Don’t be stingy in fight against Zika virus

Are congressional Republicans pro-mosquito? This is not an unserious question, as Republicans, especially those in the House, are attempting to block the appropriation of money necessary to combat mosquitoes carrying the Zika virus.

A few months ago, many Americans were unaware of the Zika virus, a contagion that can cause frightening birth defects – notably microcephaly, which causes babies to be born with unusually small heads. The virus is spread by mosquitoes, primarily aedes aegypti mosquitoes.

The Zika virus already is approaching epidemic status in Brazil (which raises the legitimate question of whether the summer Olympic games in Rio should be canceled), but the disease is not confined to South America. It has taken hold in Puerto Rico, and the administration reports that, as of May 11, 1,200 Zika cases had been confirmed on the U.S. mainland and U.S. territories – including more than 110 pregnant women with confirmed cases of the virus.

Are we prepared for a larger outbreak? President Barack Obama asked Congress in February for $1.9 billion to pay for mosquito eradication projects, development of a vaccine and better diagnostic tools to protect Americans from Zika. But the Republican-controlled House and Senate have balked at that.

The House told the president Monday to take $622 million from the fund designated to fight the Ebola virus and use that to battle the Zika virus. Senate Republicans were more generous, advancing a bill Tuesday to provide $1.1 billion in emergency funding, but that still is nearly $1 billion short of what the president had requested.

The Senate now must reconcile its bill with the House bill, which could further reduce the amount that will be approved. Obama has threatened to veto any measure that resembles the House bill.

White House officials note that $500 million already has been transferred from the Ebola fund to address Zika. But, they say, the Ebola money should be restored so they can (wait for it) protect Americans from Ebola.

The spreading Zika virus represents a genuine emergency, not just a remote threat. And the humid Southern states with large annual mosquito populations are likely to be most susceptible.

That helps to explain why elected officials from Southern states seem more amenable to providing money to fight the disease. U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., for example, said that although he would like to see the cost of any new spending offset by cuts, he acknowledges that South Carolina could be a prime target for the disease-bearing mosquitoes.

U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., also is on board with spending more to fight the virus.

One irony stands out: Many of the parsimonious House Republicans who want to hold back money to battle a Zika outbreak also are outspoken abortion foes who say they want to protect fetuses. How do they reconcile that stance with a refusal to support the effort to protect pregnant women from contracting a disease that could condemn their babies to a short life with a crippling birth defect?

Republicans who now are comfortable opposing any and all new spending that Obama might propose may come to regret their hard-line obstinacy if the nation suffers a Zika epidemic. How important will saving a few million dollars be if that happens?

Researchers say they have several potential Zika vaccines in the works, and preliminary trials could begin in the fall. But meanwhile – this summer – they hope to find ways to stop transmission wherever possible and reduce the effects of the infection, which will take money.

If you live in mosquito country – especially if you are pregnant or might get pregnant – spending that money probably seems like a good idea.

This story was originally published May 19, 2016 at 3:26 PM with the headline "Don’t be stingy in fight against Zika virus."