Editorials from around Pennsylvania

Editorials from around Pennsylvania:

___

TIME TO BREXIT: RECLAIM YOURSELF, UK, June 21

Brits head to the polls Thursday to decide whether they “Brexit” the European Union or “Remain” in the dubious amalgam of 28 countries that joined forces in 1993, ostensibly to better their collective lot. We hope the British people save their U.K. from this cascading disaster of collectivism and declare their independence anew.

We’ve never been fans of the EU. This self-destructive mechanism for members’ sovereignty enabled tinhorn bureaucrats to run roughshod over good governance. And what a mess it has been - a “corrupt” institution “so riddled with fraud that the auditors have felt unable to sign off on its accounts for nigh on 20 years,” Sir Bernard Ingham, the former press secretary to Margaret Thatcher, opined last winter.

The EU has “wrecked much of Europe’s economy with its single currency (though the UK maintains its own), keeps “amassing powers at the expense of the member states” and “usurped the authority of those parliaments,” Sir Ingham lamented.

The “Remain” forces, many of them command economists (or worse), have painted a souring economic picture should Brits reclaim their country. Yes, some of the UK’s problems are of its own making. And there will be some transitional pains. But shedding the EU’s overlording shackles will allow Britannia to chart its own course and to grow and to prosper on its own terms. And that’s something that truly free people empower and embrace.

- Pittsburgh Tribune-Review

___

EXPEDITE STRICTER VACCINE RULES, June 21

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 the 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 when 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.

Now the state Department of Health will review both the 270-plus comments and the commission’s review, and respond, probably this fall. And the state legislative health and education committees will conduct their own reviews and revisions.

Okay, 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 that having all school children immunized within a few days of when they enroll in school is in the public interest. A PublicSource analysis of eight years of state vaccination data last August found that 50 of Pennsylvania’s 67 counties not once reached the 95 percent vaccination threshold that confers herd immunity for measles, mumps and rubella in any of those eight years.

The current allowance of eight months to complete immunization exposes all school children to the risk of infection and the possible spread of preventable communicable diseases.

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.

- Pocono Record

___

ANOTHER SETBACK FOR GUN CONTROL, June 22

In Orlando, they continue to bury the dead.

In Washington, they again buried gun control legislation.

No one should be the least bit surprised.

We lost 49 lives when a madman armed with a semi-automatic rifle and handgun invaded the Pulse nightclub.

It was horror, in the flesh.

But it still was not enough to move our elected leaders to take action on reasonable gun control legislation.

Monday night four different measures got voted down in the Senate, for the most part along party lines.

Our Pennsylvania senators, Democrat Bob Casey and Republican Pat Toomey, voted as you might expect - Casey in favor, Toomey opposed.

Toomey, who finds himself increasingly in the spotlight as he faces a tough re-election fight in November in a state that has increasingly tilted Democratic in statewide races, was not surprised at the result.

He believes the measures are flawed and is preparing his own legislation.

The truth is Toomey gets some leeway on the issue of guns. In the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre, he put his backside on the line by reaching across the aisle and joining West Virginia Democrat Sen. Joe Manchin in a proposal to beef up background checks.

It failed. Of course.

It has often been stated that if the nation - or at least Washington, D.C. - was not moved to act after the slaughter of those innocents in a New England classroom, we likely never will.

Spurred by the worst mass shooting in U.S. history, with the echoes of 49 dead and 53 injured in the Pulse nightclub still reverberating across the nation’s conscience,.

Being considered were proposals to ban gun sales to a known or suspected terrorist, a push to close a loophole that skirts background checks on sales at gun shows and expanded background checks.

Toomey joined Republicans in opposition. Who could oppose gun sales to those on a terrorist watch list? Well, Toomey and Republicans instead wanted prosecutors to have to convince a judge within three days that the would-be buyer was in fact involved in terrorism.

Toomey did not try to sugar-coat what was going on. He noted early Monday afternoon that it was unlikely any of the measure would pass.

Prescient guy, this incumbent Pa. senator.

Democrat Bob Casey also reacted as you might expect, with the air of exasperation Democrats always invoke after such a vote.

“Tonight, the Senate defaulted on its basic obligation to keep America safe,” Casey said. “Universal background checks and a ban of those on the terrorist watchlist form buying guns represent the bare minimum steps the Senate should take to address gun violence.”

Toomey insists he has a better idea and will again push his own measure that includes expanded background checks.

The eyes of the nation, still welling with tears after the latest mass carnage, are now locked on Washington, D.C.

That glare is especially bright for Toomey, the first-term Republican who faces a rough race against Democrat Katie McGinty in November.

Toomey is trying to carve out his own common-sense stance on the gun issue, while McGinty and others continue to bash him and other Republicans as self-serving pawns of the National Rifle Association.

Toomey voted in favor of the two Republican measures, and against the two Democratic bills. None of them passed.

He wants to see the bill he carved out with Democrat Manchin brought up for another vote in the Senate.

We’ll see if he can deliver.

As for the rest of the country?

Well, you know the drill.

No one should be surprised that these four proposals all were voted down in the Senate.

That is what we do in this country.

We are horrified at another mass shooting.

We beg for action on guns.

We watch as nothing gets done.

Then we wait for it all to happen again.

Mr. Toomey and his Republican colleagues in the Senate have the power to change that. We will be watching closely to see what happens.

It’s no doubt a tight spot for someone who faces a very tough re-election battle in just a few months.

No one ever said the job was easy.

Neither is the thought of burying more gun victims after another mass shooting in this country.

- Delaware County Daily Times

___

CREATING A GRAY AREA, June 21

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 that 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.

Justice Clarence Thomas said for the court that the officer’s actions were not a flagrant violation of the law. But Justice Sonia Sotomayor said in dissent that the decision is a blow to constitutional rights. “The court today holds that the discovery of a warrant for an unpaid parking ticket will forgive a police officer’s violation of your Fourth Amendment rights,” Sotomayor wrote, joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Justice Elena Kagan filed a separate dissent.

Thomas’ wording that the officer’s actions were not a flagrant violation of the law make it unclear for how large of a violation the police can do and still follow through with a seizing evidence or suspects.

While it’s good that 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.

- (Somerset) Daily American

___

BAN US, YOU BIG BABY, June 17

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.

We believe strongly that all responsible news organizations should have equal inaccess to your campaign.

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.

Nor do we have the readership even of regional publications like the Des Moines Register and the New Hampshire Union Leader.

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.”

That’s exactly how we feel - why won’t you ban us?

We also believe you’re acting like a spoiled-rotten child - the petty poster boy for why we need a strong Fourth Estate. (It’s how the grown-ups sometimes refer to journalists, dating back to . oh, never mind.)

A spoiled, foul-mouthed child, we might add. You’re so quick to insult other members of the media for doing their jobs - “sleaze,” ’’loser,” ’’scum” - yet never once have you singled out The York Dispatch.

Let ’er rip, Mr. Trump. We can take it.

We’ve probably heard worse from others who resent a free press, people who know bigger words and use more syllables.

Now, we understand sitting out your campaign events means we might miss a serious, coherent policy speech. Let’s just say, we like our odds.

The fact is, we caught your act in Harrisburg a month or so back. It was a lot like a Don Rickles bit, if the insult comedian were a little less self-aware.

No, we’re pretty sure we can cover that circus just fine from outside the tent, with the rest of the journalists who refuse to be silenced.

All that said, should you decide to lift your ban and give all members of the media equal access, we would be happy to rescind our request and consider covering a future Trump event in our area.

Unless, of course, it conflicts with the latest Starbucks grand opening, in which case, we’re sure you’ll understand, we would have to weigh the best use of our resources.

Sincerely, and with all the respect you’re due,

The York Dispatch editorial board

- The York Dispatch

___