Mandatory “cancer” vaccine misleading

Finding a cure for cancer is the archetypal vision of idealistic children and the lifelong challenge of medical scientists.

So when drug-maker Merck & Co. touts the world’s first cancer vaccine and state governments jump at the chance to make it mandatory, what could explain the ensuing opposition and controversy?

Simple. The debate is rife with sex, drugs and money.

Gov. Strickland on abortion, Iraq refugees

New Ohio Governor Ted Strickland is still acting like a Congressman, focusing too much on polarizing policy making.

Last week, Strickland asked for his name to be removed from an appeal to a federal court defending an abortion law passed by Ohio legislators in 2004.

A federal district court in September ruled the law, which makes it illegal for a doctor to prescribe the abortion pill known as RU-486 after the seventh week of pregnancy, unconstitutional. Judge Susan Dlott called it confusing and warned doctors could not be expected to understand its requirements.

The state’s previous Republican administration, led by Gov. Bob Taft and Attorney General Jim Petro appealed the decision, beginning the process before Strickland took office in January.

The new governor, a pro-choice Democrat, said he does not want the lower court’s decision overturned.

Had he been governor at the time of the bill’s passage, he may never have even signed it into law or supported an appeal to the lower court’s ruling.

The pro-choice camp could argue Ohio voters gave a resounding mandate for change in November, nearly sweeping Republicans out of the executive offices, and that Gov. Strickland’s position represents the will of the people.

So does the law passed in 2004.