Editorial voices from across Pennsylvania
Editorial voices from across Pennsylvania as compiled by the Associated Press:
State health and education officials are right to tighten rules on vaccine requirements for public school children. Here’s the question, though. Why is the process taking so long?
Recently, the state Independent Regulatory Review Commission finished reviewing more than 270 comments the public and interested parties made on the proposal – dating from last year – which would reduce the state’s provisional period from eight months to five days. The provisional period is the time during which children who’ve not yet gotten all of their shots can get up to date. It would also add the pertussis (whooping cough) vaccine to the required list, along with a second dose of the meningococcal vaccine before 12th grade.
OK, maybe this lengthy process is essential to determining the proposed new rules’ economic effect and how reasonable and workable they are. But there should be no doubt having all school children immunized within a few days of when they enroll in school is in the public interest.
Vaccines protect the health of both these school children and everyone around them. Conversely, kids who don’t get vaccinated are not only susceptible themselves to illness, they can spread it to others. The tighter proposals are appropriate and will afford better protection for students and all Pennsylvanians. If there’s a way to speed up this process, concerned parents, school administrators and teachers, and state officials should pursue it.
Dear Donald Trump,
We have been aware for some time of your tendency to ban from campaign events representatives of certain news organizations with which you disagree.
With the recent addition of The Washington Post to your growing blacklist, however, we can longer remain silent.
It is simply unacceptable for a candidate seeking the highest office in the land – the most important leadership job in the world, if you will – to be playing favorites with the media.
You, sir, are doing us a great disservice by not including The York Dispatch among those organizations unwelcome at your events.
No, the Dispatch does not have the reach of The Washington Post, The New York Times, Politico, BuzzFeed and The Huffington Post.
The Dispatch might be small by comparison, but our commitment to asking tough questions, pointing out inconsistencies, flagging outright lies, simply holding candidates accountable for their words and actions is second to none.
We happen to agree with Thomas Burr, the National Press Club president who had this to say after your 45-minute tirade against journalists who had the gall to question your charitable giving to veterans organizations – giving that didn’t begin in earnest until questions were asked:
“Donald Trump misunderstands – or, more likely, simply opposes – the role a free press plays in a democratic society. Reporters are supposed to hold public figures accountable. Any American political candidate who attacks the press for doing its job is campaigning in the wrong country. In the United States, under our Constitution, a free press is a check on politicians of all parties.”
In trying to protect citizens, a new Supreme Court ruling may create gray areas with a police officer’s ability to stop people.
The Supreme Court ruled Monday evidence of a crime may be used against a defendant even if the police did something wrong or illegal in obtaining it.
The justices voted 5-3 to reinstate the drug-related convictions of a Utah man. The ruling comes in a case in which a police detective illegally stopped defendant Joseph Edward Strieff on the streets of South Salt Lake City, Utah. A name check revealed an outstanding warrant for Strieff. Strieff was placed under arrest and searched. He was carrying methamphetamine.
While it’s good people will now be arrested for more illegal activities, it’s important to maintain everyone’s rights regarding illegal searches as part of the Fourth Amendment.