No need to rush anti-cancer shots

[mhatrw]

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/opinion/orl-page1307feb13,0,6730615.story?coll=orl-opinion-headlines

WASHINGTON -- Federal approval of the first vaccine against cancer has ripped open a riveting debate about how far lawmakers should go to protect us from ourselves. It's an age-old question. Most parents were delighted in the 1950s to bring their kids in to be inoculated with the new polio vaccine. Yet, in that same decade, the lunatic fringe persuaded many communities to reject water fluoridation, which is good for young teeth, as some sort of a communist plot. ...

So this would be a much quicker and quieter debate were it not for one glaring difference between HPV and most of the rest of the other diseases in the alphabet soup of vaccinations (Hib, HepA, HepB, IPV, PCV, DPT, etc.) that children and teenagers already receive: HPV is spread through sexual contact. ...


Texans have good reason to wonder about Perry's haste; he's a usually conservative Republican. If any issue calls for reasoned debate and public education, this one does.

Nor did it calm anyone's nerves to learn that Merck, which stands to make billions from the drug, had hired as one of its top lobbyists, Mike Toomey, who once served as Perry's chief of staff and is very popular with the legislature. Merck also doubled its spending on lobbyists in Texas this year, according to news reports, as lawmakers considered a vaccine bill that had not yet been voted on when Perry announced his executive order. For a state that has been reluctant to provide other more urgently needed health-care coverage for the uninsured, it also seems odd for Perry to be in such a hurry to provide the vaccine in this case. Perry's plan allows parents to opt-out for religious reasons, as they can for other shots. But, for an innovation this new, they should be allowed to opt in.

[cordelia106]

1. This vaccine seems to be very effective...

This vaccine seems to be very effective in preventing cervical cancer. Why should it be optional,
why would it be better if parents could opt in? Again women's health is not really a serious issue,
if this vaccine was one to prevent prostrate cancer there would not be a debate,Texas has done something
right, for a change.

[mhatrw]

7. It's new, it only protects against 70% of cervical cancer cases at most,

and it has yet to be proven safe for its targeted population.

[antigop]

2. Sen. Robert Duncan (R-Lubbock) questions governor's authority to issue exec order that changes law

http://www.gosanangelo.com/news/2007/feb/11/perry-move-draws-outrage

>>
“There’s some question about the governor’s authority to issue an executive order that changes law and appropriates funds,” Duncan said last week. “That is constitutionally a legislative function.”
>>

WoW! We have to depend upon Republicans to stick up for our democratic principles.

[antigop]

3. McCown: Governor's HPV order is unconstitutional

http://www.statesman.com/search/content/region/legislature/stories/02/07/7mccown_edit_rs.html

>>
>>
Under the state constitution, the governor administers the law; the governor doesn't make the law. This principle is textbook civics. Making law is for the Legislature.

With this principle so clear, how can the governor possibly claim the authority to require vaccinations? Well, when the Legislature passes a law, it cannot think of every detail, particularly in our increasingly complex world. To deal with the details, the Legislature often authorizes a state agency to adopt rules. So, in his executive order, the governor hasn't actually required vaccinations; rather, he has ordered a state agency to write a rule requiring vaccinations.

Rules, however, must be consistent with state law and must implement, not expand, the law. To ensure that rules comply with the law, the Legislature requires a state agency to go through a careful process of evaluating its legal authority before adopting a rule. In addition, to ensure that a rule is wise, the Legislature requires a state agency to give the public notice of any proposed rule, give the public a chance to comment, consider the public's comments and provide a written justification for the final rule.
>>

Now are we going to stand up for democratic principles or not?

This is DU -- the DEMOCRATIC Underground. DEMOCRATIC.

[antigop]

4. Twenty-six senators from both parties signed letter asking Perry to withdraw

http://www.news8austin.com/content/headlines/?ArID=178886&SecID=2

>
Twenty-six senators from both parties even signed a letter asking
Perry to withdraw the order.
>

WoW! It's a sad day when I have to root for the Texas lege to come through for us.

Subversion of democratic principles needs to be contested.

[antigop]

5. Sen. Jane Nelson asks Perry to rescind vaccine order [issue needs debate]

http://www.news8austin.com/content/legislature_2007/stories/?SecID=561&ArID=178751

>
>
“This is not an emergency. It needs to be discussed and debated,'' Nelson said.
>

WOW!...Go, Jane! How pathetic is this that we have to depend upon a Republican to defend democratic principles?

[antigop]

6. Lawyers say Perry had no authority to order vaccinations

http://www.statesman.com/search/content/shared/partners/Special_Edition/stories/2007/02/TEXAS_ORDERS_0208_COX.html

>>
Buck Wood, a lawyer whose career included time in Gov. John Connally's office in the 1960s, disagreed, saying: "This isn't even arguable. The governor doesn't have any power to dictate to any agency about what rules it makes."

Scott McCown, who served 14 years as a Democratic state district judge in Travis County, aired similar concerns. While state law permits governors to issue orders in emergencies, he said, Perry's desire to protect young women doesn't clear that hurdle.

"It's a judgment call," said McCown, who initially commented in a column in Wednesday's Austin American-Statesman. "But there is no way this is even close. There is no way this even qualifies" as an emergency.
>>