I couldn't believe my eyes today when I read that the Texas House voted today to overturn the governor's edict to immunize Texas women from cervical cancer caused by the human papilloma virus. Do they hate the women of Texas? Or even worse, do they care so little for Texas women that they are willing to play politics with their lives?
While the legislature of our sister state to the west moves swiftly to protect its women by mandating use of the vaccine, Texas has just taken a step backwards by refusing to protect its own female population. Why should New Mexico be the progressive state and Texas the regressive one?
I've heard the arguments against using the vaccine, and they just don't make sense to me. The author of the ridiculous bill says the vaccine hasn't been tested long enough, and wants to wait to see the "effect over time". How much time must pass and how many lives must be lost before he is willing to act? Would he EVER be willing to act?
Some question the governor's motives in moving to protect Texas women. They wonder if he was paid off by the drug company. If he was, then go after him. Don't punish Texas women.
Others say Perry doesn't have the authority to mandate use of the vaccine. These people are willing to use the health of Texas women as a cudgel with which to beat the governor in their political fight.
Some on the right have said that protecting women from this virus will make them more likely to have premarital or extramarital sex. They must think that all Texans are as stupid as they are!
One right-wing columnist from the Panhandle even had the gall to say it was not needed because all one had to do was wait until marriage to have sex, and then not have sex with anyone else. Obviously, he has never heard of the multitude of women in this state and country who are raped each year, or the many wives who are given diseases by their philandering husbands.
No matter what his motives, after years of selling Texas out to corporate interests, our governor finally did something good for the citizens of Texas. Today, the Texas House turned back the governor's one good deed, and chose to play politics with the lives of Texans.
Once again, I am ashamed of our elected officials.
Thank you for this post.
ReplyDeleteLet me just say, however, I am also ashamed of our fellow progressives who collaborated with the religious right in this fight. I won't forget who they were, nor how little they can be trusted.
Women have been harmed in the past by "miracle" drugs - and the rush to use them. The profit motive here is huge, which is why many are taking a cautious stance and not rushing to a mandatory vaccine. Pharmaceutical companies know that testing isn't final until it goes to the public. Only when they stop controlling for variables do the real world problems surface - e.g. people with weak immune systems might have a reaction. They aren't included in testing phase. This isn't a secret.
ReplyDeleteThis is a quote from another blog which quotes research arm of Planned Parenthood.
"Finally, the backdrop to all these conversations is one unfurled by women's health advocates, who insist that we set the current action in a historical context. Walking around with the DES-Thalidomide-Dalkon Shield pharmaceutical disasters in the back of their minds, some worry that Merck's profit-driven rush to mandate this drug may prove problematic. "There's merit to questioning industry's motives in this case," says Heather Boonstra, public policy analyst at the Alan Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit organization focused on sexual health research and analysis. "Because Merck itself has pushed so hard to make the vaccine mandatory, there's a bit of skepticism about industry's motives."
Guttmacher is the research arm of Planned Parenthood.
Less than one-hundredth of one percent of the U.S. population dies cervical cancer - 0.009%. Enough to mandate vaccinating half the U.S. population against the sexually transmitted disease causing it?"