MSNBC's Jansing and O'Donnell described HPV vaccine opponent as "pro-family"
On the February 5 edition of MSNBC News Live, during a discussion of Gov. Rick Perry's (R-TX) executive order mandating that all sixth-grade girls receive Gardasil -- a vaccine for the human papillomavirus (HPV), a sexually transmitted disease that can lead to cervical cancer -- host Chris Jansing introduced one of her guests, Andy Schlafly, as "a counsel for Eagle Forum, a conservative, pro-family organization." Later on MSNBC News Live, host Norah O'Donnell similarly described Eagle Forum as "a conservative, pro-family organization" during a discussion with Texas state Rep. Jessica Farrar (D). Media Matters for America has noted instances of media figures equating "conservative" positions with "pro-family" positions.
On November 14, 2006, Farrar filed a bill that would mandate that "[e]ach female student enrolling in grade six shall be fully immunized against the human papilloma virus," with certain exceptions. The bill was referred to committee on January 30, but has not received a vote. Perry issued his executive order on February 2.
Throughout the February 5 discussions on MSNBC News Live and a news report read by O'Donnell, on-screen graphics read: "Texas: Thumbs up for sex?" and "Does vaccine promote sex?"
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved Gardasil on June 8, 2006. As The Washington Post reported on June 9, 2006, Gardasil "is most useful if given to younger girls, because the vaccine is ineffective once the virus -- which is very common among sexually active people -- is already present." From the article:
In what officials called a major public health breakthrough, the Food and Drug Administration yesterday approved the first vaccine developed to protect women against cervical cancer.
The vaccine, which works by building immunity against the sexually transmitted human papillomavirus, was found to be effective in preventing almost three-quarters of all cervical cancers.
[...]
The vaccine, called Gardisil [sic] and developed by Merck & Co., was approved for girls and women ages 9 and 26. It is most useful if given to younger girls, because the vaccine is ineffective once the virus -- which is very common among sexually active people -- is already present.
The prospect of young girls receiving the vaccine has disturbed some social conservatives, who adamantly oppose efforts to make the vaccination mandatory. They say that sexual abstinence is the best way to avoid getting the virus.
But women's and public health groups are pressing hard for early and mandatory vaccinations, saying they will potentially save thousands of lives.
On February 2, Perry signed an executive order that will mandate that all sixth-grade girls receive Gardasil beginning in September 2008. From the February 4 Associated Press article on Perry's signing:
By using an executive order that bypassed the Legislature, Republican Gov. Rick Perry -- himself a conservative -- on Friday avoided such opposition, making Texas the first state to mandate that schoolgirls get vaccinated against the virus.
Beginning in September 2008, girls entering the sixth grade will have to receive Gardasil, Merck & Co.'s new vaccine against strains of the human papillomavirus, or HPV.
Perry also directed state health authorities to make the vaccine available free to girls 9 to 18 who are uninsured or whose insurance does not cover vaccines. In addition, he ordered that Medicaid offer Gardasil to women ages 19 to 21.
Perry, a conservative Christian who opposes abortion and stem-cell research using embryonic cells, counts on the religious right for his political base. But he has said the cervical cancer vaccine is no different from the one that protects children against polio.
"The HPV vaccine provides us with an incredible opportunity to effectively target and prevent cervical cancer," he said.
In addition to the FDA, the HPV vaccine has been recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices and the American Cancer Society.
From the 11 a.m. ET hour of the February 5 edition of MSNBC News Live:
JANSING: Governor Rick Perry has signed an executive order making Texas the first state to require nearly all sixth-grade schoolgirls to be vaccinated against the sexually transmitted virus that causes cervical cancer. Opponents argue this might send the wrong message and condone premarital sex. An unscientific poll on MSNBC.com shows 62 percent of readers say that parents should decide if their children get the vaccine. Thirty-five percent support Governor Perry's decision. Joining me to debate this issue is Jessica Farrar, who is the sponsor of this bill, and Andy Schlafly, counsel for Eagle Forum, a conservative, pro-family organization opposed to this mandate. Thanks to both of you for being with us.
FARRAR: Thank you.
JANSING: Mr. Schlafly, why are you opposed to this?
SCHLAFLY: This vaccine is a loser. Imagine a vaccine that told young teenagers that if they took this vaccine, they would be protected against getting lung cancer, so they can go out and smoke. It's not true. It's not true of lung cancer, it hasn't been shown with this vaccine. The average age of diagnosis for cervical cancer is 48 years old. But they propose to give this vaccine to 11-year-old girls. Not even Merck says the vaccine will last nearly that long. Merck says they don't know how long the vaccine will last.
JANSING: Miss Farrar, is this medically suspect?
FARRAR: No, I actually think -- I'm excited that Texas is going to be the first state to do so because this vaccine will prevent thousands of cases of cervical cancer. And it's important that it's required because if it's required, then insurance companies will cover it and so will Medicaid and so will CHIP [Children's Health Insurance Program]. The FDA has approved it. It's recommended by the American Cancer Society, by the CDC, by the American Academy of Pediatrics, by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. And if parents don't want to give it to their child, they can opt out. And as far as the disease goes, it actually begins in your 20s, perhaps, that's about the average, so it's important that the girls are vaccinated before they're ever -- could be exposed to the virus. And so there's a set of shots in the sixth grade, and that's why it's a good time for them to go get it.
From the 1 p.m. ET hour of the February 5 edition of MSNBC News Live:
O'DONNELL: Texas Governor Rick Perry has ordered that beginning in 2008, all sixth-grade girls in the Lone Star State must get the vaccine against human papillomavirus. It's the nation's most commonly sexually transmitted disease and the one that causes cervical cancer. But some say that it will encourage teens to have sex. Joining me now to discuss that, Texas Democratic Representative Jessica Farrar and Andy Schlafly, counsel for Eagle Forum, a conservative, pro-family organization opposed to this mandate. Welcome to both of you.
Hitler was "pro-family" too, wasn't he? Of course we couldn't introduce anyone from the DNC or abortion rights groups as "pro-family" could we? That would confuse the viewers bigoted and prejudicial preconceptions.
Spin: Conservatives = pro-familyReality: Conservative = neo-fascist, repressive, reactionary
Spin: Liberals/Progressives = pro- Soddom and GomorahReality: Liberals/Progressives = promoting the egalitarian distribution of the benefits of society, the pro-active prevention of human suffering through progressive healthcare, education and economics.
Yessir, if my daughter has the poor judgement to be promiscuous, I want God to smite her with a deadly virus! Why do you think He created AIDS? Thank You, Eagle Forum, for protecting my family values from that Demon Sex! Praise Jeeeeezzzzzuuuuuusssssss!
The issue here is whether the vacine should be mandatory. Nobody is saying that the vacine should be illegal. The issue is whether young girls should be FORCED to take the vacine, when many of them have been raised by Christian parents who have taught them that pre-marital sex is wrong. Why should these girls be FORCED to take the vacine? This is government intrusion at it's worst.
they aren't being forced to. A little research counters your argument quite handily.
"Parents' Rights. The Department of State Health Services will, in order to protect the right of parents to be the final authority on their children's health care, modify the current process in order to allow parents to submit a request for a conscientious objection affidavit form via the Internet while maintaining privacy safeguards under current law." - Executive Order RP65 - February 2, 2007
This is a provision of the executive order. these parents CAN opt their children out. The argument the "pro-family" groups are making is baseless, as they aren't being forced to do anything. It obviously isn't REALLY "the issue here" as you profess.
No not mandatory do you guys EVER know what you are talking about?
"mandating that all sixth-grade girls receive Gardasil"
What do you think the word "mandating" means?
which part of the actual executive order didn't you read? how about this part?
"Parents' Rights. The Department of State Health Services will, in order to protect the right of parents to be the final authority on their children's health care, modify the current process in order to allow parents to submit a request for a conscientious objection affidavit form via the Internet while maintaining privacy safeguards under current law."
I know I feel mandated to do everything that I can't simply ask not to be forced to do.
Here is the definition of the word mandatory
Required or commanded by authority; obligatory
Can you opt out of the program? Are you FORCED to do this as you stated in your post or can you refuse to have your children take this medicine? Thats right you CAN opt out and you are not FORCED as your post said to take this treatement. So what part of the definition of madatory dont you understand?
I'm still having trouble figuring out what a vaccine has to do with premarital sex.
The connection is tenuous at best.
You have to shut down the higher cognitive functions and think like a troglodyte. In their odd little 6000-year-old world, anything that makes sex safer will encourage teenagers to partake...as if they need any encouragement. They'd much rather take the risk of their kids catching a disease than the risk of their "doing it" without consequence.
You're right. It's so unfair that they're going to FORCE these poor girls to get a 5 second shot in the arm that may prevent them from getting a disease that could make them unable to have children (since that's all conservatives think women are good for anway). I mean it's the same way that these poor defenseless children are FORCED to be innoculated from Polio. Maybe we should stop all childhood immunizations and innoculations. Since we FORCE them.
And that whole going to school thing. Gotta stop that. We send them to school they'll learn about the naughty parts and then because they know about sex...why they'll just have to run off and have it. I mean we have to lock them up and arrange their marrage for them because anything else would be against our good fundamentalist "Christian" beliefs and "morals".
While we're at it we should also stop the government from FORCING 18 year old men from signing up with "Selective Services". But that can't happen because you conservatives wouldn't be send them off to die for your greed when you reinstitute the draft.
All right, I'll bite. Even assuming that Susie Q. manages to stay a virgin until marriage--which is not likely even for those who take virginity pledges--what if her husband didn't? What if her husband cheats?
You'd really stake Susie's life on the belief that she'll 1. Remain sexually abstinent until marriage and 2. That her future husband will as well? That's a losing proposition.
(Not to mention that anyone who is stupid enough to believe that a vaccine for one STD protects them from all STD's and pregnancy has much bigger problems than being sexually active...)
Where can I join an Anti-Family group?
Man, this burns my britches...
This is what it's come to, huh? Limiting potential cures for a nearly ubiquitous virus? Human papillomavirus causes warts...everywhere. On the skin, airways, the genitals, the cervix, etc... Tis disgusting what lengths these cretins will go to in order to push some bullsh*t religious agenda.
I say, if you're opposed to the vaccine. Don't get it. End of story.
Just to clarify Greek, the HPV vaccine does not prevent infection by the papilloma virus types that most commonly cause non-genital warts. The vaccine protects (at about a 70% efficiency) women from the four most common types of papilloma virus (over 100 types total) that cause genital warts. That is whay the theocrat types can get their panties in a knot; they can claim that the vaccine promotes sin by preventing the smiting of sinful youth. Nevermind that the aforementioned smiting occurs years after the sin. I.e. "Bobby, Mommy is going to die from cervical cancer because she went all the way in high school."
"Imagine a vaccine that told young teenagers that if they took this vaccine, they would be protected against getting lung cancer, so they can go out and smoke."
Try this instead - "Imagine seat-belts that told young teenagers that if they wore these seat-belts, they would be protected against traffic accidents, so they can go out and speed." Should we ban seat-belts because they promote unsafe driving? This is essentially the argument these "pro-family" groups are making - that safety features promote an attitude of licentiousness.
Before the trolls begin, let me head them off. YES, I understand the difference between a.) driving - an act where one can behave according to the rules and still receive negative consequences (i.e. being rear-ended) and b.) teenage sex - a voluntary act where the consequences are - typically - the responsibility of both parties. But what about rape? What about incest? What about, God forbid, the tendency of teenagers to make impulsive decisions, and thereby, make mistakes. We are talking about CANCER, folks. Perhaps the moral thing to do is to err on the side of caution... to vaccinate these children AND to teach them about the benefits of abstinence?
I am sort of torn on this issue. I think the idea of a vaccine for HPV is incredible and something that should be adopted widely by the population (not just of Texas). However, I can see where some of the anti-vaccine groups are coming from in one single form:
I am not a big fan of the government telling/ordering that girls must get this vaccine before they enter the 6th grade. Yes, there are already regulations that say kids must be vaccinated against a host of other illnesses before they go into school, but most of them fall under air-born communicable diseases, and regulated vaccines is the only real way of preventing their spread in school systems. Diseases like HPV aren't exactly all that contagious (you have to have sex with someone to contract the disease), so they do not pose such a dire threat on a school's population. This is one of those instances where I believe the family (or more importantly the girl herself if she wants the vaccine) should be in charge of the decision, not the governor of the state.
This is not to be construed as some sort of anti-promiscuity diatribe at all. I think it IS important for the girls to get the vaccine, because more likely than not they ARE going to have underage and promiscuous sex despite what their parents say. I just do not believe it should be the decision of the governor (or even the state legislature to demand it before enterring the 6th grade as if it was some widespread and fast infecting virus like the measles).
Furthermore, the governor seems to be acting in the public interest. Check out the following statistics...
http://www.teenpregnancy.org/america/states/pdf/tx800.pdf
I understand that this may require some number-crunching for you - so I'll give you my summary - as of the most recent data, Texas is between 2nd and 5th WORST in the country for teen pregnancy rates. I refer you to the FAQ section of the site for an explanation on why the information is a few years out of date.
Anyway, what does this mean in context? Teens are getting pregnant in Texas at a rate higher than almost any other state in the country. This means that teens in Texas are having SEX. Unless you are going to sell me hundreds of thousands of cases of Immaculate Conception. But I digress... TEENS IN TEXAS ARE HAVING AN ALARMING AMOUNT OF SEX!!! Perhaps it behooves the governor of Texas, therefore, to protect these teens - in, might I add, a fashion that still allows parents to opt little Victoria Virgin out of the demon vaccinations.
I don't know, I think these pro-fambly creeps might be on to something. Just think how much horrible stuff we could have been spared if their parents had practiced "abstinence only!"
They advocate abstinence before marriage, genius.
"They advocate abstinence before marriage..."
God bless'em because we all know they are special people who will spend eternity in the presence and glory of their almighty God for remaining abstinent before marriage. But for the rest of us and our kids... you know, the normal people... maybe an ounce of prevention is the prudent course of action.
I wouldn't go too far with the "normal" stuff. Gays and lesbians account for only about 5% of the population, so would you call them weird? Just because you're in the minority, does that make you weird? If so, then I guess you believe that gays are weird as well.
Hmmmm...
Rino, I never said people who adhere to pre-marital abstinence are weird. I said they were "special"... and if their abstinence is based on their deep religious beliefs they're probably going to heaven and eternally share the glorious presence of their almighty God. But as for the rest of us heathens, heterosexual and homosexual alike, we'll take our chances. I engaged in pre-marital sex and didn't turn out so bad... I think.
Anyway, I'm not advocating pre-marital sex. I'm just saying it's what normal people do. Pre-marital abstinence may be a good thing... but hard to enforce. So if there are other ways aside from abstinence to prevent pre-marital pregnancies or STD then, just as a precaution, I think that's a good thing.
"I'm just saying it's what normal people do"
And when you say that you're implying that those that stay abstinent until marriage aren't normal. That's what I was getting at. Also, I'm not saying that everybody who has had sex before marriage is going to hell. Everybody makes mistakes. Stuff happens. I'm simply saying that the Bible says that it's a sin to have pre-marital sex. That's simply a fact.
"Everybody makes mistakes."
My pre-marital sex was a "mistake"? Sorry, Rino, I don't see it that way... but I forgive you for being so judgmental. Allow me to point out to you that not everyone in this diverse and wonderful country of ours subscribes to your strict religious beliefs. In my opinion, it's the goodness and love that's found in a person's heart that is is important, not the rigid adherence to ancient texts that were determined to be divinely inspired by a group of mortal men who were not entirely without political motivation. Although I respect your right to believe what you want I just don't think religious beliefs have a place in a political setting. How can one possibly attempt to impose a system of morality through a vehicle (politics) that is so inherently corrupt and amoral? If laws are passed for the medical good of society, such as preventing STD, i see no place for religion in the equation. God bless you...
It's pretty simple. If you decide yur daughter shouldn't have this vaccine, you're saying she will be a virgin when she marries, marry a virgin, never get raped, and never get divorced or at least if she does that she will marry another virgin. In fact, you are so sure of all this, you bet your life on it. Sorry, her life.
You neglect to mention that if her husband dies she may never remarry. Sounds a little like sharia law...
Simple solution...
The solution is obvious... just give her the damn shot and tell her it's vitamin B--12. ;>)
YOU HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD
Why would you have to explain the full context of the shot to your 11 year old?
"Hey honey, you're getting a shot for cancer today." End of controversy.
I'm not saying that everybody who has had sex before marriage is going to hell. Everybody makes mistakes.
I had lots of premarital sex, and it sure as hell wasn't a mistake.
Amen, brother. Women is like cars....you gots to test drive them before you buy 'em.
Did you practice it? Honestly were you a virgin on your wedding night?
Maybe so, Einstein, but only a LIFETIME of abstinence can protect one from the HPV. Some women get it from contact with their spouse, duh.
A damn good reason for this piece of legislation to "require" this vaccination is for insurance companies to cover the cost. I understand that some people may be too busy discussing the smiting hand of god to file the form which exempts their child from said "requirement", but a world in which poor people may count on the right to be even slightly considerate seems rather distant.
We have mandated vaccination against diseases such as measles and polio, with great success in virtually eradicating them. This is no different except it concerns...(shhhh...s**)
It seems like many of you are very confused.
Cervical cancer is the 3rd leading cancer in women worldwide but has been on a steady decline in the U.S., largely due to the pap smear. There is no crisis in the U.S. with cervical cancer, so this has nothing to do with a concern for public health.
There were serious flaws in the clinical trials including using an aluminum based placebo to artificially increase side effects in the placebo group, thereby making any side effects from the vaccine appear to be less significant. Aluminum is a proven neurotoxin.
Cervical cancer is not like measles or polio; you won't catch it just by being in proximity to someone who has it. It is sexually transmitted, which is why requiring it to be given to little girls who are only 11 is ridiculous.
Gardasil should be available, yes. Requiring it to be given makes no sense unless you own stock in Merck.
There is no public health concern here. Rick Perry is closely tied to Merck financially and will gain from this new law. Gardasil is not being used much by anybody and if a state requires it to be given, I can guarantee somebody will be making a lot of money.
Rick Perry is closely tied to Merck financially and will gain from this new law.
I wondered it that might be the case, because this move seemed so out of character for Gov. Goodhair. Where did you get your evidence to make this assertion?
Ahah! I thought something like that was up here. It's just like when they did that anthrax and small pox vaccinations of the military. It wasn't necessary, it was just a few politicians and the pharmaceutical companies making a fat profit by forcing their drugs on others against their will. And there's the case of Eli Lilley being allowed into our schools to administer bogus psychological tests to push Prozac onto teens for the slightest bit of depression.
I notice they don't mention any side effects with this drug. I did see a commercial for this stuff the other day, and there are side effects. When the FDA board that approves this stuff is packed with agents of the pharmacorps, you can bet it will hurt more people that it helps. If the FDA approves anything these days, you can bet it's got big problems, like Vioxx.
THANK YOU!!! this, trolls, is what a reasoned and rational dissent looks like. I have to look into this a little further, because these are some pretty serious points.
I agree with your point about the potential side effects or unknown long-term emergent effects of this new drug and of the untrustworthiness of the current leadership at FDA. But, I would argue with your point about cervical cancer. Even if cervical cancer is declining, if the drug does turn out to not be dangerous, why not have girls get the shot to be protected? They are not in a position to make their own decision on whether to get the shot if it has small side effects or a very low probability of serious problems. I bet a lot of adult women right now wish they could have gotten this shot, and what woudl women 20 years from now be thinking if they find out that they could have been protected, but they weren't.
If you just do a google search for Rick Perry and Gardasil, you will find numberous articles that provide the details.
Here is one such article:
http://enthousiazo.wordpress.com/2007/02/03/gov-rick-perry-tx-and-merck-pharmaceuticals-hades-go-to-bed-together-for-the-benefit-of-unwilling-texans/
It includes this info:
"Merck is bankrolling efforts to pass state laws across the country mandating Gardasil for girls as young as 11 or 12. It doubled its lobbying budget in Texas and has funneled money through Women in Government, an advocacy group made up of female state legislators around the country.
Perry has ties to Merck and Women in Government. One of the drug company’s three lobbyists in Texas is Mike Toomey, Perry’s former chief of staff. His current chief of staff’s mother-in-law, Texas Republican state Rep. Dianne White Delisi, is a state director for Women in Government.
The governor also received $6,000 from Merck’s political action committee during his re-election campaign."
Thanks. I knew money had to be involved somehow.
Also, here's some more information about the flawed science behind these trials:
http://www.thepowerhour.com/news2/gardasil_vaccine.htm
Forgive me if I don't take that site seriously.
Was it the 9/11 conspiracy videos?
It's some site that makes a big deal about it being a "patriot" site, and it links to an anti-vaccination site. Pass.
If you didn't like the previous site and information about the flawed science, check out this response from a board certified OB/GYN; it's kind of technical, but you can easily understand his meaning. It points out a lot of problems, including the duration that follow-ups were done in comparison to the mean time to invasive cancer (4 yrs vs 8.1 to 12.6 years):
http://whale.to/vaccines/obgyn.html
As a more personal note, I would not want my daughter to get this vaccine for several reasons.
For one thing, many people who have sex will come in contact with HPV, but the majority will clear it from their bodies and live healthy lives. Only a very tiny percentage will develop the slow changes over time that lead to cervical cancer, and a pap smear will find those changes. Cervical cancer is so uncommon in the U.S. that the NIH lists it as rare.
Carcinogenicity and genotoxicity have not been evaluated in Gardasil. In the trials, 5 women who took Gardasil around the time of conception gave birth to babies with birth defects compared to zero in the placebo group.
The risks of the vaccine far outweigh the risks of cervial cancer.