Suspend Vaccine Requirements?

New York's governor, David Paterson, and New York's health commissioner have recently decided to suspend the suggestion of regulation of the flu vaccine. It was suggested that all health care workers receive the vaccination for both the swine flu and the seasonal flu. These health care workers are constantly around people infected with these viruses and the odds of them catching the viruses is greatly increased as a result of day to day contact with these illnesses. If the health care workers were to suddenly lose staff members then that would not only be bad for those people, but for patients as well. Without staff to assist the patients within the hospitals there could be dangerous results. The patients who are sick with either the swine or seasonal flu could get worse to the point of permanent damage or even death. Mandatory vaccinations associated with health care dealing with the patients could result in taking better care of the patients to help them get better and possibly prevent further spreading of the illnesses.
I believe that the author of this editorial has made some good arguments in support of his opinion that New York should not have suspended the requirement for all health care officials to be vaccinated swine and seasonal flu. I think they should have put more specific facts as support to make his argument even more valid. For example, a statistical report of the chances on catching the flu would have made his audience in even more support of himself.

Health Care Reform to Cover Abortion?

In the October 1st New York Times article, "Abortion and Health Care Reform" the author provides an argument against what many members of congress are in support of as far as abortion being covered by the new health care reform goes. Many conservatives throughout the government are in support of applying restrictions to the new health care reform that would make it difficult for many women, especially in low-income families, to receive an abortion. Since the new health care reform would get funds primarily from federal tax subsidies, government officials are wanting to have an extra charge on insurance policies that include abortion coverage. The author is very much opposed to this idea claiming that the current government view on the tax reforms would "deny Americans' rights to make their own health-care decisions".
I agree with the author's stance on the issue and believe that they made a viable argument. One thing I will mention against the author however is that i think they should have more evidence behind the facts they present. The facts stated are believable, but there is nothing to back it up. The logic is there but hard evidence is lacking. This makes me somewhat question the author's credibility.
The target audience is generally women and liberal citizens. The author's claims on the topic of abortion coverage represents that of the liberal ideas. They are criticizing the government's conservative veiws making an appeal to the women and liberals of the nation.