EDITORIAL

The legislative process can be long and complicated, often leaving the general public perplexed, if not cynical. Reaching agreement on proposed laws often involves compromise and cajoling. Promises are made and favors traded. Many times lawmakers quietly add amendments and special provisions to legislative proposals in the hope that they will become law without much public notice.

But Michigan's U.S. Sen. Debbie Stabenow did notice a provision slipped into the Homeland Security Act when it was approved by Congress late last year, and this week she launched a campaign to strip it from the law.

We hope she succeeds, because the provision to protect vaccine manufacturers - particularly Eli Lilly and Co. - from any lawsuits arising from use of the compound thimerosal has no business being part of the Homeland Security Act.

Thimerosal is a mercury-containing preservative used in some vaccines that is at the heart of a medical and legal controversy over whether it contributes to autism in children. In 1999, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the U.S. Public Health Service issued a joint statement alerting clinicians and the public to thimerosal and the fact that it contains ethyl mercury. Mercury is a toxic metal that can cause immune, sensory, neurological, motor and behavior dysfunctions. Doctors have found that symptoms of mercury toxicity in young children are extremely similar to those of autism.

There is not yet a definitive answer to whether there is a link between thimerosal and autism, but one thing seems clear: The controversy should not be part of the Homeland Security Act. It is an issue that should be decided separately from creation of a new federal department to ensure the safety of U.S. residents from terrorism.

"Instead of just creating a department to protect American families - which it is intended to do - the Homeland Security bill was rewritten to protect the financial interest of an industry that makes higher profits than any other industry in our country," Stabenow said this week in announcing her proposed legislation to strip the provision from the Homeland Security Act. "It certainly appears this special-interest provision was added at the last minute as a payback to a powerful political supporter."

We don't know why the provision was inserted into the bill - Stabenow even had trouble identifying who proposed it - but we do agree with the senator that it has no place in the Homeland Security Act. Guarding our nation against terrorism is an issue that should not be diluted by other concerns.

Originally published Friday, January 10, 2003