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 6th 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.
I just wish condom companies would throw that kind of money at candidates! Paired with better education in schools, we could stop a lot more STDs than just HPV.
ReplyDeleteI did have a question on your post-- 6th grade girls are required to get the vaccine, but is it something that is subsidized by the government to any degree?
If not, then I think it may pose a valid (if not mentioned) argument against required vaccination.
If it ends up costing something over $400 after markups and doctors visit fees, for a family without insurance that could be a huge financial blow, especially if you have multiple children.
I wonder if Bachmann actually believes what she says. I mean this is a woman with a JD(Oral Roberts) and LLM(William and Mary). One of those isn't a bad school so she has to have some brains in there. Great post.
ReplyDeleteI don't know about the cost, but I'm curious for an answer as well.
I enjoy Gov. Rick Perry's statement that he will always "err on the side of life," yet he is the most prolific political "killer" thanks to the death row expressway he has used since he has been in office.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, on to the real comment. I just thought I would point that out.
The thing that is confusing to me: How can citizens of this country not WANT to have a vaccine -- that would likely be subsidized by our tax dollars -- that helps prevent their children from getting a disease that may lead to cancer?
There is no legitimate argument that could be made against mandating this vaccine if the politicians knew how to sell it better. And, if the media were to actually investigate and hold accountable the claims made by Michelle Bachmann and numerous other politicians, they would be able to show the people the non-sensical crap these people spit out.
Our society has almost DESTROYED entire diseases because of our ability to vaccinate our young. This provides a longer life free of worse diseases because our people and our government has the strength to say, "You must take these to protect yourself and others." It is frustrating that nobody else is willing to make these statement and defend the decisions the government makes. This isn't some oppressive force taking away our rights to make decisions that make us better people. It's a force guided by the will of the people that says, "We do not want to live in a society plagued by Measles and Polio and other diseases."
I would present some sort of argument against this, but the idea that someone would not want to protect their children from a form of cancer because of some idiotic or ideological belief is frustrating and depressing. Maybe I will come back and present some argument, but it's early, and I lack the strength.
Chase, I'm not conservative but I think their rebuttal to your statement is twofold.
ReplyDelete1. Vaccines are dangerous. (Erroneous, but this is what some of them believe, i.e. Bachmann.
2. This particular vaccine somehow promotes sexual activity because it pertains to a particular STI. (This is more of an irrational emotional argument, again based on the erroneous assumption that just by protecting against sexual transmitted infection will cause your child to be exposed and promoted to sexual activity.)
I don't agree with either of those arguments, but for the sake of discussion I think that is where they stand.