In a post on his blog RedState, CNN contributor Erick Erickson objected to Texas Gov. Rick Perry's decision to issue an executive order requiring girls to receive the vaccine against the human papillomavirus, which leads to cervical cancer. Erickson stated in his post: "The 'I hate cancer' rhetoric does not help him and sounds a bit silly. We all hate a lot of things. Must we mobilize government for each of the things Rick Perry hates?"
The issue is two fold.First, it is an issue of liberty. It is not the same as an MMR shot because those diseases are communicable in a way HPV is not. Having the state mandate a shot that only one demographic gets because of what that child may do sexually bothers a lot of conservative voters. Perry needs to do a better job explaining that the opt-out was the parent simply saying "no." He also needs to make clear again that he would have done it differently and also, if he can, point out that no one actually had the injection because of his executive order.
In fact, if Perry can show that no one had the injection because of his order I think the issue largely goes away.
Second, it is an issue of decision making. Perry conveys that he let emotion guide him in making the decision. That deeply bothers a lot of conservatives. The "I hate cancer" rhetoric does not help him and sounds a bit silly. We all hate a lot of things. Must we mobilize government for each of the things Rick Perry hates? Of course not, but his emotion in the answer does not help him.
If Erick Erickson doesn't think the government should do everything it can to prevent cervical cancer, then what does he think it should be doing? Erickson's opinion on the matter probably puts him on the furthest fringe of public opinion.