Groups use Bachmann’s claims against Perry, Merck to urge veto of Calif. HPV-vaccine bill
Despite the backlash GOP presidential hopeful Michele Bachmann has received this week for blasting fellow contender Texas Gov. Rick Perry for his (failed) attempt to mandate human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccinations for pre-teen girls in 2007 during Monday’s tea party debate, the Minnesota congresswoman’s refusal to turn the page could have lasting effects for states trying to enact HPV-vaccine-related legislation.
One such example is California, where a bill that would allow minors 12 years of age or older to consent to medical care related to the prevention of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) awaits Gov. Jerry Brown’s signature.
If Brown signs Assembly Bill 499 (PDF), minors 12 and over will be able to access HPV and hepatitis B vaccines, as well as post-exposure prophylactic HIV medication without parental consent. Christian and “pro-life” groups throughout the state have protested this bill since the state Legislature passed it, calling it “anti-parent.” Yet Bachmann’s recent attack on the vaccine (linking it to mental retardation, based on unsubstantiated claims) and suggesting Perry’s interest in vaccinating girls was financially motivated has fueled groups with more arguments to encourage the governor to veto the bill.
On Friday, the San Francisco-based group Catholics for Common Good (CCG) released a media advisory appealing for the veto of AB 499 and listing among the reasons against the law, “Parallels with the issue hounding Texas Governor Rick Perry.” In fact, the group focused mostly on the connections Bachmann drew between Perry and Merck, the manufacturer of the HPV vaccine Gardasil, to criticize the California bill, which has been dubbed the “Gardasil bill” by opponents, despite the fact that the bill relates to other STDs, not just HPV.
Some of CCG’s arguments:
- “Creation of the broadest 12-17 year old market possible for Merck by including inoculation of boys, although Gardasil is only on the CDC immunization schedule for girls (1.usa.gov/dnUYnR).”
- “The bill could mean up to $30 million in sales for Merck at federal expense.”
- “Why must Merck pursue legal mandates or laws to go around parents to sell their vaccine?”
The bill authors predicted that if between 5 and 10 percent of the 923,000 Californians ages 12 through 17 that qualify for the vaccinations take the shots, administrative costs could be between $1.2 million and $2.5 million, 50 percent of which would be paid out of the state’s general fund.
In the long run, however, the Legislature predicts money will be saved if even costlier treatment for STDs can be minimized. From the bill’s fiscal analysis:
According to the Department of Health Care Services, Medi-Cal expenditures of $379 million were incurred in 2009-10 for the Minor Consent Program, which serves on average 130,600 individuals between the ages of 12 and 19, and provides over 128,000 minors with family planning and/or sexually transmitted disease diagnosis and treatment services. Due to the authorization of preventive services to minors provided for in this bill, there could be substantial future cost savings to the Medi-Cal and HFP programs in the millions of dollars to the extent that immunizations and other medical care lead to decreased incidences of disease, diagnosis, and treatment costs.
HOW TO DESTROY A DEMOCRACY
Put Conservative Republicans in Total Control of your government
Since 1980, they had control of the Executive for 20 years, the Senate for 18 years, the House for 12 years and a Total Control for 6 horrid years that decimated our Housing Industry and the World Financial Industry while increasing the transfer of Wealth and Income to the top few.
In 1980, 1% owned 20% of total Financial Wealth and 43% in 2009
In 1980, 1% took 10% of individual Income and 20% in 2009..
In 1980-2009, the top 1% had a 281% increase in after tax income and the middle 20% had a 25% increase or below the rate of inflation for a cut in income.
5% own 62% of Net Wealth
80% own 15% 62/15
20% own 93% of Financial Wealth
80% own 7% 93/7
25% get 67% of Individual Income
70,000,000 get 13% 67/13
That Score is 222/35
That ratio is like distribution of $100 with 20 having $86 and 80 having $14
or each of the 20 have $4.36 and each of the 80 have $0.17
Inequality? What else can one call it? $4.36 to $0.17 is disgraceful and will end our Democracy
Since 1980, it has been a deliberate policy implementations by conservative republicans
who believe if you shift wealth upward it will increase the wealth of those below.
Increase the wealth at the top will create huge numbers of jobs.
2001-2009 had a huge increase in wealth and Income of the top 10%.
The job creation was lowest since Hoover.
Since 1980, the three conservative presidents created 99,000 net new jobs per month or just enough to cover new entries into the work force. They took over in 1981 when job creation had been 218,000 per month. Those three initiated our involvement in ten foreign conflicts in which tens of thousands of innocents were killed. They destroyed our Savings and Loan Industry; created a Monopoly in banking where today ten banks control 80% of the deposits in all 7600 banks; created a worldwide financial disaster by deregulating the Casino Derivative Of America; destroyed our housing industry by allowing the big banks to, willingly, finance junk loans to millions who could not afford them. They increased the Fannie-Freddie maximum amount they could pay for mortgages from $300,000 to $729,000.
This allowed the banks to promote $500,000 plus mortgages for more profit on the securities they sold worldwide as triple A values. Profits were huge. Fraud was huge.
The Congress and the White House are reluctant to indict their campaign fund sugar daddies on Wall Street. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ BUYS $$$$$$$$$$$$ ANYONE
clarence swinney mad mad mad mad at Inequality in America
[email protected] political historian lifeaholics of america