Stuff YOU Should Know
Washington State Battles Measles Outbreak
While most Americans receive vaccinations against measles and other potentially deadly diseases while they are still babies, there are some families who choose not to participate in this program. As a result, there is currently a severe outbreak of measles–a disease which was once officially declared to no longer be a major public health threat–in Washington state. Last week, the number of people affected there so far this year reached fifty, and the state declared an emergency. Forty-nine of these cases were in Clark County, Washington, alone, most of them in children under the age of ten. (Nationwide, 79 measles cases have been reported since January 1.) Luckily, no deaths have been reported yet from the outbreak.
So why there? Not surprisingly, Clark County has one of the lowest vaccination rates in the country: about 78 percent. Disease experts generally consider that the minimum rate of vaccination to prevent an outbreak of measles, which is extremely contagious, is 93 percent or higher. Despite the fact that measles can lead to brain damage, deafness, or even death, all states allow parents to skip vaccinating their children for medical reasons, and most allow it for religious reasons as well. Seventeen states even allow parents to avoid vaccinating their children for personal or philosophical reasons. This has led many medical experts to express concern that decades of progress are being reversed. They worry that, as more people choose not to vaccinate their children, dangerous outbreaks of contagious diseases like the one Washington state could become the new normal.
What Do You Think? Do you think parents should be required to vaccinate their children, even if they have personal or religious opposition to it? Why or why not? Please remember to be sensitive to other points of view when stating your opinion.
Nuclear Treaty In Danger
As the relationship between the United States and Russia continue to worsen, the president announced on February 1 that the U.S. would be pulling out of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. The White House’s plan is to suspend participation in the treaty for 180 days, and then to withdraw if no satisfactory agreement can be reached. Russian president Vladimir Putin responded by pulling Russia out of the agreement as well.
How big a deal is this? The IRNF Treaty was signed in 1987 by the U.S. and the U.S.S.R., and required the destruction of all short-, medium-, and intermediate-range missiles (a range of 310 to 3,410 miles). At the same time, the SALT treaty (Strategic Arms Limitations Talk/Treaty) addressed the elimination of long-range missiles. The goal of both treaties was to reduce the production and proliferation of nuclear weapons, in order to create a safer global environment. However, since then, both nations have accused the other of violating the terms of the agreement by continuing to develop and test banned missiles. The White House has also complained that because the U.S. is bound by the treaty, but China is not, the U.S. is placed at a disadvantage when trying to contain aggressive efforts by China.
Now free from the terms of the IRNF Treaty, Russia announced that it plans to begin working on a long-range hypersonic missile that would travel at least five times faster than the speed of sound. The Russian Defense Minister says this missile should be ready by 2021. Many worry that the breakdown of this agreement between the U.S. and Russia will open the door to another nuclear-arms race.
Dig Deeper What year was SALT? Is this treaty still in effect? In your opinion, how does it impact the potential for another nuclear arms race between Russia and the United States?
Second North Korea Summit Scheduled
During last Tuesday night’s State of the Union Address, Trump announced that he will hold a second nuclear summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un in Vietnam at the end of February. This will be a follow-up to the initial summit that took place in Singapore in June, where it was agreed that the United States would normalize relations with North Korea if North Korea would denuclearize the Korean peninsula. But that hasn’t happened yet. Part of the problem is that the initial June agreement didn’t really include a specific timeline for North Korea to dismantle its nuclear program, or establish a firm definition of what denuclearization really means. Plus, both countries want the other to be the one to make the first move.
Trump has continually insisted that he is on good terms with the North Korean leader and that the June agreement is just the first step toward a lasting peace between the two countries. But experts are concerned that the summit is unlikely to be effective in the long run. In the past, U.S. presidents have struck deals that have managed to pause North Korea’s nuclear program for a while, only to have it start back up again and continue growing. It is questionable whether or not North Korea will follow through with its promises this time around. Critics also took issue with the fact that, during the State of the Union Address, Trump claimed that if he hadn’t been elected president, the U.S. would currently be in a major war with North Korea–a largely unfounded claim.
What Do You Think? Based on what you’ve read about North Korea, do you think that Trump’s agreement and new summit with Kim Jong Un will be a success? Why or why not?
California Attorney General Threatens Lawsuit
This Friday, February 15th, the United States faces yet another federal government shutdown if Trump and congressional Democrats can’t reach a decision about funding for border control. In short, in January, the president demanded $5.7 billion to build a wall along the U.S. southern border. But Congressional Democrats rejected this spending bill, which then led to the standoff that shut down the government for 34 days, the longest federal government shutdown in the nation’s history. The government was reopened temporarily, to give the president and lawmakers time to reach a compromise. But on February 15, that grace period runs out, with neither side ready to blink.
With another shutdown looming, Trump is still insisting on the wall, and has proposed a way to fund it that goes around the Democrats: by declaring a national emergency. This will allow him to immediately access the funding he needs without having to pass a spending bill in Congress. The problem? There is, according to most observers, no actual emergency. As a result, it is possible that the plan could be voted down in Congress, or challenged in the federal courts.
California Attorney General Xavier Becerra has already promised that he will sue the Trump administration if the president attempts this plan. Becerra argues that the threat to use emergency funds to build the wall is both immoral and illegal, because it takes money away from real emergencies, such as wildfires and floods.
Becerra is no stranger to suing the White House; since January 2017, he has sued the Trump administration 45 times on behalf of the state of California. Becerra, who is California’s first Latino attorney general, also delivered the Spanish-language response to Trump’s State of the Union Address last week.