A major pharmaceutical company lobbies to require that children be given a vaccine. Parents should be made aware of any problems resulting from the vaccine, right? Not according to a recent Washington Post article.

Rob Stein’s March 26 article about the Gardasil vaccine debate failed to include any references to the several documented cases of health problems and even death that resulted from the vaccinations. His two-page article highlighted the tone of the Gardasil debate, reflecting the impact on young girls’ sex lives and the potential use for a male vaccine. But Stein barely touched on the concerns of critics that the vaccine actually caused health issues for young women.

The Gardasil vaccine is a series of three shots offered to young women to significantly lower their risk of contracting the Human Papillomavirus (HPV), which can cause cervical cancer. Stein noted that “Critics worried that vaccinating children would send a subtle signal that their parents assumed they would become sexually active and that it would give youngsters a false sense of security.” True enough, but critics are also worried that this miracle vaccine may come with its own set of problems.

The Washington Post covered President Obama’s decision to allow federal subsidies for embryo-destroying stem cell research with the gloss of Science triumphing over politics. The headline on page A-2 was "Obama Aims to Shield Science From Politics: Memo to Accompany Stem Cell Action." Or does Obama aim to shield science from ethics, or shield science from debate? The Post certainly did, quoting no opponent of Obama's "science" agenda or embryo-destroying research. In paragraph eight, reporter Rob Stein made a quick reference to opposition:

But the research is highly controversial because the cells are obtained by destroying embryos, which some consider to be immoral. On Friday, officials confirmed that Obama would fulfill a longtime promise to lift those restrictions today, thrilling supporters but stirring intense criticism from opponents, who argue that there are alternative approaches free from ethical concerns.

The story carried two quotes from White House aide Melody Barnes and three from Harold Varmus, an Obama science advisor. Liberals five, conservatives zero. The official Obama view dominated, including the first paragraph:

In a below-the-fold August 22 front page story, the Washington Post cast a "controversial" new federal regulation aimed at safeguarding the consciences of medical professionals as pitting "conservative groups" and "abortion opponents" against "[w]omen's health advocates."

Right off the bat Post staffer Rob Stein skewed his article -- "Protections Set for Antiabortion Health Workers: Opponents Denounce Proposed Regulation Allowing Federal Officials to Pull Funding" -- leftward:

The Bush administration yesterday announced plans to implement a controversial regulation designed to protect doctors, nurses and other health-care workers who object to abortion from being forced to deliver services that violate their personal beliefs.

[...]

On the one hand, I have to give the Washington Post some credit for its biased June 16 story about a new pro-life pharmacy set to open in northern Virginia this summer. Even with its less-than-fair treatment, it informs pro-life readers of a new pharmacy they may wish to patronize. Of course the store opening is worthy of news coverage for a number of reasons, such as the intersection of faith and professional ethics in health care, but unfortunately, staffer Rob Stein started right off the bat slanting coverage in a way to disparage the enterprise.

Take, for example, Stein's lead paragraph in "'Pro-Life' Drugstores Market Beliefs: No Contraceptives for Chantilly Shop.":

When DMC Pharmacy opens this summer on Route 50 in Chantilly, the shelves will be stocked with allergy remedies, pain relievers, antiseptic ointments and almost everything else sold in any drugstore. But anyone who wants condoms, birth control pills or the Plan B emergency contraceptive will be turned away.