Texas That Libreal Enclave

**Adrian II** · 02-16-2007, 16:01

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Ah the Eagle Forum , that explains a lot .
Since these women think women are inferior then why should anyone listen to what they have to say about womens issues , shut up , get back in the kitchen and let your superiors make all the descisions .

And while they are at it, let's find out how much Merck & Company contributed toward the Governor's campaign.

**CrossLOPER** · 02-16-2007, 16:08

Originally Posted by Adrian II

And while they are at it, let's find out how much Merck & Company contributed toward the Governor's campaign.

Welcome to capitalism. I believe you are new here.

**Adrian II** · 02-16-2007, 16:11

Originally Posted by CrossLOPER

Welcome to capitalism. I believe you are new here.

I am an old acquaintance. That's why I ask the right questions.

**Grey_Fox** · 02-16-2007, 16:34

This vaccine is currently the best way to eradicate cervical cancer. It would save thousands of lives and save millions in healthcare.

At the moment the vaccine costs €600, however over here (according to my microbiology professor) there is debate about making it free of charge, and hopefully this will be done.

**Byzantine Prince** · 02-16-2007, 16:56

Why don't these "family" groups work on raising their kids with proper principles instead?

**ajaxfetish** · 02-16-2007, 23:37

Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince

Why don't these "family" groups work on raising their kids with proper principles instead?

What, and have to take responsibility for failures that could otherwise be blamed on society and the government?

Ajax

**KukriKhan** · 02-16-2007, 16:30

Originally Posted by Adrian II

And while they are at it, let's find out how much Merck & Company contributed toward the Governor's campaign.

Reportedly a mere $6,000 , and a few other bene's thrown in, according to Wiki (info near the bottom of the article).

**Adrian II** · 02-16-2007, 20:15

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

Reportedly a mere $6,000 , and a few other bene's thrown in, according to Wiki (info near the bottom of the article).

There is more than meets the Wiki eye, my friend. According to the Houston Chronicle:

Merck is bankrolling efforts to pass state laws across the country mandating Gardasil for girls as young as 11 or 12. It doubled its lobbying budget in Texas and has funneled money through Women in Government, an advocacy group made up of female state legislators around the country.

Perry has several ties to Merck and Women in Government. One of the drug company's three lobbyists in Texas is Mike Toomey, Perry's former chief of staff. His current chief of staff's mother-in-law, Texas Republican state Rep. Dianne White Delisi, is a state director for Women in Government.

Merck spokeswoman Janet Skidmore would not say how much the company is spending on lobbyists or how much it has donated to Women in Government. Susan Crosby, the group's president, also declined to specify how much the drug company gave.

A top official from Merck's vaccine division sits on Women in Government's business council, and many of the bills around the country have been introduced by members of Women in Government.

Perry also received $6,000 from Merck's political action committee during his re-election campaign.

**BDC** · 02-16-2007, 21:34

So a 'pro-family' group wants to reduce the numbers of people who will get something that prevents cancers.

Basically they want to kill off children's parents.

I was under the impression most these religious organisations regarded that as a quick way of going to hell.

**Adrian II** · 02-17-2007, 03:25

Originally Posted by BDC

So a 'pro-family' group wants to reduce the numbers of people who will get something that prevents cancers.

Basically they want to kill off children's parents.

I was under the impression most these religious organisations regarded that as a quick way of going to hell.

Aren't you being a bit Pavlovian about this? Neither parents nor governments are evident do-gooders. There is a balance to be respected here.

It seems to me the governor is pushing this Gardasil with undue haste. The Gardasil website says it 'may' work against some forms of cancer caused by the sexually transmitted virus HPV, not all, and besides it seems there are issues with the vaccine. So we are dealing with the risk of a virus infection that would be the result of a specific behaviour (not a general risk of contagion in the population such as you have with poliomyelitis) versus the inherent risk of vaccination plus the specific risks of this Gardasil. ON top of that we have an insensitive governor who tries to impose vaccination without elaborate consultation of his electorate. Seems like a recipe for defeat to me.

As for the moral issue: if parents don't want their kids to have sex until they are mature, eighteen or whatever the age is, instead of taking the vaccine, I think you should respect that. I would probably let my kids be vaccinated (after looking into the risks involved) but you can't extrapolate your own views on education to the whole of society. Measures like these are only called for if society as a whole is threatened by a contageous disease or if the risks of infection far outweigh the risks of vaccination for the individual. I think the latter has not been established in this case.

**KukriKhan** · 02-17-2007, 05:16

A death-causing syndrome exists.

A shot, given in adolescence, can prevent death.

It (the shot) harms no one, benefits many.

No brainer.

First function of gov't is securing: life. Its existance and its continuance.

Should be free.

Parents are right to question. Question answered, we ought to queue up.

IMO

**Lemur** · 02-17-2007, 06:00

I've got a link to a hilarious documentary about Texas and its sex laws. Strictly for the mature, however, if only because there is frank discussion about how many marital aids are legal to own. And a hilarious debate on the Texas legislature floor about husbands, wives, orifices and "aim."

PM me for the linky, I don't think I ought to post it here, even in the Backroom.

**Duke of Gloucester** · 02-17-2007, 09:46

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

A death-causing syndrome exists.

A shot, given in adolescence, can prevent death.

It (the shot) harms no one, benefits many.

No brainer.

First function of gov't is securing: life. Its existance and its continuance.

Should be free.

Parents are right to question. Question answered, we ought to queue up.

IMO

It is not quite the "no-brainer" you present. No immunisation is completely risk-free: in a small number of cases there may be allergic reaction and even death. This vaccine only protects against one out of the four viruses so routine smear tests will still be necessary. The disease itself is sexually transmitted, so different people will be exposed to different degrees according to their behaviour. In other words, some people will benefit greatly from this jab, whereas others will hardly benefit at all. Add to that the money influence of the company that produces the vaccine and you do have something that needs questioning. (Not that giving this vaccine will encourage girls to have sex.)