Monday, April 02, 2007

HPV Bill Easily Passes House

A bill requiring public schools to share information with the parents of girls entering the sixth grade about the link between cervical cancer and HPV and the availability of a vaccine against the virus passed the House overwhelmingly by a vote of 81-14. The primary opposition to the legislation has come from the religious right, which doesn't want young girls to receive the vaccination because they believe it will encourage them to be promiscuous. The bill originally required 6th-grade girls to be vaccinated against the virus, but it was watered down to appease the opposition from the religious right. Out of curiosity, I checked the roll call to see who the 14 members were who voted against it. The opponents, who are all Republicans, include:

Rep. Bob Behning (R)
Rep. Thomas Knollman (R)
Rep. Cindy Noe (R)
Rep. Eric Turner (R)
Rep. Jim Buck (R)
Rep. Eric Koch (R)
Rep. Bill Ruppel (R)
Rep. Dave Wolkins (R)
Rep. Bill Davis (R)
Rep. Don Lehe (R)
Rep. Jeff Thompson (R)
Rep. Eric Gutwein (R)
Rep. Tim Neese (R)
Rep. Jerry Torr (R)

I guess these 14 legislators were more concerned about receiving a perfect score on their voting scorecard with Eric Miller's Advance America than casting a vote for a serious public health concern.

10 comments:

Anonymous said...

"CBS may be biased, but the facts align with Kroft's version of events far more than your feable defense of the self-dealing going on by members of Congress and staff with the pharmaceutical industry at the expense of the American taxpayers."

So it is wrong for big pharma to push drugs upon people unless they are related to sex? Talk about some double talk. First you slame those in Washington for getting into bed with big pharma, then in this thread you totally forgot to mention how Mereck spent millions to buy female lawmakers to push this drug. This drug was tested in the third world, which is NOT the US. Do they use fluoride in the water where this drug was tested in India? Do they use the same chemicals that American girls are exposed to? All these could factor into side effects, yet since this has to deal with SEX, bringing up any of these points gets one painted a religious kook.

What is really sad is that everyone thinks any law that "saves just one life" (especially a child) should be passed. Wonder what these folks will think when that one girl who gets this confuses HPV with HIV and ends up dead from AIDS?

I am sick of this country trying to force chemicals into our bodies at every stage in life. Fluoride in drinking water is the worst example. HPV is NOT widespread. HPV is NOT a reason to force inoculations on people.

It seems that _any_ drug that can make sex more fun and take away responsiblity from people gets big cheers from the left and some folks like AI. Why? HPV is NOT a cure all. It won't make kids have more or less sex, but I promise you it WILL make folks have more unsafe sex. Get off the "sex should be fun with no worries" bandwagon. Human actions have consequences. If shoving HPV into every 13 year old girl is so great, then you folks should be demanding much easier government mandates:

Fat people: Forced diets. Government should control all food intake. People will be limited to the amount of junk food they buy at any one time. This will help reduce the risk of fat folks killing over from heart attacks.

Get in shape: People not in good shape or fat would not get any government benefits. This would include welfare, food stamps, social security, medicaid/care, VA benefits, etc..

We won't do any of the above because people would actually have to do something. It is much easier to let some private company develop a shot and cross our fingers that cancer rates in young women don't take off in 15 years.

Wilson46201 said...

Is the above anonymous nobody some sort of socialist opposed to free enterprise and capitalism working to cure disease and make a profit? Sure sounds like it!

Anonymous said...

"Is the above anonymous nobody some sort of socialist opposed to free enterprise and capitalism working to cure disease and make a profit? Sure sounds like it!"

Only an idiot, like someone who could only get a job at a township office, would think of government mandates as "free enterprise and capitalism." Go back to school Wilson. If the government is going to mandate HPV, it needs to do all the reseach, development, production, and distribution. A private company should never be made rich by using the government to force peopel to buy their products.

Anonymous said...

I have to agree with the previous post. AI is a very thoughtful blog, but seems clouded on issues of sexual liberation. PHARMA and the rest of the industry have way too much power and influence. Now we are going to send a piece of paper to all girls in their given market for Gardasil raising the issue and their proposed remedy. Sounds like state sponsored marketing to me. Do we get a price break from Merck for this service? $400 is the cost of the full complement of shots. Maybe they will charge us $200?

Advance Indiana said...

I think you can find fault with the influence-peddling of Pharma with respect to the prescription drug bill and still approve of a vaccine bill. In the area of vaccines, the pharmaceutical industry has helped protect us from many serious, life-threatening diseases. If a drug company manufactures a vaccine which can save lives, I would expect them to market the product. Vaccines programs have traditionally been administered by the government.

Anonymous said...

This issue is not as easy as it may appear.

I'm always glad when our home-grown Lilly conquers some disease, or makes the lives of sick people better.

But this measure was pushed by one pharma giant alone. And they will profit enormously.

Color me suspicious.

That being said, this List of Shame has one common characteristic: If Eric Miller stops too fast, he'd have to pull 14 noses from his behind.

Cindy Noe, in particular, makes me want to barf. She lives not far from Dan Burton.

Now THERE''S a neighborhood. Shot-up watermelons and all.

Anonymous said...

"In the area of vaccines, the pharmaceutical industry has helped protect us from many serious, life-threatening diseases. If a drug company manufactures a vaccine which can save lives, I would expect them to market the product. Vaccines programs have traditionally been administered by the government"

3,670 deaths out of a population of 100,000,000 is now considered "life-threatening?" If that is all it takes to allow government to mandate forced drugging, then any amount of freedom we did have left is gone. We are now nothing but slaves.

Like you said, government administered these programs. This means government, not a private company, should do all testing, research, distriution, and manufacturing. Cut out the middle man who is only out for the shareholders and their own paycheck. Money makes people do evil things, from murder to covering up bad test results.

Anonymous said...

Hello, Anonymous 5:29. The reason for relatively few deaths from cervical cancer is that if a woman has access to good preventative health care (annual pap smears) and good health insurance (that covers surgery such as hysterectomies), then the recovery rate from cervical cancer is quite high. I am a 15-year survivor of cervical cancer who was very lucky because I was in both of the preceding categories. Had I not been, I'd no doubt be dead by now - by the time one is symptomatic the treatment is much more difficult and less likely to be successful.

So I guess if we are mostly concerned about women with good access to health care then HPV is not a big deal.

I presume, Anon 5:29, that you DO care about women who are not so lucky.

How is this different from all the other vaccines that the government requires kids get? Of course, SEX is involved.

Back in the day I had no knowledge of the link between sex and cervical cancer - and that lack of knowledge had NO impact on my behavior. Has anyone surveyed young women today? Does the knowledge that there is a link between an STD and cancer make them more or less likely to have sex (of any kind, protected or otherwise)? I think we are assuming an AWFUL LOT here - that women KNOW there is a link, that they understand how it is transmitted, and that in the heat of the moment they even care.

Just a reminder that there is a much better understood relationship between sex and pregnancy but that knowledge is often thrown out the window....the back seat window of a car, that is.

I do not believe the basic assumption of the far right here, that young people are less likely to have sex if they don't think they will get cancer. I just think no one thinks that much.

Anonymous said...

Anon 804 - you are 100% correct.

Anon 833 - Thank you. I have not read anywhere else something as well put together as your statement. There are just so many excellent points you made, and you, speaking as a survivor, give a perspective many cannot begin to comprehend. THANK YOU.

Anonymous said...

"I presume, Anon 5:29, that you DO care about women who are not so lucky.

How is this different from all the other vaccines that the government requires kids get? Of course, SEX is involved."


Give me a break. Even with good healthcare, the other vaccines are much more deadly and widespread. You can give me HPV by just touching can you? The other health issues affected many, many more people, even those with good healthcare.

Actually, the fact that we have pretty decent healthcare, even for poor people, is exactly why Merck and their ilk are pushing this crap. The idea is to make money, not cure. The facts are that no booster is available and that we really don't know the true side affects of this drug. It is funny how left wingers will claim Bush has burned billions of documents proving his war in Iraq was more about oil and WMD, yet when a sex drug comes out, Merck is held up as a patron saint. To the sex for all, anytime, anywhere, any person, any whatever, big oil=bad. Big pharma=bad when they don't lower prices. Big pharam=good when they offer a substance so that more people can have unprotected sex without worry.

and that in the heat of the moment they even care.

Just because some humans still revert to behaving like animals when it comes to sex does NOT give you the right to force a possible poison upon my young child in the middle of her development. Lilly got slammed a few years back for getting homeless folks to be test subjects. Merck does the same thing in India and no one gives a damn. Not only that, they have refused to release some study documents? Why is that? Their drug is protected by patent.

The big question: What happens if Gardasil ends up having side affects for just 1%? Merck is now covered because the state is the one who forced the use of the drug. So you sue the state and your damages are capped.