Tonight, as Perry got bogged down with in tonight's debate facing his unpopular decision to mandate a teen vaccination in Texas, and his loose stance on illegal immigration, Michele Bachmann, began to take his place with the Tea Party as the hard right conservative. Not only is Perry's use of executive order scary, but as Santorum pointed out, so is his view of the role of Government(mandating a vaccination).
To Tea Party supporters, Perry began to show that he's not quite as 'airtight' of a conservative as many would have hoped.
6 comments:
Perhaps this is the liberal in me thinking (undoubtedly it is) but I did not take issue with Perry's justifying the mandatory shots given to young girls in an effort to eradicate cervical cancer. To me, this seems like a good idea. Cancer is bad... the vaccine prevents cancer... is the vaccine not therefor good? Even if citizens are required to get it, is this not an acceptable move in the interest of national (in this case statewide) health and safety? I can't help but think of the economic rewards of eliminating the costs of care for cancer patients and the emotional effect on their families.
While I agree that the vaccine does have its benefits, the decision to give it to underage girls should ultimately be left to the parents. From my perspective, Bachmann isn't specifically saying that the HPV vaccine is a bad thing & that it shouldn't be administered at all, but that the government mandate threatens the rights of parents. She uses this against Perry, arguing that he may have had alternative motives in his executive decision, which should make voters question his credentials for the GOP ticket.
It was also a Tea Party debate. Tea Partiers believe in traditional family values and limited government. Perry's move exemplified what they object. Although the media and the left can criticize "The Firebrand," as CNN titled her last evening, the only audience that matters to Bachmann right now is the Tea Party & registered Republicans, to whom she catered her arguments.
Is the HPV vaccine mandate unacceptable because the government should not mandate any vaccines for children (remembering that there always is opt-out, and acknowledging the fact that thousands more children would die as a result without opt-out mandates' countering human psychological bias against vaccines' positive public health effects)? This argument is a libertarian argument- to be truly free; the government should not have the right to mandate vaccinations (even with an opt-out). This would have a side-effect many libertarians might like- it would assault the viability of public school education. In theory however, an opt-in versus opt-out should have no impact of parental rights since they are still free to decide either way.
Or is there something special about the HPV vaccine (and presumably also the Hepatitis B vaccine) because they address a sexually transmitted disease and issues related to sex by minors that should be under the purview of the parents/legal guardians? (Maybe parents' should have the right to sue someone who has sex with their child without their permission). This argument is that the government can mandate vaccines on most matters, but not related to sex because a child’s sex life falls more strongly under a parents’ rights umbrella than, say, the child’s health.
Or is the argument here that the HPV vaccine is different because by addressing a potential complication (cervical cancer) of having sex, you are creating moral hazard because clearly young girls (and boys) are more likely to have sex knowing they don't run the risk of developing or spreading cervical cancer? (Ignoring all the other physical, emotional, and other complications of sex, ignoring the research on the very poor mental states people are in when they actually decide to have sex, etc.)
From the Washington Post's Glen Kessler:
"As Politifact Texas reported in 2010, Perry 'ordered the Department of State Health Services to allow parents dissenting for philosophical or religious reasons from all immunizations — not just this one — to request a conscientious objection affidavit form.'
"Just 0.28 percent of students filed such forms, which must be updated every two years to remain viable — and not all private schools accept the form. So as many as 15 percent of girls did not have the possibility of opting out of the requirement to receive the vaccine if they wanted to continue in their schools."
I'm assuming 15% of girls refers to the percentage of female students enrolled in private school. I wonder whether the low numbers of parents filing the affidavit form is due to their lack of awareness, not objecting to the mandatory vaccination, or the difficulty in getting the form approved...
Perry took the stance that he shouldn't have used the Executive order, but his motives were right. This is the stance that he used at the resolution of the last debate as well. He said that if he had a "do over" he would have taken it to congress.
Social Conservatives, as Santorum pointed out, go even further to say that Congress shouldn't even be mandating it, because that infringes on individual rights.
@Will: while this may not be a big deal for liberals, it proved to be a major deal with the Tea Party and conservatives, who seem to be playing the largest role in the primary so far. Perry comes off more moderate than many had originally assumed.
Follow the money--and the revolving door:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/21/AR2007022102025.html
Post a Comment