Prevention or patronage?

How politicians have colluded with pharmaceutical giant

By Alisa Farenzena
From the March 2007 Print Edition

Government has once again overstepped its bounds. This time, the target is parents and children.

            This latest step in the march toward omnipotent government took shape in early December, when the Bay Area’s own Democratic Assemblywoman Sally Lieber introduced legislation to require girls to be vaccinated against the human papilloma virus, or HPV, “before they enter the sixth grade, an idea that’s contentious because HPV can be spread only through sexual contact,” according to a February 2 San Jose Mercury News report.

            While disgraceful, this move is not surprising from Lieber, the same Mountain View politician who wants to strip parents of their discretion in how to discipline their own children.  It does seem surprising, however, that Texas Governor Rick Perry — “a conservative Christian who opposes abortion and stem cell research using embryonic cells,” according to a February 3 Associated Press report — issued a February 2 executive order to make his state the first to require that girls of the same age receive Gardasil, Merck & Co.’s HPV vaccine.

           Requiring that 11-year-old girls be vaccinated for a sexually transmitted disease encourages them to engage in premarital sex.  It sends a message that modern science can eliminate all risk from this inherently risky behavior — there’s Gardasil for HPV, there’s abortion for pregnancy, and even HIV is portrayed as a manageable disease in advertisements for the drugs that treat it.

            Requirements that children get the vaccine undercut parents who want their children to be aware that reckless and immoral actions do have consequences.  The government should not have the right to circumvent parenting in this way.  Lieber needs to quit her mission to end parenting as we know it.

            Lieber cannot hide behind the banner of feminism on this issue, because her legislation is not about grown women — it is about impressionable 11-year-olds of both genders.  The legislation to force girls to take the vaccine will encourage more promiscuity among preteen girls, which can lead to increased sexual activity among girls and boys of middle school age.

            These vaccination requirements are particularly intrusive because they eliminate personal choice and replace it with government control.  If an individual makes the decision to go through life fornicating with multiple partners, risking contracting sexually transmitted diseases, then she should be able to make the choice about whether to take the HPV vaccine.  That should not be the government’s decision.  If an individual decides instead to get married and have a monogamous relationship, then she should be free not to spend money on a useless government-mandated vaccine.

            Either way, the market would function.  The vaccine requirements halt this free functioning of the market by creating false demand for a product that is not useful for a sizeable segment of the population.

            This interference in the market is not simply an unintentional byproduct of the requirements.  It is actually the sole reason for the Texas vaccine requirement.  Given Perry’s conservatism, he did not issue the executive order because of his own beliefs.  His reasons are less noble:  Perry “received $6,000 from Merck’s political action committee during his re-election campaign,” according to the AP report.

            Merck is “currently the only pharmaceutical company” producing a vaccine against HPV, according to the Mercury News article.  Therefore, Perry’s attack on the market benefits Merck, and Merck alone.

            The outcome of this political payback also runs contrary to the beliefs of those who elected Perry.  According to the AP report, Perry “counts on the religious right for his political base.”  He has betrayed such voters after wooing them with funds from Merck, proving that he has sold himself and his state’s future to the company.

            Merck “has funneled money through Women in Government, an advocacy group made up of female state legislators around the nation,” according to the AP report, which also revealed that Perry’s chief of staff’s mother-in-law, Texas House of Representatives member Republican Dianne White Delisi, “is a state director for Women in Government.”

            Merck’s relationship with Women in Government is more involved than a mere financial arrangement:  “A top official from Merck’s vaccine division sits on Women in Government’s business council, and many of the [vaccination] bills around the country have been introduced by members of Women in Government,” according to the AP report.

            The California vaccination bill was not introduced by a member of Women in Government, but Lieber has “been in contact with” the group and her family owns “thousands of dollars of stock in Merck,” according to the Mercury News report.  Still, Lieber’s legislation, now in the name of Democratic Assemblyman Ed Hernandez, appears to be a product of Lieber’s own misguided convictions.

            Californians should contact their legislators to encourage them to defeat this intrusive proposal.  In Texas, all parents can do is file affidavits to opt out and hope that their next governor changes the executive order.  Parents in the 21st century will face a barrage of challenges from the government, both from Democrats who have no qualms about promoting premarital sex to children and from Republicans who can be sold to the highest bidder.

 

If you enjoyed this article, please consider supporting the Patriot