Is this really worthy of a governor's mandate?
I do believe we should encourage all parents to have their girls vaccinated but outright ordered to???
Isn't this another non-funded government mandate?
2007-02-24
09:58:50
·
10 answers
·
asked by
Bad M
4
in
Politics & Government
➔ Government
Yes I am a longtime pro-science Goldwater conservative / libertarian & 6th generation Texan
2007-02-24
09:59:54 ·
update #1
Mustanger - the toll road situation chaps my you know what also.
2007-02-24
10:31:32 ·
update #2
Hey I am all for parents having the option of vacinating their daughters if the vaccine actually works but the mandate really bothers me.
2007-02-24
11:44:17 ·
update #3
We don't need the government or governor mandating children to get the HPV vaccine. That should be left up to the parents or legal guardians to decide, not the government. With all of the governmental control that we have now, we don't need this.
2007-02-24 12:30:42
·
answer #1
·
answered by j 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
Educate the parents and their daughter, but there should be no mandate.
The reason for this mandate has been shown on TV. Merck, the company that makes the drug has been lobbying state law makers to shove this down their citizens throats. Now why would a drug company want a law passed, requiring all Pre-teen girls to be vaccinated with their drug? Merck has announced that they will stop this practice.
The only reason the govenor of Texas would do this is: he has been paid off by the drug company or he really cares. Since he took it upon himself rather than have Texas lawmakers do it makes me believe he's been paid off.
2007-02-24 10:55:14
·
answer #2
·
answered by Arthur 7
·
3⤊
0⤋
Is Merck one of his campaign contributors?
No, this should not be mandated by a governor or anyone. This should be up to the parents. I wouldn't want to give this to my daughter only to find out years from now that it was not tested properly and has led to even worse health problems. We've seen that happen too many times with other drugs in the past. Remember Thalidomide?. This vaccine is not to control the spread of a disease, but it based on the presumption that your daughter will have sex and could get an STD and it could lead to cervical cancer. Seems to me that the government needs to stay out of this one.
2007-02-24 10:09:59
·
answer #3
·
answered by ? 4
·
2⤊
0⤋
Paid off or has stock in the company. This vaccine has not been tested enough and personally I wouldn't risk it. I don't remember there being so many law suits for drugs in the past as there are now......so their assurance on it's safety means diddly to me. What angers me is their advertisement using young girls to pressure parents on this matter as if it would be their fault if they got it. They quickly mutter something at the end which says it's 70% effective or something and says it's not a guarentee and to continue to practice safe sex. Dugh? Why would I risk something that could be potentially dangerous down the road for that weak endorsement? Government needs to stop imposing things like this on people. Especially since they don't hold these companies responsible for anything if it is bad.
2007-02-24 12:10:33
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
First, enable me commence off by conserving that i'm a community Texan. next, enable me allow you to comprehend my tale. at the same time as i became 16 (and nevertheless idea i turned right into a heterosexual), I had unprotected sex with a gentle guy. i finished up with the HPV virus. i did not even comprehend I had it. there have been very dramatic and extreme warts throughout (even round my rectum), earlier I advised my mom. The treatment for the warts decrease back then were excruciatingly painful, so undesirable i'd scream after the remedies. obviously, I had minimum, if any, help from my mom. quickly ahead to age 29. I went to make sure a gynecologist, who observed as in an OB/Gyn/Oncologist (a women human beings's deepest parts cancer wide-spread practitioner). i became eaten up with cancer. it really is proper. the large C. i became at modern-day scheduled for surgical treatment the subsequent week. restore became virtually insufferable. you could't sit down up in any respect. you should lie down. Going to the restroom to urinate turned right into a non secular journey. You do this for virtually 2 weeks. I absolutely have had to go by this journey 8 circumstances by the years, and each and anytime I felt is became worse than the finest. i'm now cancer-loose, and characteristic been for 4 years. i'm no longer interior the sparkling until eventually 2008. would you pick your youngster to go by this? What in the journey that they did not proceed to exist the cancer? you're asking: "would the HPV shot boost your sexual sex?" the answer is not any! i became no longer promiscuous, and that i became fantastically a lot a reliable youngster. I in simple terms got here about to have unprotected sex ONE TIME. My sex life at that age became minimum to non-existent. My view is this: If a needed vaccine will save a gentle female embarrasment, HPV and cancer, isn't it worth it? And the entire argument of "they turns into promiscuous if we vaccinate them" holds actually no water. Take it from someone who once had cancer years after having HPV...prevention by immunization is a lot extra appropriate than the suffering.
2016-12-04 21:49:34
·
answer #5
·
answered by lemmer 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Always remember. When George Bush was your Governor, there were other health care mandates. Nothing gets passes in the state of Texas, unless someone makes money on it, including capital punishment. Follow the money.
2007-02-24 10:03:46
·
answer #6
·
answered by ProLife Liberal 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Lets take the liberal line about conservatives.
It is all about big companies.
Mereck is going to make a killing on mandated vaccines.
Big Pharam wins.
btw: HPV vaccine is not the cure all people think it is for HPV because this vaccine takes care of just a few varities of it.
To me this vaccine is disaster waiting to happen.
2007-02-24 10:11:33
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
I agree with you, but I think he did it because of money, of course.
The amount of people without health insurance in our country
is causing economic havoc to our hospitals.
I guess the less illness there is, the better chance a hospital
has for economic stability. (Treating insured patients)
I agree with you, taking away choice, is not the American way.
2007-02-24 14:13:01
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
He also wants to turn all your roads into TOLL roads. Including the existing roads that your tax dollars already paid to construct. I find that even more outrageous. RECALL Anyone???????
2007-02-24 10:25:24
·
answer #9
·
answered by mustanger 5
·
2⤊
0⤋
Only Rick Perry and his (wealthy, campaign donating) buddies at Merck can answer that one.
2007-02-24 11:04:16
·
answer #10
·
answered by lesroys 6
·
1⤊
0⤋