The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. I`m Jim Lehrer.

On the NewsHour tonight: the news of this Tuesday; then, a look at why the stock market had such a bad, bad day; the latest on Iraq and Afghanistan developments, on the ground and in Washington; an update on the campaign to require the cervical cancer vaccine; Supreme Court arguments on special education for children and high-speed police chases, as reported by Marcia Coyle of the National Law Journal; and a conversation with a Somali author on his war- ravaged country.

(BREAK)

JIM LEHRER: This was a tough day on Wall Street and on markets around the world. It started after Chinese stocks plunged 9 percent overnight, and U.S. economic data came in weaker than expected.

At one point, the Dow Jones Industrial Average was off nearly 550 points. It finished with a loss of 416 points to close at 12,216, down more than 3 percent. The Nasdaq fell 96 points, or 4 percent, to close below 2,408.

Today`s losses wiped out all of the gains for the year. We`ll have more on this story right after the news summary.

The United States will join Iraq in a new initiative aimed at Iran and Syria. Secretary of State Rice announced today Iraq invited those countries to a "neighbors meeting" with U.S. support. Spokesman Sean McCormack said it does not mean the U.S. plans direct talks with Iran and Syria.

SEAN MCCORMACK, State Department Spokesman: We think it is important to attend that meeting, to demonstrate, first of all, our support for Iraq on all the variety of issues that they are going to bring up, economic, security, political, diplomatic, and use that also as a way to encourage Iraq`s neighbors to play as positive a role as they possibly can. It`s a discussion; it`s not a negotiation.

JIM LEHRER: In another development, Senate leaders agreed today not to deal with Iraq in a bill on homeland security. The measure is designed to improve security on railroads and airlines. Majority Leader Reid said relatives of the 9/11 victims asked for quick action without getting bogged down on Iraq funding amendments. We`ll have more on Iraq and U.S. policy right after this news summary.

In Iraq today, the U.S. military announced four American soldiers were killed in separate attacks south of Baghdad. And Iraqi television said a car bomb in Ramadi killed at least 18 Iraqi boys at a soccer park. The boys were 10 to 15 years old.

Elsewhere, at least 20 Iraqis died in attacks around Baghdad and other cities. Dozens more were wounded.

U.S. and Iraqi forces launched raids on Shiite gang leaders in Baghdad today. It was the latest move in a security crackdown that began two weeks ago. The focus was on the Sadr City district, a stronghold for militant Shiites. Up to now, the Iraqi government opposed large-scale U.S. patrols there.

The number-two U.S. commander in Iraq, Army Lieutenant General Ray Odierno, discussed the raids at a briefing, but he would not say if there were special tactics to avoid inflaming Shiites.

LT. GEN. RAY ODIERNO, U.S. Army: First of all, all operations are conducted jointly with Iraqi security forces.

Secondly, operations are conducted against those who are working against this government, the government of Iraq. And we conduct operations in all areas, not just Sadr City. We conduct operations all over the country, all over Baghdad.

JIM LEHRER: The general did say execution killings in Baghdad have fallen sharply since the crackdown began. The Associated Press reported just under 500 bodies found in the city this month; that`s down from more than 950 during January. And in December, the figure topped 1,200. The killings are generally the work of sectarian death squads.

A top U.S. base in Afghanistan came under attack today, as Vice President Cheney was visiting. A suicide bomber blew himself up outside Bagram Air Base. The vice president was well inside the large facility and was unhurt.

Up to 20 Afghans were killed, along with a U.S. soldier, an American contractor, and a South Korean soldier. The Taliban claimed responsibility and said Mr. Cheney was the target. The U.S. military called that a "far- fetched allegation."

A major new medical report today shed new light on a virus linked to cervical cancer. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control said one-quarter of American women, ages 14 to 59, are infected with forms of the virus spread through sexual contact. One in 50 have the type linked to cervical cancer that can be prevented with a new vaccine. We`ll have more on this story later in the program tonight.

The former head of the Food and Drug Administration was sentenced to three years` probation today for lying about stocks he owned. Lester Crawford was also fined roughly $90,000. He pleaded guilty to holding stock in companies the FDA regulated while he was running the agency.

And that`s it for the news summary tonight. Now: the stock markets go down; the latest on Iraq and Afghanistan; cervical cancer; two Supreme Court arguments; and stories of Somalia.

(BREAK)

JIM LEHRER: And, now, that plunge in the stock markets today. The Dow Jones` drop of more than 400 points led to the index`s largest losses since September 2001.

And here to help us understand what happened and why is James Angel, who studies financial markets at Georgetown University. He has previously served as chair of the Nasdaq`s Economic Advisory Board.

Professor Angel, a simple question, difficult, I realize, but what did happen? Why did this happen?

JAMES ANGEL, Georgetown University: Well, the markets dropped substantially today all over the world. The sell-off started in China, where the Chinese index fell 8.8 percent. And when the U.S. markets woke up, they go, "Whoa, something bad happened in China."

Now, China is so closely linked to the United States -- they`re a major trade partner, they`re a major supplier of manufacturing goods, they`re a major holder of U.S. government debt -- if something bad happens to China, something bad is going to happen to the United States.

JIM LEHRER: Well, let`s start there. What happened in China to cause that to happen in the first place?

JAMES ANGEL: Well, the Chinese market has been on a tear in the last year. The market has more than doubled in the last year.

JIM LEHRER: Doubled in value, gone up?

JAMES ANGEL: Yes. Yes. And the day before, it had reached a brand new record high. So it looks to me like a classic "end of a bull run" correction, in which the markets often act like Wile E. Coyote in the old Road Runner cartoons.

Remember how Wile E. Coyote would run over the cliff, and then suddenly it drops. Well, the markets have gone up so high, so fast in China that suddenly people have gone, "Wait a minute, maybe it`s gone a little too far," and they`re rushing for the exit.

JIM LEHRER: But, in other words, it was a natural correction. It wasn`t anything gross or traumatic that happened in China that caused this specific thing to happen?

JAMES ANGEL: Well, there are a few things going on. There`s been some speculation that the government would try to tighten up on the speculation in the market.

JIM LEHRER: I see.

JAMES ANGEL: The Chinese government is very concerned about the level of speculation, and they may be taking some steps to try to sort of dampen the speculative fever that`s been going on.

JIM LEHRER: So that caused that. Now, then come to the United States. There were other things at work, were there not, in addition to the China thing that caused this thing in the United States?

JAMES ANGEL: Yes. Among other things, Alan Greenspan recently used the r-word, the recession word, in a recent speech.

JIM LEHRER: And he`s now the former head of the Federal Reserve.

JAMES ANGEL: Right, he`s the former head, but he still is seen as somebody who really understands how the world works. So a lot of people listen to him.

So we have the events in China. We have the continuing bad news in the Middle East. So you can understand how there would be a correction, because the U.S. market has also been at record high levels, as well.

JIM LEHRER: Now, everybody is always talking about the psychology of the market. Was that at work here, too, or was it -- were real things happening and caused real people to sell real stocks for real reasons?

JAMES ANGEL: Well, it`s a little bit of both. The markets are linked, so, with the downturn in China, that would imply that the cost of capital has gone up a little bit in the U.S., as well as China, so there are some legitimate linkages there.

But also, to a certain extent, when you`re near the end of a bull run, it becomes a game of musical chairs, of the people who are on it for the...

(CROSSTALK)

JIM LEHRER: Bull run means the stocks are going up. Everything is going up, and everybody expects it eventually either to level off or go down eventually. It has to. That`s what everybody thinks, right?

JAMES ANGEL: Yes. Yes. And so if they think that, "I`m going to be the first one to jump off while the getting is good," you have a mad rush as everyone rushes for the exits at the same time.

JIM LEHRER: Now, speaking of that, there`s one little thing that we still don`t have the full explanation of. I`ve been looking at the wires even as we began to talk here.

And the Dow Jones has said there was a technical glitch mid-afternoon, sometime around 3:00, that caused this. I think it was like the Dow was down 280-some points. And then, boom, within a couple of minutes, it was down 500, and it could have been the result of a technical glitch. Do you have any idea what that might be?

JAMES ANGEL: Yes. My understanding -- and we`re still getting information on this; we don`t know exactly what happened -- is that there was a computer glitch in how they reported the numbers.

So they started putting out numbers which may not have been correct, but then there are so many program traders and so many computers that are linked to those numbers that, when they saw those numbers falling, they started putting in orders reacting to those.

JIM LEHRER: And the orders were just -- some of them would have come in automatically based on the numbers, right? Is that how that works?

JAMES ANGEL: Yes. Yes. So we don`t know exactly what happened, but it looks like there was some kind of computer glitch involved.

JIM LEHRER: Finally, should this be viewed by the professionals, meaning everybody who owns stock...

(LAUGHTER)

... as a one-day bad day or something more?

JAMES ANGEL: Well, time will tell. There have been 195 of these bad days since 1928. Sometimes they`re a temporary glitch that, like this afternoon glitch, disappeared quickly, and sometimes they`re a harbinger of worse things to come. Time will tell.

JIM LEHRER: And we`ll know a little bit, like, say, at 9:00 a.m. tomorrow?

JAMES ANGEL: Well, 9:30 is when the market...

JIM LEHRER: 9:30, right, 9:30. They have the advance stuff, and 9:30 is when the market actually opens.

JAMES ANGEL: Well, we`ll know a little bit more when China wakes up tonight. And we`ll also see the futures coming in before the open tomorrow. So, yes, by 9:00 we should have a feel for what`s going on.

JIM LEHRER: OK. Professor Angel, thank you very much.

JAMES ANGEL: Thank you.

(BREAK)

JIM LEHRER: Now, Congress and the White House debate war progress on two fronts. Gwen Ifill has that story.

GWEN IFILL: From Washington to the hills of Afghanistan, U.S. officials today searched for ways to break through wartime deadlocks on Iraq and Afghanistan.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice raised the stakes on the diplomatic front, announcing the U.S. will join with leaders from Iraq and the region for a meeting in Baghdad.

CONDOLEEZZA RICE, U.S. Secretary of State: We hope that all governments will seize this opportunity to improve their relations with Iraq and to work for peace and stability in the region.

GWEN IFILL: It remained unclear whether U.S. officials will meet face to face with representatives from Iran and Syria. If that happens, it will represent a new approach for an administration that, as recently as last December, has resisted direct negotiations with either nation.

GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States: If people come to the table to discuss Iraq, they need to come understanding their responsibilities to not fund terrorists, to help this young democracy survive, to help with the economics of the country.

And if people are not committed, if Syria and Iran is not committed to that concept, then they shouldn`t bother to show up.

GWEN IFILL: But today, Rice stressed that the Iraqis are the ones taking the lead in the new effort.

CONDOLEEZZA RICE: I`m pleased that the government of Iraq is launching this new diplomatic initiative and that we will be able to support it and participate in it.

The violence occurring within the country has a decided impact on Iraq`s neighbors, and Iraq`s neighbors, as well as the international community, have a clear role to play in supporting the Iraqi government`s efforts to promote peace and national reconciliation within the country.

GWEN IFILL: Democrats on Capitol Hill endorsed the idea.

SEN. HARRY REID (D-NV), Senate Majority Leader: We`re years behind having done that. It`s so important that we understand the war will be won diplomatically, not militarily.

There`s no question in my mind that the president can read what`s going on in the minds of the American public as well as we can.

GWEN IFILL: The Rice announcement came on a day when Vice President Cheney met with Afghan President Hamid Karzai, hours after a suicide bomber killed 23 people at the gate of the military base where Cheney spent the night.

And the vice president`s visit unfolded, as Democrats on Capitol Hill searched for a way to slow, if not stop, future deployments to Iraq.

The effort centered on a Senate proposal to repeal the 2002 resolution that authorized the use of force in Iraq. Democrats said the measure, which would have limited U.S. military operations in Iraq and brought troops home by next March, is still under consideration, but agreement appears elusive.

SEN. DICK DURBIN (D), Illinois: We may set aside the Iraq debate for a few days, but not indefinitely. This debate needs to take place for the very simple reason that, as we debate on the floor of the Senate, unfortunately our sons and daughters are still in peril in Iraq. They are still caught in the crossfire of this civil war.

GWEN IFILL: Republicans have staunchly opposed the plan, arguing that it would undercut the president`s ability to manage the war.

SEN. JON KYL (R), Arizona: While the Democrats are in somewhat of disarray about what they intend to do next with regard to Iraq, and we may not get to a specific resolution to be debated until next week, I took home from the comments that our military commanders made to me a very strong sense that it would be wrong for Congress to try to micromanage the war from here in Washington, specifically to get into the specific details of the deployment of troops and equipment in theater and the funding of those matters.

GWEN IFILL: Instead, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said, Democrats should be forced to vote up or down on whether to pay for the war.

SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KY), Senate Minority Leader: It is the view of the overwhelming majority of the Republican conference that we will want to vote on funding for the troops.

GWEN IFILL: A new Washington Post-ABC News poll released today showed the war more unpopular than ever. More than half of those polled supported setting a deadline for troop withdrawal, this as new Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell offered senators a bleak assessment of the state of affairs on the ground.

VICE ADM. MIKE MCCONNELL (Ret.), Director of National Intelligence: The current security and political trends in Iraq are moving in a negative direction. Particularly after the February 2006 bombing of the mosque at Samarra, sectarian violence has become self-sustaining.

Unless efforts to reverse these conditions gain real traction during the 12- to 18-month time frame of this estimate, we assess that the security situation will continue to deteriorate at a rate comparable to the latter half of 2006.

GWEN IFILL: And McConnell said spring will bring more fighting in Afghanistan, where the Taliban is still a threat and al-Qaida is regrouping and active.

VICE ADM. MIKE MCCONNELL: Afghanistan`s leaders face a pivotal year ahead. They must build central and provincial government capacity, confront perverse drug cultivation and trafficking, and, with NATO and the United States, arrest the resurgence of the Taliban.

GWEN IFILL: At an afternoon budget hearing, senators quizzed Rice, Pentagon chief Robert Gates, and Joint Chiefs Chairman Peter Pace about the cost of the war.

SEN. ROBERT BYRD (D), West Virginia: We need to know that the funds that you are requesting will do more than merely continue the status quo.

GWEN IFILL: Gates acknowledged there has been some sticker shock associated with the war effort, but that the combined $700 billion price tag is worth the investment.

(BREAK)

JIM LEHRER: Still coming tonight: Supreme Court arguments; a Somali author; and the latest on the cervical cancer vaccine. Judy Woodruff has the cancer story.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Ever since a federal advisory panel recommended vaccinating young girls against a virus associated with cervical cancer, the debate has grown in a number of states about whether the vaccine should be mandatory.

Now, there are new findings about the prevalence of the virus in the U.S. population that may feed into that debate. For some background, we begin with our health correspondent, Susan Dentzer.

Susan, what exactly does this study being released today say about the prevalence of this virus, called HPV?

SUSAN DENTZER, NewsHour Health Correspondent: Well, HPV, human papilloma virus, is actually a family of viruses, more than 100 of them, which cause some very common things, like warts on your hands.

But there`s a group of about 30 of these HPV viruses that are sexually transmitted, transmitted through sex either male to female, female to female, or even male to male. And those can include some that lead to such conditions as genital warts. There are about 20 viruses that are considered high risk and then an additional dozen or so that actually are linked to cervical cancer.

What this study did today -- that was announced today did was look at those sexually transmitted HPV viruses, that group of roughly 30 sexually transmitted viruses, and said, how prevalent are these among women aged 14 to 59? It was the largest group of women that had ever been looked at.

What the study said was that, in that group of women, these sexually transmitted infections are about one in every four women, or about 25 million women overall, and that the rate of high-risk types of infections, the high-risk viruses, is as high as one in seven.

And for the two particular types of HPV viruses that have been linked to cervical cancer, 70 percent of cervical cancers, the rate is about one in 50.

JUDY WOODRUFF: One in 50. Is this what the researchers expected to find?

SUSAN DENTZER: More or less. There was an earlier study that looked just at younger women, adolescent women, and the prevalence rates there were lower. But, more or less, the researchers said this is about what they expected to find, in that it shows that these infections are common, they`re commonplace among women.

This is prevalence, which means it`s just a point in time. If you looked at the cumulative infections over a long period of time in all women, the rates would be higher.

But they also went on to say that the rate of infections that are linked to the cervical cancer are, as they used in quotes in the study, put it in quotes, "relatively low."

JUDY WOODRUFF: And, just to be clear, how is the virus transmitted?

SUSAN DENTZER: Again, the sexually transmitted HPV viruses are transmitted through unprotected sex. Again, that can be female to female, female to male, male to female, or male to male.

JUDY WOODRUFF: And what do you see? I mean, Susan, you`ve been following the story. What do you think the significance of this survey, this study, is going to be in the growing national debate over whether this vaccine that is now out there should be mandated or not?

SUSAN DENTZER: I don`t think we quite know that, although it clearly is going to feed into the debate.

Merck, for example, the manufacturer of the vaccine that is now on the market, Gardasil, says that this just underscores that there are many women out there with these infections.

In fact, roughly three million women at any point in time are going to have the four types of viruses that are protected by this vaccine, specifically two that contribute to genital warts and two that contribute to cervical cancer. So they say this just underscores what we already know.

Others say this is a reason for caution. For example, on the area of cost effectiveness of administering these vaccines on a mass basis, some are saying now we have to take these new prevalence numbers, and look at their estimates again, and see if this is really a cost-effective strategy to massively immunize young women and girls against the risk of cervical cancer.

JUDY WOODRUFF: And just quickly, we know that some types of the virus are protected against with the use of this vaccine, Gardasil, but some are not, is that right?

SUSAN DENTZER: That`s correct. Again, there are roughly a dozen or more types of HPV virus that are linked to cervical cancer. The two most common are protected by the vaccine. Those are so-called type 16 and type 18, which account for about 70 percent of all cervical cancers.

JUDY WOODRUFF: And just to set up this discussion that we`re going to have right after I speak with you, Susan, tell us who is lined up on each side of this argument.

SUSAN DENTZER: There`s really a spectrum of opinion on the vaccines and on the mandates. On the pro-vaccine side, you have the group you mentioned earlier, the advisory committee that recommended routine vaccination for girls 11 to 12 and catch-up vaccinations for girls 13 and all the way up to women of the age of 26. Those recommendations have been taken up by groups like the American Academy of Pediatrics.

So another group of public health people who say, yes, routine vaccination is good, but mandates might be too soon to go there, in part because they want to answer some of these questions about cost effectiveness, about how effective the vaccine is over time, how long a period of time it`s effective, et cetera.

Then there`s a group that is for the vaccine in principle but very much against the mandates, worried about issues of parental control. Most of the legislation in various states has provisions for parents to opt out of the vaccine, but some people feel that even that is overly burdensome to parents.

And then there`s a group that`s opposed to the vaccine altogether. And these tend to be the groups that are worried about the effects of vaccines and try to focus on unproven, allegedly deleterious, effects from those vaccines.

JUDY WOODRUFF: And in terms of the time line, decisions being made, what are we looking at here?

SUSAN DENTZER: Well, now this is going to proceed on a state-by-state basis. And there are about 18 states where bills are in the hopper to mandate vaccinations for school-aged girls, girls of 11 or 12. But it`s not clear whether that`s going to happen or not.

In the one state, Texas, where the governor earlier this month issued an executive order mandating the vaccine for school-aged girls, now there`s a bill in the House in Texas which probably will override that decision.

And given that there`s additional concern now, specifically about the lobbying push that was made by Merck over this and the connections that the governor and his former chief of staff had to Merck, that slowed things down.

So in many states we`ll just have to wait and see whether the legislation continues to move along out of concerns about cervical cancer prevention or whether at this point it`s put on hold while we evaluate more of the effects of the lessons from this study and other information.

JUDY WOODRUFF: All right, Susan Dentzer, thank you very much. It`s very helpful.

SUSAN DENTZER: Thanks, Judy.

JUDY WOODRUFF: And now, more on the debate to make the vaccine for HPV mandatory for all school-age girls.

And for that, we turn to Dr. Ralph Anderson. He is chair of the obstetrics and gynecology department at the University of North Texas Health Center. For the record, he does not have an affiliation with Merck, the maker of the vaccine.

And Wendy Wright, she is president of Concerned Women for America, a conservative group that focuses on women`s issues.

Thank you both for being with us. We appreciate it.

Dr. Anderson, to you first. You believe, as I understand it, that the vaccine is not only necessary, you also believe that it should be mandatory. Am I correct about that?

DR. RALPH ANDERSON, University of North Texas Health Center: Yes. As a gynecologic oncologist, I see the ravaging effects of the HPV virus, both causing the warts and the various problems that that can create in individuals, and in the cancers of the cervix.

We have roughly 10,000 new cases of cancer of the cervix per year in this country, and we have approximately 4,000 deaths from cancer of the cervix.

I believe the medical merits of this vaccine are very real. I do believe that, with the statistics that have been shown earlier, that we can eradicate 90 percent of the venereal warts and approximately 70 percent of the cancers. And with that would go a great deal of morbidity and mortality.

In relation to the mandated portion of it, you can have opt-in and you can have opt-out policies. In using vaccinations in other areas, it is very clear that, when you use an opt-out policy, you get a larger number of people taking the vaccine than if you have an opt-in policy.

JUDY WOODRUFF: An opt-out policy meaning, just to clarify?

DR. RALPH ANDERSON: Meaning that, if parents do not wish their daughter to be vaccinated, then they can make that wish known, and it will be honored.

JUDY WOODRUFF: And just to be clear, again, what age girl, young woman, do you believe should have the vaccine?

DR. RALPH ANDERSON: It should be given prior to any sexual activity, so you can get into a debate on that, but I think the age of 11 to 12 is a very reasonable age. That is what`s being recommended, and I would support that.

JUDY WOODRUFF: From 11 to 12.

Wendy Wright with Concerned Women for America, your view of this vaccine?

WENDY WRIGHT, Concerned Women for America: Well, we don`t oppose the vaccine. Our problem is with mandating it, requiring that every little girl has to get it before she enters sixth grade.

Now, we are grateful for the attention that`s being given to the problem of sexually transmitted diseases. There`s a terrible epidemic in our country, and there needs to be more attention on that and how to prevent it.

There`s one 100-percent way of preventing getting a sexually transmitted disease, and that`s being abstinent outside of marriage and faithful within marriage.

And with this disease of HPV being mandated before entering school, with other kinds of mandated vaccines, it`s for diseases that are contracted through the air or through simple touch. This disease is contracted through intimate sexual contact, and so this should be something that should be left up to parents to decide, not requiring that every little girl has to get it.

JUDY WOODRUFF: But, again, to be perfectly clear about this, you`re not saying the vaccine is bad. You`re saying it`s fine, but...

WENDY WRIGHT: Well, you know, I think, because of these mandates being introduced in states, it`s caused us to take a second look at the vaccine itself.

But, first with the mandated vaccines, about a little less than 4,000 women a year die from cervical cancer. About 36,000 people a year die from the flu, but we don`t mandate that each person get a flu vaccine.

I think one reason is because the experience we had in 1970s with the swine flu vaccine and many people having complications, serious complications from taking that.

This vaccine has been tested, but in those trials people were pre- screened. People with medical conditions weren`t included in it. By mandating it, it requires that the entire population, virtually the entire population of young girls, would have to get it.

That means girls that may have medical conditions that were not included in the trials, and we don`t know what kind of effect the vaccine may have on the general population.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Dr. Anderson, what about that, that, in this trial, you hear Ms. Wright saying that these young women, girls, were pre-screened for pre-existing medical conditions? That wouldn`t be the case if it were the general population.

DR. RALPH ANDERSON: No, it wouldn`t. And you never honestly know the true effects of the side effects of a vaccine until it is tested in a large number of patients, really in the population. However, the studies that have been done demonstrate that we believe it is safe and we believe it is effective.

JUDY WOODRUFF: How confident can you be? I mean, what do you see in those studies that makes you confident?

DR. RALPH ANDERSON: Well, as I said, the Food and Drug Administration has looked at this. They have looked at the side effects, which have been really a low-grade temperature and some nausea that is transient. They have not seen any other major complications.

Now, I think it is fair to say that, whenever you use a new either drug or vaccination, that you can never be 100 percent sure. But I think the Food and Drug Administration feels very confident that, with the information they have, that this is a safe vaccine.

JUDY WOODRUFF: How do you counter that? I mean, the Food and Drug Administration, they don`t green-light everything that comes through there.

WENDY WRIGHT: Well, the last time that Merck was in the news like they are now was with the Vioxx. And with Vioxx, it had shown to be safe in trials, but when it was used on a wider...

JUDY WOODRUFF: That`s a very different medication.

WENDY WRIGHT: ... when it was used on a wider audience, that`s when they saw complications, serious complications. That shows the difference between a trial and using it on a general population. We don`t know with the vaccine what will happen with people who have conditions that were not included in the trial.

So I think, before we mandate something, let`s do some more research. Let`s not jump into this, and especially when you consider that the number of mandated vaccines for children has doubled since the 1980s.

In the 1980s, children were required to get seven vaccines, 23 doses. Now it`s 48 doses of 14 vaccines. In that same time period, we`ve seen an increase in cases of autism. We don`t know if there`s a connection, but before we require another vaccine on top of all the others, let`s do some more research.

JUDY WOODRUFF: What about that point, Dr. Anderson, and also the earlier point that we don`t mandate a vaccine against the flu, and she`s saying many more people die of that than of cervical cancer?

DR. RALPH ANDERSON: Well, we do know what happens to people who get the disease, who are affected by the virus and get cancer of the cervix. So I think you have to weigh the benefits versus the risk of any procedure or any vaccine that you`re going to use.

There comes a time when you have to convince yourself that, yes, this will prevent significant, not only mortality, but also morbidity. One of the things that has been left out of this discussion to a great degree is what the long-term effects of venereal warts are, what that does not only fiscally but mentally to people.

People can be devastated by this. They do recur. They`re a major problem. So my point is that we do know what happens if you don`t give the vaccine. We don`t know exactly what happens if you do get it, but we have a very good idea what happens. And I think we do believe it`s safe.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Ms. Wright, how much of your concern is your organization`s general concern about sexual activity among young women? You included that in part of your first answer. But the fact that this vaccine would be administered to girls as young as, what did we say, 11, 12 years old.

WENDY WRIGHT: Well, the concern is that, if an 11-year-old gets it, right now it`s only known to be effective up to five years. So that means, by the time she`s 16, or, let`s double it, 10 years, she may have to get a booster. In fact, Merck is already saying that boosters may be required.

So that means that a girl may end up having to take it twice, and even before she`s sexually active, way even before she would even need it.

So what it goes back to, again, is mandating it. And as the good doctor said, people need to convince themselves. It should be up to each person`s decision, a woman, in the case of an adult, or parents, in the case of minor children, whether they want to take this vaccination or not.

JUDY WOODRUFF: And, Dr. Anderson, your concern is that, if it`s not mandated, then what?

DR. RALPH ANDERSON: Well, as I said before, if you set up a vaccination policy where you encourage people to opt-in, very few do opt- in, whereas if you opt-out, they don`t. They do take the vaccine.

One of the things that I think has been done with this vaccine, as with other studies, is that they have shown that the more people are educated as to the value of this vaccine and to the side effects of this vaccine, the higher the rate of acceptance becomes.

And I think that there is a very good opt-out policy, certainly in the bill in Texas and in other bills across the country. So I believe that, when you`re using vaccinations and you use opt-in as opposed to opt-out, you won`t affect as many people.

And as far as the...

JUDY WOODRUFF: Let me just stop you there and ask Ms. Wright if that would address your concern.

WENDY WRIGHT: It doesn`t, because the opt-out provision requires the parent to have to give an excuse to a government official. And they should not have to have the burden on them to explain themselves to a government official as to what their medical decisions are for their children.

So, in the case of Texas, there are private schools that follow the state`s mandated vaccine list but don`t accept the opt-out provisions, whether the state allows for it or not. So there are children in private schools that have been expelled from the schools because they didn`t get the mandated vaccines as set out by the state.

So, again, it`s putting too much of a burden on the parents. And while the public health officials may know that -- may think that they know best for everyone, in a case like this, it should be left up to parents to decide.

JUDY WOODRUFF: All right. We are going to have to leave it there. Wendy Wright with Concerned Women for America, and Dr. Ralph Anderson who`s joining us from the University of North Texas Health Center, thank you both.

WENDY WRIGHT: Thank you.

DR. RALPH ANDERSON: Thank you.

(BREAK)

JIM LEHRER: And now to our Supreme Court coverage, and to Ray Suarez.

RAY SUAREZ: Yesterday and today, the high court heard arguments in cases that, while they won`t decide major constitutional issues, may have practical application in Americans` everyday lives. NewsHour regular Marcia Coyle of the National Law Journal joins us to report on both.

And today`s case, Winkelman v. Parma City, seems to get right to the heart of whether regular people without a lawyer can petition the government for redress.

MARCIA COYLE, National Law Journal: Absolutely, Ray. This case rises under the federal law known as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. That act gives money to states to help them provide a free and appropriate education to disabled children.

It also sets up a process whereby parents who disagree with the plan a school district comes up with can go through a series of administrative hearings without a lawyer to challenge it.

At the end of those hearings, if anyone is still dissatisfied, the law says any aggrieved party can bring an action into federal court. The issue before the court today was whether parents can go into federal court without a lawyer and bring that action.

RAY SUAREZ: Because the Winkelman family, who were appealing for their own son`s educational plan, reached a point where it was difficult for them to afford a lawyer, right?

MARCIA COYLE: They did. This case really plays out against a very serious problem, and that is the ability of parents of disabled children to afford attorneys. And that`s against the larger problem of the ability of low- and middle-income families to afford a lawyer for their legal problems.

RAY SUAREZ: Well, this is a federal statute. How did the justices receive this question about whether regular people always need lawyers?

MARCIA COYLE: Well, the Winkelman`s attorney was first up. And he argued that the language of the statute, the purpose of the statute, makes it very clear that parents have a right to go into federal court on their own, without a lawyer, to bring any claim that the statute allows.

Some justices raised public policy concerns. You know, lawyers are officers of the court, said Justice Scalia. They protect the court from frivolous actions. If we give this right to parents without a lawyer or to the public at large without lawyers, we may have more cases. District judges will have more work.

But Winkelman`s attorney said that those public policy concerns are way outweighed by the fact that two-thirds of disabled children in this country come from families that can`t afford lawyers or can`t find lawyers to take these very complicated, lengthy, emotional cases.

RAY SUAREZ: What about the city of Parma, Ohio`s, schools? Did they stick up for the idea that, at some point, a family would have to retain a lawyer to continue its fight?

MARCIA COYLE: No. Actually, Parma believes that the statute is -- that the section that says any aggrieved party can go into federal court is silent on whether it`s the parents and says that the rights under this statute really belong to the child. And it`s the child that has the right to press them in court.

Parma says that these cases, again, are very complicated. In a way, you may be doing a disservice to the child to let a parent go into federal court without a lawyer. And the school district also relies on this very old common law presumption against laypersons representing the rights of others in court.

RAY SUAREZ: So you were, in effect, watching nine lawyers get asked whether you always have to hire a lawyer.

(LAUGHTER)

MARCIA COYLE: Yes, that`s true.

RAY SUAREZ: Now to our second case. It involves a high-speed car chase. Six years ago in rural Georgia, police officers pursued a teenager. As seen in this video, an officer rammed the rear end of Victor Harris` car, causing it to spin out of control. The resulting crash left the 19- year-old paralyzed from the neck down.

And what was at issue, Marcia, in Scott v. Harris?

MARCIA COYLE: Well, unlike the first case we discussed, this is really a case involving the interpretation of the Constitution. The Fourth Amendment protects us from unreasonable searches and seizures. There`s no question that this was a seizure, in the sense of the Constitution. The question is: Was it reasonable?

RAY SUAREZ: So this was really an excessive force case?

MARCIA COYLE: Yes. The court has evolved a test over the years in case law for what is unreasonable use of deadly force.

There are certain factors that have to be presented: The defendant threatened the officer with a weapon. The underlying crime was serious and involved a serious risk of harm to others. Or there was a serious risk of harm from the defendant`s actions.

The attorneys for the officer here argued that this test should not apply to this situation, that the test should be whether, from the officer`s perspective, there was a reasonable risk of serious harm. And in this case, the officer felt there was, and he used the force necessary in order to stop that harm.

RAY SUAREZ: Well, what did the attorneys for the now 25-year-old disabled man argue in his behalf?

MARCIA COYLE: He argued that the test that the court has developed over the years does apply here. And as the lower court found, this young man, at the time he was driving, was driving unsafely. He wasn`t driving violently or aggressively, and so something less than deadly force could have been used.

The justices reacted not very sympathetically to this argument. In fact, there was a lot of sarcasm and jokes. Justice Scalia called the chase "the scariest chase I`ve seen since `The French Connection,`" referring to the movie. Justice Alito said he thought, after seeing the video, that there was a terrible risk of serious harm here.

And on and on it went, so the lawyer had a difficult job. Only Justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg pressed the lawyer for the officer on whether there were reasonable alternatives to ramming the vehicle. What about roadblocks? You know, what about letting him go and arresting him later? The underlying offense here wasn`t serious; it was a traffic misdemeanor.

RAY SUAREZ: Did the presence of the video change or shape the way the argument went down in court?

MARCIA COYLE: Absolutely, it did. In fact, it was most obvious, I think, in the words of Justice Breyer, who said that as he read the briefs in this case, he went back and forth, back and forth. But once he saw the video, it was very dramatic for him.

He said, OK, I`ve seen the video. And the lower court says, though, that the factors, the test for deadly force, were not here. So who do I believe? Do I believe -- and he quoted Chico Marx -- "Do you believe me or what I see?"

RAY SUAREZ: So the balance -- it`s interesting that here the officer is suing the person who was rammed, because the young man is still pursuing that officer back in Georgia courts, right?

MARCIA COYLE: The young man is suing the officer for violating his Fourth Amendment right to a reasonable seizure. This case has never gone to trial, so part of the issue here is whether it does go to a jury.

The officer, even if he`s found to have acted unreasonably, can still seek what they call qualified immunity. That`s, again, something the court has developed over time, saying that, if the law was unclear at the time the officer acted, then he`s entitled to immunity from this suit.

His lawyer said today it was clear from the arguments and the questions from the justices that the law is very unclear.

RAY SUAREZ: Marcia Coyle, thanks for being with us.

MARCIA COYLE: You`re welcome.

(BREAK)

JIM LEHRER: And, finally tonight, a book conversation on Somalia. Jeffrey Brown is in charge.

JEFFREY BROWN: The Somalia most of us have come to recognize in recent years is a war-torn and ravaged land. The clashing clan militias, dangerous streets filled with armed young men, hunger and destruction everywhere.

But Somalia is also a country of history and tradition, its capital, Mogadishu, once a center for learning and culture in the Horn of Africa.

Nuruddin Farah has spent his life portraying his contradictory homeland and its people, in the process becoming known as one of post- colonial Africa`s leading literacy voices, and oft-mentioned candidate for the Nobel Prize.

Farah was forced to leave his country in 1974 after his second novel was condemned by the regime of Siad Barre. He now lives in South Africa, but has returned to Somalia often in the last decade.

His newest novel, his 10th, is "Knots," which tells the story of a Somali-born Toronto-raised woman who returns after a two decades to a devastated country she can barely recognize in the hope of reclaiming her family`s home and perhaps her own troubled life.

And welcome to you.

NURUDDIN FARAH, Somali Author: Thank you very much.

JEFFREY BROWN: Do you see yourself in telling this story trying to grapple somehow with the modern history of Somalia?

NURUDDIN FARAH: Well, I see myself as a challenged writer, challenged in the sense that there are difficulties, first of all, artistically, artistic difficulties, writing about civil wars. And the reason is because civil wars usually get a lot of characters, a lot of people involved.

JEFFREY BROWN: You mean because there`s so much history going on?

NURUDDIN FARAH: Because there is so much history, and there is so much to tell. It is very difficult, also, because things continue changing in a civil war situation.

To go back to Somalia also takes certain courage. And the reason is because you don`t actually know what you`re going to meet.

Whenever I went to Mogadishu before, with the exception of my last visit, which was only about two months ago, I had to have bodyguards to be able to move around, to interview people, to talk to the young people who carried guns, to go see, you know, some of the warlords whom I was trying to talk to about peace.

JEFFREY BROWN: Well, your main character in this book, a woman who comes back after several decades, similarly has to come back and find a very different country. Is that what you found?

NURUDDIN FARAH: Well, this is what I found, and this is what you will find whenever you go away from a country and then go back. When you go away from a country at peace, when the people are at peace with themselves, and in themselves, and in of themselves they are comfortable to be in Somalia, and then suddenly you go back -- as she does -- to a country that`s devastated, which you can`t recognize anymore, and in which you do not find your past.

And the reason is because we, as living beings, think we have a continued existence. And that interruption, the interruption from what you have known before and this particular thing of clashing clan militias and young men carrying guns all the time, this is not something that we have known before.

JEFFREY BROWN: It`s not.

NURUDDIN FARAH: It is not. It is not. Mogadishu was one of the most peaceful cities of Somalia, in the world when I left Somalia.

JEFFREY BROWN: That Somalia, that Mogadishu of your youth comes through, through this character coming back there. But what she finds is a -- it seems like a real clash now of, I guess, of histories, a clash of the old, of that Somalia, and a new place, that is both violent, where there`s a rise of Islam. It seems like a very, very different place.

NURUDDIN FARAH: Sure. Well, let me tell you the rise of Islam in Somalia. This is a more recent phenomena, recent in the sense of in the past 15, 16 years.

This is the consequence of many, many Somalis becoming jobless in the era of Siad Barre and many of them ending up working in the Gulf countries, in Saudi Arabia and in the emirates, and there learning ways of worship that are very, very different from the way we used to practice Islam.

And then they have come back, some of these people, with the idea of the veil. We did not have in our tradition -- there was no veil, no veil until the 1980s.

JEFFREY BROWN: You once wrote that your goal is, quote, "to keep my country alive by writing about it." That seems a hugely ambitious and difficult task.

NURUDDIN FARAH: Well, you could say that, when I said that, I was a young man. You could say that, being young, I was also ambitious. I dreamt that this is what I was going to do.

And now that I am older, the only thing I can say is that I have tried my best to keep my country alive by writing about it, and the reason is because nothing (inaudible) good comes out of a country until the artists of that country turn to writing about it in a truthful way.

JEFFREY BROWN: You mean, this is the role of an artist, the role of a writer.

NURUDDIN FARAH: This is the role of the artist, the role of the artist who also is, well, shall we say, probably courageous, probably mad, probably terribly ambitious writer, who wants to say, "This is what Somalia is like, and this is what I`m going to write."

It is possible that the way I see Somalia is not the way that some other Somalis or some other foreigners who do not know Somalia may see it that way. But I have continually seen Somalia as a country full of hope, and yet that are being held back from, you know, accomplishing that hope, that dream.

JEFFREY BROWN: I know that you regularly visit the United States. You`ve been traveling here recently. What do we get wrong? Or what do we not know about your country that you want Americans to know?

NURUDDIN FARAH: Well, there are three types of Americans. I would say there is the ordinary American, who obviously needs to be told that, you know, we have a long history, as you have pointed out, we have a long tradition, and that we`d like many of them to know that the crises that`s taking place in Somalia is a recent one and that someone like me is of the hope that this is a short-term crisis.

But I would say that there are some history professors, literature professors, who know enough about Africa. And I`m hopeful that some of these people would comment and challenge some of the stories that are being -- you know, the way Africa is being portrayed is not always the way Africa is.

And my interest in novel-writing is also to bring that out, to bring out also something else that`s very, very important, at least to me, the place that women play in civil wars, in civil wars like Somalia. It is about that, writing about that, you know, in this novel and in other novels that I have done, that I`d like to bring out this.

That whereas men create destruction, benefit from anarchy, use clan warfare in order to gain more power, women are the nurses, healing the wounded, you know, mending the broken, and putting things together all the time, and working towards peace.

JEFFREY BROWN: All right. The novel is called "Knots." Nuruddin Farah, thank you very much.

NURUDDIN FARAH: Thank you. My pleasure.

(BREAK)

JIM LEHRER: Again, the major developments of this day.

A stock plunge in China triggered sell-offs around the world. The Dow Jones Industrial Average lost more than 400 points.

Secretary of State Rice announced Iraq has invited Iran and Syria to regional talks with the backing of the United States.

And a top U.S. base in Afghanistan came under attack as Vice President Cheney was visiting. He was not hurt.

We`ll see you online and again here tomorrow evening. I`m Jim Lehrer. Thank you, and good night.