Michele Bachman’s Connection To The Company That Makes Gardasil’s Only Competitor

Is there another explanation for Michele Bachmann's decision to keep bringing Rick Perry's HPV vaccine order up?

Despite the fact that there’s clear evidence that it’s hurting her, Michele Bachmann is continuing to hammer down on Gardasil issue. The latest example comes in a campaign video released yesterday in which she dubs Perry’s 2007 Executive Order on the matter “Perrycare”:

GOP presidential hopeful Michele Bachmann released a new video today vowing to fight what she calls the abuse of executive power, as she steps up her attack of Texas Gov. Rick Perry for requiring girls to be vaccinated against HPV.

Bachmann says she’ll fight “Perrycare,” as she likens her rival’s executive order on HPV to President Obama’s health care law.

“I oppose anyone who mandates a family’s health care choices and violates the rights of parents, especially if the decision-making process occurs behind closed doors, bypassing legislative action and favoring campaign contributors over the rights of families,” the Minnesota congresswoman said.

Here’s the video:

Then, last night in an appearance on The Tonight Show, Bachmann came up with another reason to oppose a vaccine that could prevent thousands of cases of cervical cancer:

Pressed on her opposition to a vaccination aimed at preventing cervical cancer, the congresswoman offered a new reason for her stand: “It gives a false sense of assurance to a young woman when she has that, that if she’s sexually active that she doesn’t have to worry about sexually transmitted diseases.”

This isn’t new, actually. It was the main argument cited by social conservatives in Texas and nationwide who opposed Perry’s Executive Order, but who also seem to oppose the very idea of the HPV vaccine itself, despite the fact that it’s well-established that not getting the vaccine at the age of 12-13 means that it will be far less effective, and possibly not effective at all, if given later in life. They are perfectly fine, in other words, with exposing women to the danger of cancer if it means it’s less likely they’ll have sex. Of course, reality is that they’ll likely have sex anyway, but these are the same people who think that not teaching teenagers about contraceptives is the best way to protect them from the consequences of casual sex.

The story gets more interesting, though, and takes a turn that makes you wonder if this is really all about pre-marital sex and PerryCare. Over at Hot Air, Ed Morrissey notes that, since 1993, the State of Minnesota has required all 12 month-old babies to receive the vaccine for Hepatitis B, a disease spread primarily through IV drug use and sexual contact. Bachmann served in the Minnesota legislature from 2001 to 2006, and she’s raised five children in the state all of which would have received the Hepatitis B vaccine at 12 months. There is absolutely no record of Bachmann speaking out against this vaccine, or seeking to have the law changed to add an opt-out provision. And yet, here she is now apparently making Gardasil a central part of her argument against Rick Perry.

One way to explain the apparent hypocrisy is pure political opportunism, but there’s one stubborn fact out there…….

Bryan Preston at The PJ Tatler, uncovers something very interesting about Bachmann, and her connections to a company that makes the other FDA-approved HPV vaccine:

And then there’s the crony capitalist problem. Bachmann has taken a lot of money from pharma companies. One company stands out.

Meanwhile, Bachman has taken somewhere north of $140,000 from pharmaceutical companies. Those donors include Abbott Labs, Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Eli Lilly and Bayer. Yet, not a dollar of all that pharma money, from such a wide range of the world’s largest drugmakers, came from Merck. Might Bachmann be going after Merck on behalf of that company’s competitors who also happen to be Bachmann donors?

Why bold GlaxoSmithKline? Because they make the only other viable HPV vaccine on the market, Cervarix.

If it’s fair to levy the “crony capitalism” charge at Perry, then it’s fair to levy the exact same charge at Bachmann, especially after her attacks on Perry.

Well, isn’t that interesting. The company that makes the only competitor to Gardasil happens to be a major Bachmann donor? Pure coincidence, I’m sure.

FILED UNDER: Campaign 2012, US Politics, ,
Doug Mataconis
About Doug Mataconis
Doug holds a B.A. in Political Science from Rutgers University and J.D. from George Mason University School of Law. He joined the staff of OTB in May 2010 and contributed a staggering 16,483 posts before his retirement in January 2020.

Comments

  1. michael reynolds says:

    “It gives a false sense of assurance to a young woman when she has that, that if she’s sexually active that she doesn’t have to worry about sexually transmitted diseases.”

    I love this logic. The polio vaccine does much the same thing: it gives me the feeling that I can, you know, walk around in a public place, a restaurant or a school or whatever without catching polio. Clearly a moral hazard issue.

  2. Polaris says:

    I said it before but it’s worth saying again, “Hypocrit, thy name is Bachman.”

    -Polaris

  3. anjin-san says:

    I said it before but it’s worth saying again, “Hypocrit, thy name is Bachman.”

    RIght. And when Perry begs for federal dollars out of one side of his mouth while constantly attacking the federal government out of the other, well, that is being a stand up guy, conservative style…

  4. Polaris says:

    @anjin-san:

    RIght. And when Perry begs for federal dollars out of one side of his mouth while constantly attacking the federal government out of the other, well, that is being a stand up guy, conservative style…

    Seems to me that when you are elected governor of a state, you have a responisibility to act in the best interests of the people of that state whether you think the overall policy is good or not. Getting extra money was good for the People of Texas and Perry would have been irresponsible not to get it when available. That doesn’t mean he agrees with the policy that made it available. We all do that everyday in our own lives too.

    -Polaris

  5. c.red says:

    Seems to me that when you are elected governor of a state, you have a responisibility to act in the best interests of the people of that state whether you think the overall policy is good or not.

    Doesn’t that imply that his prefered policies are not in the best interest of his state?

  6. michael reynolds says:

    We all do that everyday in our own lives too.

    No, we kind of don’t. This will sound crazy but I actually try to match my theories and beliefs to my actions. For example, I don’t just say “Murder is wrong,” I actually try to avoid murdering people.

  7. anjin-san says:

    Doesn’t that imply that his prefered policies are not in the best interest of his state?

    And here we have the disconnect that is at the heart of tea party politics. After we “starve the beast”, where is the money that Texas, or any other state needs beyond their own revenues going to come from? Will Perry cut the other 60% of funding for volunteer firefighters? Will we leave our cities in rubble after a disaster strikes? That’s what they do in the third world. Will we just step over the corpses that will start to appear in the streets?

  8. anjin-san says:

    the best interests of the people

    Seems then like the “best interest of the people” is to have a government with adequate revenue. If your believe “taxation is theft”, how exactly do you do that?

  9. Trumwill says:

    Calling someone a hypocrite taking advantage of services that they do not believe should be available is not much different than calling a hypocrite someone who believes taxes should be higher failing to pay taxes at the higher rate that they think taxes should be.

    It is not incumbent upon those that oppose a policy to decline to take advantage of it if it is passed despite their preferences.

  10. MarkedMan says:

    @Trumwill: Trumwill you are not getting the point. Perry isnt saying that the money would be good but the Feds shouldn’t be offering it. He’s saying the money is actually harmful. That’s why he’s full of BS when he takes it.

  11. MarkedMan says:

    Another thing that bothers me about the whole Gardisil thing is this idea that it is a good thing to remain a virgin until you have made a life long commitment to someone (who is presumably also a virgin or the concept of disease prevention through abstinence makes sense). IMO this is a very stupid way to behave and no doubt contributes to the miserable marriages and astronomical divorce rates in the bible belt.

  12. michael reynolds says:

    It is not incumbent upon those that oppose a policy to decline to take advantage of it if it is passed despite their preferences.

    If I posit that heroin is bad for you but take it anyway because someone offered it to me, yes that’s hypocrisy.

    If I say it’s wrong to take money that doesn’t belong to me, but I find a sack of money on the street and make no attempt to find the owner but keep it for myself, that’s hypocrisy.

    Conservatives hold that money from government isn’t just an unfair taking. They claim it creates dependency, they claim it creates moral hazard, they claim it undermines society. So the excuse of, “Well, there was the money in a sack. . .” rings false.

    Red states generally are on the receiving end of taxpayer largesse. So it’s not even that they are getting their own money back. They’re taking my largesse while simultaneously denouncing me. That is hypocrisy, not to mention ingratitude.

    But then almost nothing conservatives have to say makes sense anymore. So what else is new?

  13. rodney dill says:

    @michael reynolds:

    I actually try to avoid murdering people.

    Hmmm… Somehow that doesn’t sound like you’ve always succeeded.

  14. Texas says:

    @c.red:
    The preferred policy is the federal goverenment get their addiction to our money under control. If the states had access to just a portion of what the federal government takes from us we wouldn’t need to ask for our money back in times of crisis.

  15. michael reynolds says:

    @rodney dill:
    Hey, nobody’s perfect. Right? Right?

  16. michael reynolds says:

    @Texas:
    It’s very funny that you think Austin would do a better job than Washington. Have you looked at Texas lately? You’re winning a race to the bottom in health care and education. Not to mention having a justice system that would embarrass any first world nation.

    When the country loses jobs, it’s not surprising that more people fall into poverty. But when Texas adds jobs, more people fall into poverty, too.
    Last week, new census data showed that the poverty rate climbed 6 percent nationwide in 2010. In Texas, it rose almost 9 percent, even though the state has consistently led the nation in job growth.
    Texas entered the recession later than most states, but the poverty increase is not just a short-term blip. Go back a full decade, and both the nation and Texas show a similar rise in the percentage of people below the poverty line, despite the fact that Texas was adding jobs while the United States was hemorrhaging them.

    It’s not every state that can add jobs and poverty simultaneously.

  17. anjin-san says:

    The preferred policy is the federal goverenment get their addiction to our money under control

    Are you working on getting your addiction to things like national security, highways, and untainted meat under control?

  18. @michael reynolds:

    On the other hand, I’m with a group of coworkers trying to decide where to go for lunch and say “I don’t want to go to TacoBell” and we end up going to Taco Bell anyways, is it hiprocrisy for me to actually eat something rather than just sitting there and glaring at them for the whole meal?

  19. michael reynolds says:

    @Stormy Dragon:
    That falls under the special Taco Bell Exception. No one wants to eat at Taco Bell. And yet, they stay in business, don’t they?

  20. matt says:

    @Texas: Texas gets back about the same amount it gives.. With the way the economy is and all the fires going on I wouldn’t be too surprised if Texas got back more then it paid this year.

  21. samwide says:

    @Texas:

    If the states had access to just a portion of what the federal government takes from us we wouldn’t need to ask for our money back in times of crisis.

    The states in Peckerwoodiana are net importers of federal dollars.

  22. Jenny Hatch says:

    I put together seven videos on my blog mostly produced by Family Members detailing the DEATHS around the Gardasil Vaccine. http://jennyhatch.com/2011/09/13/gardasil-if-a-picture-is-worth-a-thousand-words-then-a-video-report/

    I also wrote an article for Blogging Mothers Magazine that details the many attempts made on my life as a Blogging Mother who began warning families about the Gardasil Vaccine before it even hit the market. I believe I have been protected by God these past few years as those tied to the Pharma Companies have attempted to silence my voice: http://bloggingmothersmagazine.com/2011/08/31/american-style-terrorism/

    Jenny Hatch
    http://WWW.JennyHatch.com

  23. victoria_29 says:

    What part of OPT OUT are people too dumb to get? Gov Perry said he should have done it different, must be wonderful to be y’all & never have made a mistake. Geez & silly me I thought only Jesus was perfect.