Thank God our leaders in Congress were able to see the threat to our security and safety posed by parents of autistic children.

Thank God our leaders in Congress tried to act decisively to keep us safe from parents of autistic children.

Whew.

That was a close one.

We can now feel safe from the threat of parents of autistic children because as we all know — without getting into stereotyping here — parents of autistic children are the real threats to our well being and safety as a nation, and a world, for that matter.

Of course, not all parents of autistic children are working to destroy our way of life, and life on this planet in general. No, some parents of autistic children are fine, upstanding Americans, patriotic Americans who are just as concerned as anybody about the threat to our national security posed by other parents of autistic children.

What?

You didn’t know of the terrible, terrible threat parents of autistic children pose to our national security?

That’s why you’re sitting there in your pajamas reading this and not striding through the halls of power in your pajamas right now.

Our members of Congress, in their deep and infinite wisdom, clearly saw the threat of the parents of autistic children and acted accordingly. They made sure that, when they voted to approve the creation of the new Department of Homeland Security, they’d take care of those parents of autistic children.

What they did is slip an amendment into the bill to create the department that would, essentially, forbid parents of autistic children from suing pharmaceutical companies.

OK, it was a little more specific than that. According to The Washington Post, the amendment forbids parents from suing the manufacturer of a vaccine that contained a mercury-based preservative that some believe may cause autism.

OK, it was a little more specific than that. The amendment, backed by President Dubya, expanded liability protection for vaccines to ingredients of vaccines, language specifically targeted at helping Eli Lilly and Co., which is being sued by parents of autistic children for its manufacture and sale of a preservative called Thimerosal.

That’s how it works. The law doesn’t say, “And the U.S. government gives Eli Lilly a break.” But since no other drug companies are being sued for their use of vaccine ingredients, it’s apparent that it is intended to help Eli Lilly.

You’re probably thinking, what does that have to do with protecting the nation from insane people who believe their path to heaven is paved with blood and fire?

That just shows what you know.

It’s vitally important to national security that parents of autistic children not be allowed to sue a huge pharmaceutical company because . . . because . . . well, just because.

Republican lawmakers made some lame excuse that pharmaceutical companies that make vaccines that could be used in the event of biological attacks shouldn’t have to worry about being saddled by lengthy and costly lawsuits just because they manufactured a product that may have caused life-changing health problems for some children.

Not all Republicans think that way. Our own U.S. Rep. Todd Platts, R-York County, voted for the bill but only because his only other choice was to vote against the whole Homeland Security bill. He said he didn’t like that the bill granted immunity to pharmaceutical companies or that it permitted the government to contract with companies that moved their headquarters to Bermuda to avoid paying taxes or that it specified locating the Homeland Security Research Center at Texas A&M. He said he believes Congress will go back in January and take that stuff out.

At least that’s the promise the leadership has given.

But given their record for honesty, can you believe them?

Let’s look at the Texas A&M thing. The bill never mentioned Texas A&M. It just listed 15 criteria for the research center that, put together, meant Texas A&M was the only place in the nation suitable for such an august endeavor. It’s not clear whether one requirement was for the school to be nicknamed “Aggies.”

With Eli Lilly, the congressional and presidential intent seemed to be that Eli Lilly would be so tied up with litigation that it couldn’t possibly have the time and energy to make vaccines to protect against attacks that haven’t occurred and may never occur.

Poor Eli Lilly.

Good thing it got this break so we can all feel safer.

And it’s also a good thing that, between 1997 and 2000, Eli Lilly made $18.4 million in campaign contributions, mostly to Republicans. By giving that money to our lawmakers, Lilly was able to ensure our safety and security by getting Congress to exempt it from lawsuits from parents of autistic children.

You know, they said everything had changed after Sept. 11, 2001.

Well, at least one thing hasn’t changed.

We still have the best government money can buy.

Mike Argento, whose column appears Mondays and Thursdays in the Living section and Saturdays on the editorial page, can be reached at 771-2046 or at mike@ydr.com.