It's hard to tell who Nicole Bernier is more outraged at: the drug companies she blames for causing her son's autism or the politicians who shielded them from lawsuits like hers under the guise of homeland defense.

``These companies are going to get away with it,'' Bernier said. ``They've damaged thousands of children, and the government is aiding them in escaping their responsibility.''

The New Bedford mother is one of hundreds of local parents of autistic children suing pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly and Co. and other drug makers over their former use of Thimerosal in childhood vaccines.

Some medical researchers believe the preservative is linked to rising rates of autism. A Lilly spokesman, however, dismissed the alleged connection as mere speculation.

``There's simply no credible scientific link,'' Lilly's Ed Sagebiel said.

Until last month, juries around the country would have decided the matter. But two paragraphs quietly tacked on to the end of the 475-page Homeland Security Act passed by Congress in November changed all that.

Those two paragraphs, tucked into the bill aimed at fighting terrorism, shield vaccine makers from lawsuits seeking billions in damages for the families of autistic children.

The law instead steers thousands of plaintiffs like Bernier to the federal Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, which pays out uncapped awards from a fund replenished annually by the federal government and a 75-cent tax on vaccines.

``It's our tax dollars,'' Bernier scoffed.

She joined one of the class action lawsuits against the vaccine makers a year and a half ago after a Rhode Island law firm contacted her.

Her 6-year-old son, Jevyn Neves, didn't show symptoms of autism until he was 2, which she sees as a sign that vaccines he got around that time caused her son's disease.

On Capitol Hill, U.S. Rep. Barney Frank (D-Newton), who represents New Bedford, blamed the clause protecting drug companies on Republicans who pushed the Homeland Security Act.

``At the very least, Congress has to amend the law and take that out,'' Frank said yesterday.

U.S. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) blasted the clause on the floor of the Senate.

``This provision has nothing to do with bioterrorism preparedness or homeland security and everything to do with rewarding a large contributor to the Republican Party,'' he charged.

Sagebiel, the Lilly spokesman, said his company had nothing to do with inserting the clause into the security law.

But, he added, the provision simply closes a loophole that has been exploited by trial lawyers angling for a big payday.

``It's not just bad for us, but it's bad for the families of autistic children who pin their hopes on these inappropriate lawsuits,'' he said.

Bernier said she was counting on a big jury award or settlement to ensure her son will always get the best care possible.

Bernier has nothing but scorn for the politicians who voted for the Homeland Security Act, although she concedes many probably didn't know about the provision protecting drug makers.

``I'm outraged at them,'' she said. ``If it were their children, it wouldn't have happened.''