Dirty Money, Dirty Politics

So another post involving Perry; I’d like to say they won’t all revolve around him, but seeing as he appears to be the GOP front-runner, I’ m sure there will be more to talk about with regards to him. Actually, though, today I’m taking a look at Bachman’s recent attack on Perry, so this is more of a critique on Bachmann rather than Perry.

Bachman’s latest brilliant strategy on the campaign trail is to attack Rick Perry for an executive order he passed in 2007 requiring 6^th grade girls to get the HPV vaccination.

Initially Bachmann brought it up as a challenge that Perry had made the executive order as a favor to a campaign contributor, the pharmacutical company Merk, who donated $5,000 to Perry’s re-election campaign.

Could Bachmann have a point? Quite possibly, yes. The pharmacutical industry is a competitive one and there is a lot of money to be made with vaccinations, especially a vaccination for HPV. To this day there are still only two FDA approved vaccinations: Gardisil and Cervarix.

In true right wing form however, Bachmann burned any valid point she could have made, by following up false and absurd claims. Accusing the vaccine of being dangerous (because some woman told her the vaccine affected her daughter’s mental capabilities) and arguing that it took away the rights of the parents and their daughters.

I know, take a breath. It’s hard to fathom the ignorance that comes out of the leaders of this nation at times. So let’s break her points (both valid and invalid) down:

1) The executive order was a decision based largely in part on the money that stood to be made off the vaccine.

This could very well be true, and honestly I’m inclined to believe it. According to the Charleston City Paper:

“Merck, the manufacturer of the HPV vaccine, makes around $130 for a single treatment; the vaccine needs to be administered three times, bringing the total to $390. And with 2009 Census figures putting the number of girls 15-19 years of age at living in the U.S. at 11,000,000, Merck stands to make $4.29 billion dollars if states across the nation if HPV vaccines are required.”

So yes there are a lot of major players that stand to gain a lot of money with legislation like this. Do I think that was the greatest influence on the decision? Most likely. Well played Bachmann, someone on your team did their research because god knows it wasn’t you.

2) The vaccine is dangerous

According to CBS, “The Republican hopeful said a mother approached her following the debate and told her that her daughter became mentally retarded after receiving the HPV vaccine. But the American Academy of Pediatrics blasted Bachmann, saying the notion that the vaccine can cause retardation has "absolutely no scientific validity."

This is true, the side effects of the vaccine are minimal at best; nausea, fever, dizziness. Both vaccines are approved by the FDA, and there has never been any reports of serious damage by the vaccine.

Saying it’s dangerous is not only ignorant, it’s detrimental because there are people that will hear her comments and take them as fact, thus jeopardizing the health of individuals. And I’m sorry, are you a doctor? What right do you have to say completely fabricated statements about serious health issues? Bachmann discredits herself and her argument completely by making statements like this. Like the true reasoning behind the order or not, the vaccine still does a lot of good. If you want to question its safety, you better have some scientific evidence to back your statement up. Then we’ll talk.

3) The executive order stripped parents and children of their rights

Really? It does? That’s funny because I’m pretty sure there are numerous vaccines you need to be able to enroll in public school period. Vaccines such as polio and measles are both required for children to attend public school. Why is the mandatory HPV shot stripping rights, but those vaccinations are not? I bet I can guess why. Let’s be honest, it’s because this drug is treating a disease that is sexually transmitted. But that doesn’t mean that we still shouldn’t fight it. Getting the HPV vaccine will not encourage pre-marital sex, because, here’s a little hint, adolescents will have sex regardless. If you really think that a 16 year old girl will say ‘no, wait I can’t have sex because I don’t have my HPV shot,’ then you are living in denial. Likewise, just because teens get the shot doesn’t mean they are going to run around having sex with everyone. Furthermore, just because you have some religious belief that pre-marital sex is a sin doesn’t give you the right to try and dictate medical legislation with it.

Overall, Bachmann’s three points and the following banter between her and Perry missed the whole point: women DIE from cervical cancer. It’s the second most prominent cancer in women, behind breast cancer and it is often developed from the contraction of the human papilloma virus (AKA HPV!!).

According to the CDC in 2008 11,000 women contracted cervical cancer as a result of HPV. So why would you not want to combat the sickness and death of women? At the end of the day lives are at stake, but you would rather use this as a political ploy to divert voters from the true facts behind the vaccine and the good that it does.

Perry put it perfectly in his own defense when he said, “At the end of the day, this was about trying to stop a cancer. At the end of the day, I am always going to err on the side of life.”

Whether you think that what his sole motive for pushing the executive order through or not (and believe me, I myself have my doubts) is irrelevant, but the point it, it does save lives, and no matter what you religious beliefs are, the health of the women of this nation should trump those.

Again I would like to point out how frivolous this argument is. I don’t pretend to live in a fairy tale world where campaign funds are completely clean. I’m sure some of Perry’s are dirty just like Bachmann’s and the rest of the candidates. That’s politics; it’s dirty. Why don’t you debate things that are important to this nation in regards to timeliness, relevance and stakes? The nation would be better served by it.

Perry's stance on abortion equals his tactical downfall

Rick Perry is one of the newest candidates to enter the campaign for the GOP. He is the governor of Texas, having taken over after then-governor George W. Bush became president. While Perry initially dismissed talk of him entering the presidential race, he has since thrown his hat in the ring and his strategy appears to be a chapter out of Michelle Bachman’s playbook.

The appeal to the ‘religious right’ portion of the GOP in this campaign so far, has been stunning both in it’s base comments and antiquated ideology. Michelle Bachman’s ignorant comments about hurricane Irene being a judgment from God harkens back to Jonathan Edwards’ ‘Sinner’s at the hands of an angry God’.

Why Perry would want to lump him self in with this kind of thinking is beyond me. So far he hasn’t been terrible for Texas, by all accounts. He hasn’t done the economic wonders he claims he has, but he hasn’t destroyed it—although his recent legislation with regards to education has potential.

Perry had the potential to be a moderate candidate. While Texas does for the most part vote red overall, it is not the MOST conservative state. Large populations are fairly moderate, or even liberal at that (i.e. Austin, or Houston who elected a lesbian mayor). Perry has dismissed his moderate chance however, with his recent Oklahoma-like legislation on abortion.

Perry has always been against abortion; this is true. But as the Texas Tribune states:

Over the years, Perry's public opposition to abortion has grown ever-more emphatic, coinciding with runs for re-election in an increasingly red Texas, and now for the 2012 GOP nomination for the presidency, where he faces candidates with similarly forceful anti-abortion views. …

Perry is no Johnny-come-lately to the anti-abortion movement, and his general ethos hasn’t changed: He opposes abortion except in cases of rape or incest, or when the mother’s life is in danger. "The governor has always been pro-life and has a strong pro-life record," his spokesman Mark Miner said.

But Perry's position on abortion didn’t come into play in his early years in elective office. It was a non-issue in his race for agriculture commissioner and, later, in his race for lieutenant governor, where his opponent, Democrat (and Roman Catholic) John Sharp, also opposed abortion.

Perry’s recently proposed legislation on abortion was an even bolder move in his anti-abortion ideology, so bold that it will surely isolate him from a significant portion of the voter population, myself included. U.S. District Court Judge Sam Sparks fortunately struck the legislation, which had a strong resemblance to the Oklahoma legislation passed in 2008, down Tuesday.

The legislation would have required women to receive a sonogram within 24 hours of their abortion. During the sonogram the doctor would describe in detail the size of the fetus and its organs. They would also play audio of the heartbeat; then send the woman home to think about it over night and decide if she still wants the abortion.

The legislation is nothing more than a tactless, psychological attack on women and their right to their body. This type of legislation offers skewed results, not well-informed ones. Subject anyone to that kind of emotional stress and you are bound to get a reaction. It’s not fair to women to be subjected to extensive emotional distress and guilt and then be asked to re-make a choice they have already made.

With legislation like this we are placing the weights definitively in one scale, asking women to overcome the extra weight of the opposing scale and then still claim that women have the right to do what they want with their bodies.

By backing this type of legislation, Perry has made it very clear that he intends to compete with his like-minded opponents on a religious ground. What’s more, the fact that after strong urging from religious groups, Perry has now gone so far as to say he supports amending the Constitution to a pro-life stance shows that courting the ‘religious right’ is more important than an overall game plan to mitigate more valid threats to this country (i.e. economic woes and foreign policy).

I understand the like it or not, the ‘religious right’ is a part of the GOP and therefore a target for candidates, but I think that candidates like Perry, and politicians in general, need to realize, not only is there is a larger portion of the voter population, but there are also more dire issues facing this country that deserve attention.

While Perry’s stance on abortion has always been a pro-life stance, the clear spikes in pro-life aggression having coincided with elections indicate that a lot of it is political strategy. Not only is this strategy, and type of legislation in my opinion, ignorant, it speaks to a severe lack of perspective on Perry’s part as to what this country needs.