California’s Gardasil mandate moves forward
The California legislature is quietly pushing forward with a sweeping proposal to mandate that Gardasil — the vaccine marketed as a shield against the sexually transmitted human papillomavirus (HPV) — can be dispensed by the state to children as young as 12 without the permission of their parents.
I confirmed by phone on Friday with the staff of the bill’s sponsor, California Democratic Assemblywoman Toni Atkins, that the legislation had been voted out of the state Senate Appropriations Committee by 6-3. There were no witnesses or testimony at the hearing. The bill, AB 499, had previously been suspended over cost concerns. Now, it is expected to head quickly to the Senate floor for a full vote this week and supporters believe Democratic California Gov. Jerry Brown will sign it.
A previous push to require all California girls entering sixth grade to be vaccinated with the HPV Vaccine was withdrawn from the state legislature in 2007. The current bill would circumvent the state’s parental consent laws and “allow a minor who is 12 years of age or older to consent to medical care related to the prevention of a sexually transmitted disease.” The bill states: “The minor’s parents or guardian are not liable for payment for medical care provided pursuant to this section.” So, who is?
From the state Senate Appropriations Committee’s fiscal summary:
As this bill could result in the administration of vaccinations for hepatitis B and the HPV to Medi-Cal beneficiaries between the ages of 12-17 inclusive that would otherwise not have received these vaccinations, there could be increased costs to the Medi-Cal program, which pays a $9 administrative fee to physicians who administer the vaccines to Medi-Cal beneficiaries. All other costs related to vaccines for Medi-Cal beneficiaries under age 19 are paid for by the federally funded Vaccines for Children Program.
Based on Medi-Cal counts as of January 2010, it is assumed there are over 466,000 females and 457,000 males (923,000 total) aged 12 through 17 who are Medi-Cal beneficiaries. Although the main focus of HPV prevention has been on young women, there has been recent research indicating the case for also routinely vaccinating young men for the HPV as well. As a result, there could be costs to administer vaccinations for both young women and men.
For the 923,000 minors aged 12 through 17, a five to ten percent immunization rate for hepatitis B would result in administrative costs ranging from $415,350 to $830,700, fifty percent of which would be a cost to the General Fund. A five to ten percent immunization rate for HPV, which is a three-dose series, would result in administrative costs ranging from $1.2 million to $2.5 million in total funds.
Outside a few pro-life and parental rights activist websites, there has been zero coverage of the latest major attempt by a state government to legislate Gardasil coverage for minors.
California Catholic Daily reports:
“The bill was unexpectedly called back to that committee when it was pointed out that if minors do not need to obtain their parent[s'] consent for the controversial Gardasil HPV vaccination, then the state would have to foot the bill,” explained the Catholic Legislative Network in an email. “Analysis undertaken for the Senate Appropriations Committee could not project the number of children, 12 -17, who might seek the vaccination without letting their parents know. The document, however, estimated the cost at $75,000 to $155,000 per 100 children vaccinated. The drug maker is now recommending the shots for boys as well, making it even harder to project total costs according to the staff report.”
…“This bill is an end run by the pharmaceutical giant Merck to push their vaccine, Gardasil, on California children at taxpayer’s expense,” said May. “A major public outcry in 2007 killed an effort to make the vaccinations mandatory when Merck proposed it then…“It is time for parents and anyone who cares about the welfare of California’s children to mobilize,” said [Catholic leader Bill] May. “Let’s flood senator[s'] offices with phone calls and letters.”
There was another major public outcry in 2007 regarding a separate, but related Gardasil mandate, of course — the Texas GOP Gov. Rick Perry’s Gardasil executive order debacle.
Perry supporters continue to invoke the “opt out” clause as a defense of the Texas measure. But undergirding the Perry decree is the anti-free market belief that it is necessary and right to force private insurance companies to pay for middle-school-age children’s Gardasil injections. Under Texas law, health insurance plans must provide coverage for all mandated vaccinations. There is no “opt out” provision from this mandate. So if Perry’s EO had been implemented, every private insurance plan would have been required to pay for Gardasil vaccinations.
This is not merely a “social” issue. It goes to core fiscal and free-market principles. Forcing insurers to cover treatments is generally referred to by us limited government advocates as a, yes, mandate. Interfering with existing contracts between private companies and their clients is generally referred to by us fiscal conservatives as, yes, big government. These bottomless benefits mandates drive up the cost of health insurance and contribute to the problem of the uninsured (be sure to click that link and check out page 3, which shows that Texas has the 4th highest number of mandated benefits laws in the country). Texas, perhaps not coincidentally, also has the highest rate of uninsured in the country.
Those of us who have opposed Obamacare from day one have argued that policymakers should be trying to reduce the cost of health insurance, not increase costs by mandating coverage of every A-to-Z treatment and procedure.
I’ve already addressed the critical distinction between traditional school-age vaccines for communicable diseases such as polio and measles versus behavioral/lifestyle immunizations for sexually-transmitted diseases such as HPV and Hepatitis B. They are simply not comparable.
As a follow-up to debate over my recent Perry/Gardasil post, I’ll add a few more points.
My intellect, integrity, political motives, and sanity have all been questioned as a result of my long-held opinions on the need for vigilant scrutiny and skepticism of top-down vaccine initiatives sponsored by both Republicans and Democrats. I’ve been called “anti-vaccine” despite the fact that my kids are up to date on their plethora of vaccines with the exception of Gardasil, which I have refused for my 11-year-old daughter for now. Vaccine experts themselves admit the wear-off time for Gardasil is uncertain; some estimate it might be 10 years. Why not wait then until my daughter’s 15 or 16 instead of 11?
Unlike the old days (which some of my critics who may not have children seem to still be operating under), the current CDC vaccine schedule is clogged with more than a dozen different vaccines, many of which must be taken several times during the course of childhood. The long-term synergistic effects of all of these vaccines are unknown; as the vaccine pipeline fills up, concerns about those synergistic effects should give parents even more pause.
My husband and I chose to delay — delay temporarily, not deny permanently — several vaccines for our infant son nearly eight years ago. After researching health problems with the rotavirus vaccine and others, we determined that it’s not a bad idea for parents to wait a few years after a new vaccine hits the market to see how things go. (When Rick Perry signed his Executive Order, Gardasil had been on the market for a matter of months and had been tested on only several hundred 11- and 12-year old girls.)
We were treated like pariahs by our then-pediatrician for delaying some vaccines. I know from personal experience that the pressure to submit children to government-minted vaccine schedules without question or challenge is immense. I blogged in 2007 about the appalling plight of parents in Prince George’s County, Maryland, who were threatened with jail time by public school officials if they didn’t get their kids vaccinated with chickenpox and hepatitis B shots.
Gardasil mandate-promoters glibly point to “opt out” provisions with a naivete or willful blindness toward the hostility conscientious objectors face in the government-run health care and education systems. Just ask Catholic medical providers in the Age of Obama how it’s working out for them.
I have been a staunch defender of the pharma industry against anti-capitalist attacks from the left and right. But I have refused to be coerced or bullied into anything regarding my kids’ health– especially when it comes to new behavioral/lifestyle vaccines. I cannot ignore lobbyists and politicians who provide incomplete/incorrect information and obfuscations about the duration of vaccine protection. And whether the mandate-pusher has an “R” or “D” by his or her name, his or her crony ties to Big Pharma lobbyists and donors are and will be fair game for scrutiny and exposure.
If this makes me “fringe,” I’ll wear it proudly.
If more taxpayers and patients were as immune to Nanny State schemes, imagine how much healthier we’d all be.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
GOP Texas primary fight: Desperate Dewhurst slimes conservative challenger Ted Cruz
May 25, 2012 07:31 PM by Michelle Malkin
7 CommentsWho’s funding Brett Kimberlin?
May 25, 2012 01:52 PM by Michelle Malkin
28 CommentsObama’s Land of the LOST
May 25, 2012 01:42 PM by Michelle Malkin
52 CommentsObama’s latest campaign angle: I’ve been saving America from wild Republican debts
May 24, 2012 04:33 PM by Doug Powers
55 Comments
Senate finally passes a budget approves bill striking word ‘lunatic’ from federal law
May 24, 2012 11:22 AM by Doug Powers
193 CommentsStammertime: Jay Carney asked if Chicago protests have soured Obama’s support for OWS
May 23, 2012 07:44 PM by Doug Powers
54 Comments
S.E. Cupp, Hustler, and the four stages of conservative female abuse
May 23, 2012 02:13 PM by Michelle Malkin
142 CommentsPig Maher’s boy Bill Burton mocks my support of Hatch challenger Dan Liljenquist
May 23, 2012 11:37 AM by Michelle Malkin
32 CommentsFree speech blogburst: Show solidarity for targeted conservative bloggers; Update: It’s Everybody Blog About Brett Kimberlin Day; Donation fund for targets
May 23, 2012 05:59 AM by Michelle Malkin
114 Comments
Categories: Health care,Politics
JustOneMinute
» Patterico And The Brett Kimberlin GangBabalu Blog
» U.S. Manned Space Flight in The 21st CenturyVillainous Company
» Must Read Post of the Day. Possibly, the Year
It was merely an observation, an opinion and a request. Nothing more. You can ignore it if you want. No big deal. Sorry I ruffled your fleuries!
Fleuries, I thought your post was difficult to read, too, and I skipped 99% of it.
When you post a long comment, paragraphs make it easier to read. I don’t think Happy was trying to be snarky.
Yes I was!
Actually, I do come across as harsh sometimes. I am the most politically incorrect person you will ever meet, and it gets me in trouble…a lot. Sorry about that. I tell it like I see it and should not press the submit button so quickly.
Will I do it again? Most likely.
Immunity is a complex mechanism. Just because an individual receives a vaccine or contracts a disease doesn’t mean that the resulting immunity will be sufficient to prevent a reinfection. There is no way of knowing if Gardasil produces sufficient immunity to the viruses in the mix.
Companies which produce the vaccines need to make money to cover R&D costs. What better way to do that than to create a mandate. It is easy to convince elected officials to create laws based upon a one-sided story from scientific research. Elected officials don’t read the actual research, so they are easily swayed by an argument which presents massive benefits while down playing side effects.
The individual should be the one deciding to have a vaccine, especially the newer vaccines. HPVs are not in the same league as Polio or Small Pox and should not be treated as such.
Hi all, I don’t normally comment but I had to thank MM for bringing this to my attention. I am a Californian living near Sacramento with a daughter nearing 12 years old, and this is the first I’m hearing of AB499.
My blood is boiling just thinking about my daughter being given a vaccination without my permission – you better believe I’m forwarding this to everyone I know and calling my state reps ASAP. This cannot be allowed to pass.
Assuming you never meet Hiraghm…
FIFY
Oh yeah!
I forgot about Hiraghm!
Hell, my wife’s insurance won’t cover any of her name brand drugs and here CA is giving some away for free…
Off topic. If you haven’t been over to fox.com watch MM’s interview there then read what politico wrote right below the window.
I can’t believe that Politico and me saw the same interview.
I agree that that is a wise course to follow.
As our residency boss relayed to us ~ 30 years ago, what his boss had told him and his fellow residents ~ a dozen years earlier:
In medicine, “There are benefits to being a few years out of date.”
F**K the nanny state. (and gardasil won’t help them)
Of course it is.
But, cervical cancer is so very strongly correlated with HPV that it is, essentially, a sexually transmitted disease.
Link, please.
Nowhere near half the patients whose Pap smears I examine have the HPV virus (the high-risk subtypes, which is what are tested for, because the high-risk subtypes are the subtypes most strongly associated with cervical dysplastic changes that can progress to cervical cancer – hence, their designation as “high-risk” subtypes).
Mr Old Goat says the same thing Granite. Nowhere near half of the paps he did were positive for hpv–and he worked in the part of the state most famous for their stds and sexual promiscuity (and call girls as patients).
I make an effort to stay in the top ten of the MPIP crowd myself. I don’t think I’m a slouch either!
Really ????
I go over to Brietbart and lo a behold he now has Big Government, Big Hollywood and …. wait for it … BigPeas
I was curious as to infection rates, and it looks like those numbers are interesting as well, mostly because the high rate numbers for infection that are always quoted include so many strains of HPV, and to really get the numbers up they include estimates of everyone who may have ever had an infection. Several here have already touted the line that most people are infected regardless of behavior, but the truth is that, at worst, at any given time, maybe one quarter are actually infected (and that’s with over 40 strains of the virus, about half of which is deemed “low risk”).
This quote caught my eye from Wikipedia:
This is a totally dishonest campaign.
I see a post about the yearly bird flu scare. I’ve never had a flu vaccine, though because of age and COPD I’m (supposedly) in the high risk group.
Yes, I’ve had the flu, recently, within the last year, infact. I just don’t see the justification for vaccinations on an ever-changing conveyor-belt over something like the flu. Looking at my journal, for me the flu progresses into pneumonia approx. 70%, but it seems *greatly* influenced by how well I “behave” when I contract the flu… and dang it, I’m over 90! These things are to be expected with advanced age.
What I see, though, is propaganda, either purposefully or not, that people can avoid discomfort and the whipping-up of the population into a fear frenzy: “Bird flu! Bird Flu! Get your shots! Swine Flu! Swine Flu! Get your shots! Miss yiur shots and DIE!”
I just can’t see an advantage (at the remuneration/shot) that would justify financially the graft it must take to push this stuff. If there is no financial return why would the Statist bother?
Maybe I’m missing the larger picture… any ideas?
I almost always get a seasonal flu shot, as it is encouraged (and paid for) by my employer. I think the only year I’ve had the flu in the past 15 was the year there was a shortage, and I didn’t get one.
I balked at the “bird flu” shot because I felt it had been rushed out, was questionable in efficacy, and was generally a lot of hype. The fact that they were begging people to take the shots months later after the numbers really fell off (not that they ever really varied from typical annual flu) confirmed my opinion.
Why do you purchase name brand drugs? Generics are manufactured in FDA regulated facilities the same as name-brand. And the bio-equivalency requirements that generics must meet are incredibly strict.
Did you know that, based on historical results, flu vaccines protect against the actual strain of influenza virus that develops during flu season less than 50% of the time?
This is because the vaccine manufacturers need several months lead time to incubate a certain strain and manufacture the vaccines. They are forced to guess which strain will become epidemic during flu season. They’re wrong more than 50% of the time.
Ahem…..
Frack PC!