By ANNE GEARAN
.c The Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) - A Marine court-martialed for refusing to
take the mandatory anthrax vaccine lost a Supreme Court appeal Monday.
The high court, without comment, turned down the Marine’s
claim that the military prosecution violated his constitutional rights.
Lance Cpl. Matthew D. Perry challenged a pretrial ruling
that the order requiring him to take the anthrax vaccination was lawful.
By deciding that question ahead of trial, the military judge violated Perry’s Fifth Amendment right to proper access to the legal system and his Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial, his lawyers argued. DEBD>
A military court should have been allowed to decide at
trial whether the order was lawful or not, Perry’s lawyers argued. There was
never any dispute that Perry refused to submit to the vaccination, so the
question was crucial to his defense.
“The trial judge has barred even a hint of a rebuttal to
the legality of the order because she has declared the order lawful and will
exclude any evidence to the contrary as a result,” Perry’s lawyers wrote.
Perry was convicted last month at Camp Pendleton in
California.
The Pentagon ordered all 2.4 million active duty and
reserve troops to undergo a six-shot anthrax vaccination regimen as protection
against biological warfare. More than 400,000 service members have been
vaccinated since the program began in 1998.
Anthrax is a naturally occurring virus that typically
affects sheep and cattle. Dry anthrax spores, when inhaled, can be deadly to
humans. The Pentagon claims anthrax exposure is 99 percent lethal.
A small group of service members claim the shots are not
safe and have refused to undergo them. Those who refuse are first counseled by
a superior. Continued refusal is
treated as insubordination.
An unknown number of reservists have also quit rather than
get the shots.
The Pentagon has always said the vaccination is safe,
although serious side effects happen about once per 200,000 doses. Severe
allergic reactions occur less than once per 100,000 doses, the Pentagon says.
Facing a shortage of the vaccine, the Pentagon scaled back
its vaccination program last summer and now requires it only for troops headed
for the Persian Gulf region. The wider vaccination program will resume when
more vaccine is available, Pentagon officials say.
Perry was charged with disobeying his superior officer and
disobeying the Pentagon’s general order to be vaccinated. He claims the vaccine
should be considered unproved or experimental and that service members should
have the right to refuse it.
Perry is at least the fourth service member to challenge
the legality of the Pentagon’s order for universal anthrax vaccination, one of
his lawyers said. The other cases have
also resulted in court-martial and conviction.
The case is In Re Perry, 00-1290.
On the Net:
Pentagon anthrax program: http://www.anthrax.osd.mil
<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=170603.1361494.2950176.2/D=egroupmail/S=1700126171:N/
A=613928/?http://www.newaydirect.com>www.newaydirect.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>Yahoo!
Terms of Service. Marine Loses
Vaccine Appeal
By ANNE GEARAN
.c The Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) - A Marine court-martialed for refusing to
take the mandatory anthrax vaccine lost a Supreme Court appeal Monday.
The high court, without comment, turned down the Marine’s
claim that the military prosecution violated his constitutional rights.
Lance Cpl. Matthew D. Perry challenged a pretrial ruling
that the order requiring him to take the anthrax vaccination was lawful.
By deciding that question ahead of trial, the military
judge violated Perry’s Fifth Amendment right to proper access to the legal
system and his Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial, his lawyers argued.
A military court should have been allowed to decide at
trial whether the order was lawful or not, Perry’s lawyers argued. There was
never any dispute that Perry refused to submit to the vaccination, so the
question was crucial to his defense.
“The trial judge has barred even a hint of a rebuttal to
the legality of the order because she has declared the order lawful and will
exclude any evidence to the contrary as a result,” Perry’s lawyers wrote.
Perry was convicted last month at Camp Pendleton in
California.
The Pentagon ordered all 2.4 million active duty and
reserve troops to undergo a six-shot anthrax vaccination regimen as protection
against biological warfare. More than 400,000 service members have been
vaccinated since the program began in 1998.
Anthrax is a naturally occurring virus that typically
affects sheep and cattle. Dry anthrax spores, when inhaled, can be deadly to
humans. The Pentagon claims anthrax exposure is 99 percent lethal.
A small group of service members claim the shots are not
safe and have refused to undergo them. Those who refuse are first counseled by
a superior. Continued refusal is
treated as insubordination.
An unknown number of reservists have also quit rather than
get the shots.
The Pentagon has always said the vaccination is safe,
although serious side effects happen about once per 200,000 doses. Severe
allergic reactions occur less than once per 100,000 doses, the Pentagon says.
Facing a shortage of the vaccine, the Pentagon scaled back
its vaccination program last summer and now requires it only for troops headed
for the Persian Gulf region. The wider vaccination program will resume when
more vaccine is available, Pentagon officials say.
Perry was charged with disobeying his superior officer and
disobeying the Pentagon’s general order to be vaccinated. He claims the vaccine
should be considered unproved or experimental and that service members should
have the right to refuse it.
Perry is at least the fourth service member to challenge
the legality of the Pentagon’s order for universal anthrax vaccination, one of
his lawyers said. The other cases have
also resulted in court-martial and conviction.
The case is In Re Perry, 00-1290.
On the Net:
Pentagon anthrax program: http://www.anthrax.osd.mil
AP-NY-03-19-01 1113EST
ALL
INFORMATION, DATA, AND MATERIAL CONTAINED, PRESENTED, OR PROVIDED HERE IS FOR
GENERAL INFORMATION PURPOSES ONLY AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS REFLECTING THE
KNOWLEDGE OR OPINIONS OF THE PUBLISHER, AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED OR INTENDED
AS PROVIDING MEDICAL OR LEGAL ADVICE. THE DECISION WHETHER OR NOT TO
VACCINATE IS AN IMPORTANT AND COMPLEX ISSUE AND SHOULD BE MADE BY YOU, AND YOU
ALONE, IN CONSULTATION WITH YOUR HEALTH CARE PROVIDER.