TexasCHLforum.com

psijac wrote: I think his misstep here was mandating it for girls only. It forced parents to consider that one day their daughter might have sex, GASP! If he had also said boy have to get it too it would have been noble. By being vaccinated against this disease males would by proxy protect their future partners against infection.

No - it has nothing to do with that. It has to do with the fact that no vaccine, no medicine, no medical procedure is completely risk free. Whether they are girls or boys, the potential benefits always have to be weighed against the potential risks. Perry wanted to mandate an unproven vaccine to all girls 12 and up. Seems pretty clear that at that age with a brand new vaccine, that it risk/benefits formula just didn't add up.

Now we know more - girls have died from this vaccine (confirmed by the FDA). Yet even in the face of this - as my girls get older - we are still considering that equation. Is the protection offered by the vaccine greater than the risk it presents? Its a tough choice - one my wife and I AND our daughters are talking about. It has nothing to do with burying our heads in the sand about sex.

It wouldn't matter if it was HPV, herpes, swine flu, pneumonia, roto-virus, whatever. You have to weigh the risk vs the benefits. He had no business attempt to legislate this decision. Period. Then when you add up the same day donation by Merek - it just leaves you with a bad taste in your mouth for Perry.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=2890402&page=1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Hi Texasgal,

Thank you for the excellent information. HPV related cancers are very serious and I think that parents should be given the information necessary to make wise, informed decisions. Trust me, it was not and is not an easy decision - not at all.

However, when Perry first tried to mandate it, our oldest daughter was turning 12. There simply not enough of a history with the vaccine to make that a wise move, IMO, at the time. Now, three years later, she will be turning 15. Now we are starting to feel some pressure to re-consider that decision. I know that all vaccines carry risk and there is a lot of inaccurate information out there, but I encourage anyone considering this decision to look here: http://truthaboutgardasil.org/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I do understand the dangers of HPV related cancers - although probably not nearly as well yourself. But those dangers have to be balanced against any risk associated with the treatment itself. If you have any direct information refuting or even minimizing the claimed risks of Gaurdasil, I welcome that information.

Further, I was not aware of any studies showing Gauradsil to be effective in preventing HPV related oral cancers. But I suppose it's reasonable to assume that it would have an effect.

txrr wrote:I cannot agree with you more texas1234.

By the way, what benefit is there to name calling anyways? I find calling Perry “a snake in the grass” offensive. Off handed comments like this might lead to convincing a friend or coworker who is undecided to vote for White. Why slam a Governor who has strongly supported your guns rights? Talk about shooting yourself in the foot. Well I got that off my chest. Think I’ll head to the Lone Star Gun show in Fort Worth.

I guess you got a point there. But on the other side, I want him to know that just because I vote for him, doesn't mean he gets my unwavering support for some of the wacky things he has tried to pull. Not that he reads these forums or anything - but I feel better about it ...

texas1234 wrote:This is not a rhetorical question. It is an honest question wanting real feedback.

I see so many posts on this board saying Perry is a snake in the grass, there isnt a real choice so I am going to vote for Perry, I dont like Perry, Perry is dishonest, etc.

Why? Granted he was a yell leader at A&M, but other than that I just dont really know or have I ever met anybody in politics that was Jesus like.

I think he is okay and has served Texas well.

I mean who would be the perfect candidate that has the connections and money to run for Governor. I cant think of any.

I guess my point is who is this ideal candidate we are all waiting for?

Nobody is a perfect candidate - of course. But that jerk (who I will vote for in October) tried to legislate an unproven vaccine on all young girls in Texas. Why? Because Merek donated heavily to his campaign? It don't get much more Obama-like than that! He tried to play socialized medicine - campaign finance tricks at the expense of my daughters' health! So yes, he is a snake. As I said, I wouldn't trust him to watch my pet rock if I am away from home.

So yeah, he supports 2A rights in a big way. But I am not a single issue voter. Good thing for him Bill White is way scarier.

just sayin ...

As I have said before, I will vote for Perry because their is not other real choice. I have, however, a very hard time supporting him in the way one does when they genuinely believe in the character of a candidate. For example, I would have a very hard time putting a 'Vote for Perry' sign in my yard.

Unless someone can point me to a sign that says something like:

Vote For Perry
Yeah, I hate him too!
He's a real snake.
But do you really want Bill White for Governor?

You think I can find a sign like that somewhere?

brazosriver wrote:Thank each of you for your advise, opinions. this year for me is a dificult choise. I admit I do not like Perry for numerous reasons. That is why I am trying to get information that will help me select the lesser of two evils. It seems too often that our political parties leave us in this position too often.

I couldn't agree more. Perry is a snake. I wouldn't trust him to take care of my pet rock if I were out of town. BUT - between the two of them there just doesn't seem to be any real choice.