43 PM ET

    Solis: What do right-to-work laws and oil drilling have to do with jobs? AP View Enlarged Image
    On Aug. 31, with job creation grinding to a complete halt, U.S. Labor Secretary Hilda Solis was asked this question: “Why do you think there have been so many jobs created in the last decade in Texas?”

    She laughed and said, “Come again.”

    The questioner rephrased his query, adding a citation: “The Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas estimates about half of the jobs created in the U.S. in the last decade have been created in Texas. Why do you think that is?”

    Replied Solis, “I haven’t done a lot of research in terms of the economic growth in Texas.”

    It appears that Labor Secretary Solis had no interest in looking at how a state with 8% of the nation’s population had created nearly half of the nation’s new jobs over the past 10 years.

    That interchange occurred on the final day of a month in which the United States experienced zero net job growth — the first time that’s happened in the U.S. since 1945.”

    http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/584630/201109131743/A-Labor-Chief-As-Clueless-As-The-President.htm

  • Grace

    The piece I posted above isn’t about STDS, but IS about how a man, lRick Perry, who done a great deal to change the job growth in Texas.

  • Grace

    The piece I posted above isn’t about STDS, but IS about how a man, lRick Perry, who done a great deal to change the job growth in Texas.

  • Grace

    Sorry for all the typos in post 53.

  • Grace

    Sorry for all the typos in post 53.

  • kerner

    Stephen:

    Is it possible for you to calm down, even a little? I guess you have gone with option 3: it doesn’t matter whether mandating these vaccines was good or bad; Perry’s an a$$hole and that’s all that matters. Anything he does must be wrong. And he couldn’t possibly care about any of his constituents.

    Look, I don’t live in Texas like you do and I had never even heard of Rick Perry until a few months ago. So, even though you might have some facts and/or evidence to support your rant, spewing a string of conclusionary statements does not inform me very much.

    It might be helpful if you slowed down a little and explained how you can be so positive that Perry cares nothing for the fair young flowers of the Lone Star state, or that he is completely motivated by “lining his own pockets”. Did Merck give him a lot of money? If so, how much? I’m not saying you’re wrong. I’d just like to hear a few facts to back up your conclusions.

  • kerner

    Stephen:

    Is it possible for you to calm down, even a little? I guess you have gone with option 3: it doesn’t matter whether mandating these vaccines was good or bad; Perry’s an a$$hole and that’s all that matters. Anything he does must be wrong. And he couldn’t possibly care about any of his constituents.

    Look, I don’t live in Texas like you do and I had never even heard of Rick Perry until a few months ago. So, even though you might have some facts and/or evidence to support your rant, spewing a string of conclusionary statements does not inform me very much.

    It might be helpful if you slowed down a little and explained how you can be so positive that Perry cares nothing for the fair young flowers of the Lone Star state, or that he is completely motivated by “lining his own pockets”. Did Merck give him a lot of money? If so, how much? I’m not saying you’re wrong. I’d just like to hear a few facts to back up your conclusions.

  • Joe

    Stephen said, “And no one seems to have a problem with yet another gov’t intrusion into the family for no good reason, something which flies in the face of conservatism.”

    No one? The whole reason this is a post and the subject of newspaper articles is because people do have a problem with it. Perry would not have to answering questions about it in a debate if no one had a problem with it.

    If your comment was meant to focus on this thread, then read my comments (and others) some of us have a problem with it.

  • Joe

    Stephen said, “And no one seems to have a problem with yet another gov’t intrusion into the family for no good reason, something which flies in the face of conservatism.”

    No one? The whole reason this is a post and the subject of newspaper articles is because people do have a problem with it. Perry would not have to answering questions about it in a debate if no one had a problem with it.

    If your comment was meant to focus on this thread, then read my comments (and others) some of us have a problem with it.

  • Kyralessa

    Let me see if I can make myself more clear, Grace.

    > Kyralessa (@21), given that *you’re* not an evangelical, what makes *you* think that *your* personal anecdote can in any way be used to refute a general claim about evangelicals?

    > And why do *you* think a claim about how evangelicals think applies to *you*?

    > Honestly, Kyralessa (@32), it’s not all about *you*. Literally.

    > Jon’s original point (@17) was about how “evangelicals will never support LDS Romney”. *You* are, by *your* own admission, not an Evangelical. So this really isn’t about *you*. The fact that *you*, a non-Evangelical, dislike Perry because “he’s not a social conservative” has zero bearing on what Evangelicals may or may not think about him.

    > But it is painfully obvious that *your* blanket statement (@21) that “Those of us who dislike Romney don’t dislike him because he’s LDS” is false. Grace, who is an Evangelical has proven that over and over (@22, 25, 33).

    > Do *you* routinely take offense at statements made about groups to which you claim *you* don’t belong?

    There are ways to talk about issues without making it personal. But tODD generally chooses to make it personal. I’d actually prefer to think that it’s not all about me. I don’t want it to be all about me. I’d be overjoyed if tODD were able to discuss the issue (whether evangelicals don’t like Romney because he’s LDS) instead of discussing me. His first step would be to stop the YOU, YOU, YOU drumbeat.

  • Kyralessa

    Let me see if I can make myself more clear, Grace.

    > Kyralessa (@21), given that *you’re* not an evangelical, what makes *you* think that *your* personal anecdote can in any way be used to refute a general claim about evangelicals?

    > And why do *you* think a claim about how evangelicals think applies to *you*?

    > Honestly, Kyralessa (@32), it’s not all about *you*. Literally.

    > Jon’s original point (@17) was about how “evangelicals will never support LDS Romney”. *You* are, by *your* own admission, not an Evangelical. So this really isn’t about *you*. The fact that *you*, a non-Evangelical, dislike Perry because “he’s not a social conservative” has zero bearing on what Evangelicals may or may not think about him.

    > But it is painfully obvious that *your* blanket statement (@21) that “Those of us who dislike Romney don’t dislike him because he’s LDS” is false. Grace, who is an Evangelical has proven that over and over (@22, 25, 33).

    > Do *you* routinely take offense at statements made about groups to which you claim *you* don’t belong?

    There are ways to talk about issues without making it personal. But tODD generally chooses to make it personal. I’d actually prefer to think that it’s not all about me. I don’t want it to be all about me. I’d be overjoyed if tODD were able to discuss the issue (whether evangelicals don’t like Romney because he’s LDS) instead of discussing me. His first step would be to stop the YOU, YOU, YOU drumbeat.

  • Stephen

    Kerner,

    Um, I gave several examples of why he is nbot trustworthy and why he does not actually care about children, teens or young women or cancer for that matter. You choose to focus on my sense of outrage and disdain which does not negate the content of wha tI’ve said here one bit. You’ve done this before, and I guess that’s what I can expect when you don’t like what I have to say. So I am passionatley opposed to this guy. So? That is the take-away for me. Criticizing me for my emoptional involvement in things is, for me, an ad hominem attack when one doesn’t have anything else to say.

    Joe,

    Okay, you got me on that one. It does seem, however, that no one here seems to see anything fishy about it in the first place. Do you at least get that from what I’ve said? The whole premise seems to be that it was basically a bad poltical move and that’s about it. No one seems to want to look at the underlying issues with the man and attach any significance to his actions as a way to determine his character, something conservatives are always, constantly, relentlessly railing on about. That, in large measure, is the contradiction I see.

  • Stephen

    Kerner,

    Um, I gave several examples of why he is nbot trustworthy and why he does not actually care about children, teens or young women or cancer for that matter. You choose to focus on my sense of outrage and disdain which does not negate the content of wha tI’ve said here one bit. You’ve done this before, and I guess that’s what I can expect when you don’t like what I have to say. So I am passionatley opposed to this guy. So? That is the take-away for me. Criticizing me for my emoptional involvement in things is, for me, an ad hominem attack when one doesn’t have anything else to say.

    Joe,

    Okay, you got me on that one. It does seem, however, that no one here seems to see anything fishy about it in the first place. Do you at least get that from what I’ve said? The whole premise seems to be that it was basically a bad poltical move and that’s about it. No one seems to want to look at the underlying issues with the man and attach any significance to his actions as a way to determine his character, something conservatives are always, constantly, relentlessly railing on about. That, in large measure, is the contradiction I see.

  • DonS

    Stephen, the reason people don’t see anything “fishy” about Perry’s push for mandatory HPV vaccinations is because it has been a political juggernaut throughout the U.S., not just in TX. The recommendation that this vaccine be made mandatory was made only in 2006, and already the vaccine is required for school attendance in 20 states, and is in process in 41. See http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=14381 It is required in California (my state), as well. This is supported by both parties, and people of both parties, except for fringes on both the right and the left, are supportive of the concept of mandatory vaccinations.

    We decry what Perry did because it is a bridge too far — taking the option away from parents for a vaccine which does not address an infectious and dangerous threat in the school setting, and which is only a health threat at all for the sexually active. But we recognize that Obama would almost certainly support the same measure, so in the general election it will not be a definitive issue.

    Unfortunately, though vaccines have been a lifesaving and healthsaving boon to our nation, we have become vaccine-happy. The coalition of pharmaceutical companies, politicians, and education officials is a potent one, and almost all of the science expenditures seem to be on the pro-vaccine side of the equation. What are the long-term effects to young immune systems when we rev them up to fight all of these different diseases, in weakened form? Why are we seeing so many more cases of diagnosed autoimmune diseases in recent years? Is it just better diagnostic technique, or something else? We’ll probably never know, because there will never be sufficient funding to do those kinds of studies.

    That is why our family is selective in vaccinating our kids — we opt out of the ones that don’t seem to provide an important health benefit.

  • DonS

    Stephen, the reason people don’t see anything “fishy” about Perry’s push for mandatory HPV vaccinations is because it has been a political juggernaut throughout the U.S., not just in TX. The recommendation that this vaccine be made mandatory was made only in 2006, and already the vaccine is required for school attendance in 20 states, and is in process in 41. See http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=14381 It is required in California (my state), as well. This is supported by both parties, and people of both parties, except for fringes on both the right and the left, are supportive of the concept of mandatory vaccinations.

    We decry what Perry did because it is a bridge too far — taking the option away from parents for a vaccine which does not address an infectious and dangerous threat in the school setting, and which is only a health threat at all for the sexually active. But we recognize that Obama would almost certainly support the same measure, so in the general election it will not be a definitive issue.

    Unfortunately, though vaccines have been a lifesaving and healthsaving boon to our nation, we have become vaccine-happy. The coalition of pharmaceutical companies, politicians, and education officials is a potent one, and almost all of the science expenditures seem to be on the pro-vaccine side of the equation. What are the long-term effects to young immune systems when we rev them up to fight all of these different diseases, in weakened form? Why are we seeing so many more cases of diagnosed autoimmune diseases in recent years? Is it just better diagnostic technique, or something else? We’ll probably never know, because there will never be sufficient funding to do those kinds of studies.

    That is why our family is selective in vaccinating our kids — we opt out of the ones that don’t seem to provide an important health benefit.

  • Grace

    Would it be to far if there were a Vaccine for HIV/AIDS and it made mandatory for boys 13 and older ? How many lives would that save? How many billions of tax dollars would that save?

    Was the polio Vaccine a success or a failure? Was it a good idea to vaccinate children for this disease?

    How many parents refuse to believe their young boys and girls are having sex?

    Who pays for those who contract an STD and need medical attention? not just for a few weeks but for years?

    If condoms were used, ‘some of the problem of STDs would be eliminated, but that wouldn’t change herpes and other STD’s nor would it do a thing for oral sex.

    One of the ways in which girls choose to have sex is oral, that is because they don’t need to worry about pregnancy.

  • Grace

    Would it be to far if there were a Vaccine for HIV/AIDS and it made mandatory for boys 13 and older ? How many lives would that save? How many billions of tax dollars would that save?

    Was the polio Vaccine a success or a failure? Was it a good idea to vaccinate children for this disease?

    How many parents refuse to believe their young boys and girls are having sex?

    Who pays for those who contract an STD and need medical attention? not just for a few weeks but for years?

    If condoms were used, ‘some of the problem of STDs would be eliminated, but that wouldn’t change herpes and other STD’s nor would it do a thing for oral sex.

    One of the ways in which girls choose to have sex is oral, that is because they don’t need to worry about pregnancy.

  • Stephen

    DonS

    “We decry what Perry did because it is a bridge too far — taking the option away from parents for a vaccine which does not address an infectious and dangerous threat in the school setting, and which is only a health threat at all for the sexually active. But we recognize that Obama would almost certainly support the same measure, so in the general election it will not be a definitive issue.”

    I’m not sure what crystal ball you have that says Obama would do the same thing. And I guess character is no longer a definitive issue for conservatives all the sudden. I decry Perry for a cynical politcal influence pedaling cloaked as a concern about young girls and a fight against cancer. Even on the link you provided it says this:

    “Cervical cancer is the second leading cancer killer of women worldwide. In the United States, nearly 10,000 women are diagnosed with cervical cancer each year and 3,700 women die. This number is much smaller than in other countries largely because of the Papanicolaou (Pap) test, a screening tool for cervical cancer. The American Cancer Society reports that, with early detection, cervical cancer is usually treatable.”

    And I say again, if he is so concerned about women and cancer he would be about providing low cost PAP smears instead of this thing. He would also be concerned about young girls having health care in general, which he obviously is not for reasons I have already provided. Instead, he did this to score politcal points and financial gain with big pharma.

    All the other stuff you say about gov’t intrusions into the decisions of parents I generally agree with. But it is not simply alarming because he wanted to do it, but because of why, and it wasn’t because of a health threat. There is no imminent threat, only a need for better prevention and treatment, especially for low income people and those without health insurance.

  • Stephen

    DonS

    “We decry what Perry did because it is a bridge too far — taking the option away from parents for a vaccine which does not address an infectious and dangerous threat in the school setting, and which is only a health threat at all for the sexually active. But we recognize that Obama would almost certainly support the same measure, so in the general election it will not be a definitive issue.”

    I’m not sure what crystal ball you have that says Obama would do the same thing. And I guess character is no longer a definitive issue for conservatives all the sudden. I decry Perry for a cynical politcal influence pedaling cloaked as a concern about young girls and a fight against cancer. Even on the link you provided it says this:

    “Cervical cancer is the second leading cancer killer of women worldwide. In the United States, nearly 10,000 women are diagnosed with cervical cancer each year and 3,700 women die. This number is much smaller than in other countries largely because of the Papanicolaou (Pap) test, a screening tool for cervical cancer. The American Cancer Society reports that, with early detection, cervical cancer is usually treatable.”

    And I say again, if he is so concerned about women and cancer he would be about providing low cost PAP smears instead of this thing. He would also be concerned about young girls having health care in general, which he obviously is not for reasons I have already provided. Instead, he did this to score politcal points and financial gain with big pharma.

    All the other stuff you say about gov’t intrusions into the decisions of parents I generally agree with. But it is not simply alarming because he wanted to do it, but because of why, and it wasn’t because of a health threat. There is no imminent threat, only a need for better prevention and treatment, especially for low income people and those without health insurance.

  • DonS

    Stephen @ 61: Fair enough. I don’t know what Obama’s position on mandatory HPV vaccinations for schools is. But I do know that, as I posted earlier, the HPV vaccine has become mandatory in 20 states, in only five years, and that number is increasing quickly. There seems to be little opposition from any of the mainstream politicians of either party, and many Republican and Democratic legislators and governors have supported the bills making this vaccine mandatory. So I suspect that it will not be an issue in the general election, between Democrat and Republican. But we’ll see, I guess. I imagine someone will ask Obama his views on this at some point in time.

    I don’t think it’s a character issue, per se. I just don’t think most of these politicians have thought through the issues. In Perry’s case, he signed an executive order, which was then overturned by the legislature after popular outrage. He seems to understand that he didn’t handle the issue well.

    This issue, and others like it, will most certainly be a factor in my evaluation of whom I ultimately vote for, in both the primary and general elections. But, there are many such issues, which need to be balanced. There is no perfect candidate. And there is no chance, given the damage he has done to our country, that I will vote for Obama. No matter what.

    I

  • DonS

    Stephen @ 61: Fair enough. I don’t know what Obama’s position on mandatory HPV vaccinations for schools is. But I do know that, as I posted earlier, the HPV vaccine has become mandatory in 20 states, in only five years, and that number is increasing quickly. There seems to be little opposition from any of the mainstream politicians of either party, and many Republican and Democratic legislators and governors have supported the bills making this vaccine mandatory. So I suspect that it will not be an issue in the general election, between Democrat and Republican. But we’ll see, I guess. I imagine someone will ask Obama his views on this at some point in time.

    I don’t think it’s a character issue, per se. I just don’t think most of these politicians have thought through the issues. In Perry’s case, he signed an executive order, which was then overturned by the legislature after popular outrage. He seems to understand that he didn’t handle the issue well.

    This issue, and others like it, will most certainly be a factor in my evaluation of whom I ultimately vote for, in both the primary and general elections. But, there are many such issues, which need to be balanced. There is no perfect candidate. And there is no chance, given the damage he has done to our country, that I will vote for Obama. No matter what.

    I

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Stephen, you’re still coming across as pretty upset here, and frankly, I don’t get it.

    You said (@44):

    Sure, let’s have an engaging discussion about vaccines and when the gov’t ought to mandate their use. Yeah, that make sense.

    Well, it does to me, precisely because it’s based on things we can reasonably expect to know. Having thought the issue through now, I can come up with a pretty compelling, objective test for whether any vaccine should be mandatory for those in public schools. As the HPV vaccine fails this, there’s not much need to consider far more subjective areas. That’s why the objective test is my primary concern.

    You keep trying to make “cronyism” the primary concern, however, and that worries me, for any number of reasons. It’s a highly subjective claim. Your arguments for it seem remarkably uncharitable. It would seem to preclude just about anything done by any government ever, if we listened to everyone who ever cried “Cronyism!” In short, it doesn’t seem like a very useful metric for me. Especially when there are much clearer metrics available.

    But seriously, you who spend not a little time on this blog reminding us of our debt to love — and pointing out our failures to do so — have engaged in no small amount of defamation of Gov. Perry here. Are you being loving to him? Best construction, all that? I mean, I’m pretty given to cynicism about politicians, with a likely bias against Republican ones in particular, and I’m taken aback by what you’re accusing the man of.

    It’s not about public health, or being pro-life, or morals or any of that. It’s about lining his pockets.

    The assumption that Perry gives a rip about teenage girls is false. He cares less for the well-being of their education than any governor Texas has ever had.

    He’s a career politician and a liar who doesn’t give a damn about the citizens he serves.

    He did this Gardisil thing willingly, purely for the $$, and couched it all in heroic terms to make himself look good.

    And then you have the gall to attack DonS for saying that “Obama would almost certainly support the same measure”, asking him where his “crystal ball” is? I mean, is it even defamatory to suggest Obama would support such a measure? It kind of seems in keeping with his philosophy, regardless of what one thinks of it. But the heart-reading you’re doing of Perry would seem to require an even more powerful “crystal ball”!

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Stephen, you’re still coming across as pretty upset here, and frankly, I don’t get it.

    You said (@44):

    Sure, let’s have an engaging discussion about vaccines and when the gov’t ought to mandate their use. Yeah, that make sense.

    Well, it does to me, precisely because it’s based on things we can reasonably expect to know. Having thought the issue through now, I can come up with a pretty compelling, objective test for whether any vaccine should be mandatory for those in public schools. As the HPV vaccine fails this, there’s not much need to consider far more subjective areas. That’s why the objective test is my primary concern.

    You keep trying to make “cronyism” the primary concern, however, and that worries me, for any number of reasons. It’s a highly subjective claim. Your arguments for it seem remarkably uncharitable. It would seem to preclude just about anything done by any government ever, if we listened to everyone who ever cried “Cronyism!” In short, it doesn’t seem like a very useful metric for me. Especially when there are much clearer metrics available.

    But seriously, you who spend not a little time on this blog reminding us of our debt to love — and pointing out our failures to do so — have engaged in no small amount of defamation of Gov. Perry here. Are you being loving to him? Best construction, all that? I mean, I’m pretty given to cynicism about politicians, with a likely bias against Republican ones in particular, and I’m taken aback by what you’re accusing the man of.

    It’s not about public health, or being pro-life, or morals or any of that. It’s about lining his pockets.

    The assumption that Perry gives a rip about teenage girls is false. He cares less for the well-being of their education than any governor Texas has ever had.

    He’s a career politician and a liar who doesn’t give a damn about the citizens he serves.

    He did this Gardisil thing willingly, purely for the $$, and couched it all in heroic terms to make himself look good.

    And then you have the gall to attack DonS for saying that “Obama would almost certainly support the same measure”, asking him where his “crystal ball” is? I mean, is it even defamatory to suggest Obama would support such a measure? It kind of seems in keeping with his philosophy, regardless of what one thinks of it. But the heart-reading you’re doing of Perry would seem to require an even more powerful “crystal ball”!

  • WisdomLover

    Rick Perry had a friend named Heather Burcham who died of cervical cancer caused by HPV. They struck up their friendship when she was lobbying for the HPV vaccine. So it’s not just chance that he happened to have a friend who fell into that category. But she was a real friend nonetheless. He was at her bedside for hours as she neared death (by then it was well after the legislature overruled his executive order and he had not vetoed that overrule)

    He issued the executive order for his friend. It may not have been the right call. You could argue that a governor should not make executive orders for those kinds of personal reasons. He should govern above that. But the charge of crony capitalism is baloney.

    Perry received, in the grand scheme of things, a small sum of money from Merck. The approximately $400K figure you hear is for the Republican Governor’s Association which, I think, Perry chaired at the time. The money benefited the campaigns of all Republican Governors, Perry only got a share of that money. Bachmann’s claim of millions or billions is just laughably stupid.

    Bachmann herself received money from GlaxoSmithKline. This company makes Cervarix. The only competitor of Merck’s Gardasil in combating HPV. Is she, in this very attack, guilty of the crony capitalism she decries? Or is she just a moron? Putting the best construction on things, I’ll say she’s a moron.

    And it was not an overreach of Perry’s executive authority to order the vaccinations. Other governors have used executive orders to ensure vaccinations. In 2010, for example, Governor Baldacci of Maine used an executive order to set up vaccination centers for the flu.

    The fact that the legislature, and not the court, had to overturn the order proves that Perry’s order was within his powers as governor. The legislature not only made that point tacitly by the initial act of passing the law, but they also implicitly accepted the possibility and legitimacy of a veto.

    And the order made the vaccination mandatory only in that sense of “mandatory” where it is possible to opt out (which is to say, in no sense of “mandatory”).

    What this is is a desperate effort by a candidate, who never should have been in the race in the first place, trying to recapture her flukish moment in the sun. The liberal press, of course, are glad to oblige her in an effort to hobble the strongest candidate we have and to distract attention from real crony capitalism from their messiah (Solyndra anyone? The press has to cover Solyndra, but they really would prefer that you pay attention to Gardasil).

    And the right, playing true to form, are too stupid to realize what’s going on and treat this as if this is really a legitimate problem for Perry. It’s Macaca all over.

  • WisdomLover

    Rick Perry had a friend named Heather Burcham who died of cervical cancer caused by HPV. They struck up their friendship when she was lobbying for the HPV vaccine. So it’s not just chance that he happened to have a friend who fell into that category. But she was a real friend nonetheless. He was at her bedside for hours as she neared death (by then it was well after the legislature overruled his executive order and he had not vetoed that overrule)

    He issued the executive order for his friend. It may not have been the right call. You could argue that a governor should not make executive orders for those kinds of personal reasons. He should govern above that. But the charge of crony capitalism is baloney.

    Perry received, in the grand scheme of things, a small sum of money from Merck. The approximately $400K figure you hear is for the Republican Governor’s Association which, I think, Perry chaired at the time. The money benefited the campaigns of all Republican Governors, Perry only got a share of that money. Bachmann’s claim of millions or billions is just laughably stupid.

    Bachmann herself received money from GlaxoSmithKline. This company makes Cervarix. The only competitor of Merck’s Gardasil in combating HPV. Is she, in this very attack, guilty of the crony capitalism she decries? Or is she just a moron? Putting the best construction on things, I’ll say she’s a moron.

    And it was not an overreach of Perry’s executive authority to order the vaccinations. Other governors have used executive orders to ensure vaccinations. In 2010, for example, Governor Baldacci of Maine used an executive order to set up vaccination centers for the flu.

    The fact that the legislature, and not the court, had to overturn the order proves that Perry’s order was within his powers as governor. The legislature not only made that point tacitly by the initial act of passing the law, but they also implicitly accepted the possibility and legitimacy of a veto.

    And the order made the vaccination mandatory only in that sense of “mandatory” where it is possible to opt out (which is to say, in no sense of “mandatory”).

    What this is is a desperate effort by a candidate, who never should have been in the race in the first place, trying to recapture her flukish moment in the sun. The liberal press, of course, are glad to oblige her in an effort to hobble the strongest candidate we have and to distract attention from real crony capitalism from their messiah (Solyndra anyone? The press has to cover Solyndra, but they really would prefer that you pay attention to Gardasil).

    And the right, playing true to form, are too stupid to realize what’s going on and treat this as if this is really a legitimate problem for Perry. It’s Macaca all over.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X