Following months of controversy, California Governor Jerry Brown late last week signed into law a bill that removes parental consent for vaccinating children 12 and older against sexually transmitted diseases. Although state law already allows children 12 and older to consent to treatment for sexually transmitted diseases without parental involvement, the new law expands that right to immunizations.
The bill (read here) had been strongly opposed by several organizations that argued minors do not have adequate judgment to make a decision about vaccination (back story). The legislation also figured into the wider national debate in recent weeks over HPV vaccines, concern among social conservatives about teenage sex and the extent to which drugmakers have worked to influence introduction and passage of such bills (see here and here).
At issue is a furor that has plagued Merck and its Gardasil vaccine. The FDA approved the shot five years ago to protect girls and women ages 9 to 26 against four strains of the human papillomavirus, or HPV, which can lead to cervical cancer. Social conservatives and some parents, however, are concerned that teenagers may interpret vaccination as a green light to engage in premarital sex. Brown did not issue a statement upon signing the bill (look here), but one group is spitting mad.
"By signing AB 499 to coerce minors into risky Gardasil shots, Jerry Brown is deceptively telling preteen girls it will protect them from HPV, giving them a false sense of security that they can have all the sexual activity they want without risking developing cervical cancer or a raft of other negative consequences," says Randy Thomasson, president of SaveCalifornia.com, in a statement.
In contrast to such sentiments, public health officials have recommended HPV vaccination - including the Cervarix vaccine sold by GlaxoSmithKline - as a useful tool to thwart the advent of cervical cancer. Nonetheless, Gardasil has been dogged by questions over side effects, cost and long-term effectiveness. Meanwhile, teenage vaccination rates for the HPV vaccine are trailing the other two vaccines recommended for teens and pre-teens, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (read here). To some extent, the concerns over Gardasil reflect the wider controversy over vaccine safety, in general.
Merck, however, fueled the debate over HPV vaccination by employing a surreptitious marketing campaign several years ago in which the drugmaker backed Women In Government, a non-profit group of state legislators, in hopes that mandatory vaccination bills for school-age children would be introduced nationwide. The effort backfired, though, and Merck ended its lobbying (back story).
But the issue re-emerged last month, when Texas Governor and Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry said his decision to sign an executive order to create a mandate. The state legislature later overturned the order, but Perry's ties to Merck at the time became campaign fodder. These included Merck donations in the years prior to his order (read here).
The unexpected attention cast a bigger spotlight on the bill in California, where many members of the state senate and assembly who voted to approve the legislation also received money last year from Merck. This group included representative Toni Adkins, who introduced the bill and earlier this summer denied that she ever received money from the drugmaker (see here).
vaccine pic thx to lulu on flickr
17 Comments
Yet Brown bans tanning for minors. Can someone explain the logic? Maybe my premise is wrong. I assume that the law is passed because the CA legislature believes minors over 12 can make an informed decision about vaccination for HPV. If they are that sophisticated, why can't minors make an informed decision about the risks of tanning?
Please someone help me.
xtian, there's a very good reason Jerry Brown is known as "Governor Moonbeam".
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/07/weekinreview/07mckinley.html
Jerry Brown likes to project an image of some big government peoples liberal....yet in reality he is just another corporate owned Governator clone like Arnold...Davis...and the other criminals that proceeded his last reign of futility....when it comes to Governors; California has cornered the booming market on corrupted and criminal politicians...coming soon to a elementary school near you, a new line of Moonbeam products sponsored Merck...
Disagree mainly with this part of what Ms. Piggy's comment: "California has cornered the booming market on corrupted and criminal politicians."
Don't have an answer to suntan question, but it may be true that relatively few people in California think above a 12-year-old level, so, in that context, these are adults.
What I wonder is whether Merck will find ways, probably via social networking (if not already), of marketing to the 12s. Joanie Camel?
I would guess that this fight will now move to the state and federal courts in California, probably in the form of a facial challenge -- and seeking to enjoin the law taking effect.
Pretty likely that one of the interest groups will make an argument that the free exercise clause of the First Amendment, and the parental personal liberty interests (embedded-by-inference) in the Fourteenth Amendment prohibit the state from applying this Gardasil® benefitting measure against parents in California.
We shall see.
Namaste
What is a "facial challenge," Condor?
Gov. Brown is a big disappointment. As a kid I always thought of him as a cool guy who dated Linda Ronstadt. Maybe he’s the Desperado she sang about.
Faith, he's left us all on Blue Bayou.
Hey JiM -- long time no chat!
A "facial challenge" to a law suggests that the law, on its face, is unconstitutional.
These are distguished from "as applied" challenges, where the argument claims that while the law may be constitutional "on its face", it is unclonstitutional, when applied to certain classes of people, or in certain ways.
Here, I think California AB 499 may be suseptible to a facial challenge. That is, it may be said to collide with fundamental privacy and parenting liberties guaranteed by the federal Bill of Rights, as well as the free exercise of ones' religion -- as the same might be taught to ones' children age 12 and over -- by taking the parents out of the vaccination decision loop.
As I say, we will see.
Namaste
I agree OII. I sent Gov. Brown the message, “You’re No Good, You’re No Good,” via moonbeams. He’ll get it eventually
If you guys saw the data from those two vaccines, you would not be saying any of that. HPV can cause cervical , throat, anal, and other cancers. The vaccines are over 95% effective but only if those who have not been exposed to the cancer producing HPV virus types. People, wake up!!!!
As of now, according to the VAERS own data, 103 children have died from the vaccine, and over 23,000 injured. Given that this is only those cases actually documented, it has to be far higher than this and this is for a disease that kills only 3,500 a year and that has already been in decline due to regular pap smears etc.
And who is going to pay for this expensive vaccine, given California's economny and who is responsible when these 12 year olds have side effects from the vaccine and the parents don't even know they had it.
Will Gardasil become the new Vioxx for Merck?
@nelson
Maybe you should come up with some data on the INCIDENCES of this type(s) of cancer and with the REAL prevention rates of these vaccines (active only in rare subtypes of the virus).
Then everone can see: It's triggered by marketing, nothing else.
This "we have to do it, cause WE are right" is so sick. Hope this law is unconstitutional even in the Guantanamo-USA...
keiner-You know, you could come up with data yourself to demonstrate your point.
Richard-Exactly how many children's fatalities are "undocumented" these days, do you suppose?
The Dems and the GOP wholly owed subsidiaries of big pharma.. Perhaps the moonbeam and tea party ticket Brown and Perry at least we know where they stand.
There are a lot of politicians on both sides who no longer reside in the "reality-based world," as the last administration called it. I'm afraid the same can be said for some pharmaceutical blog commenters.
Salient point, It appears as if many pharma companies have sudden amnesia when reporting their AE's. Richard is correct in his statement.