refusal

WASHINGTON — A third White House military aide refused Friday to testify in a closed Senate committee hearing on the Iran arms sale operation, prompting the panel’s chairman to angrily denounce President Reagan’s contention that one of the three men is a “national hero.”

“I haven’t seen any heroism from any of these three,” said Sen. Dave Durenberger (R-Minn.), chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. “If they are such heroes, then why are they deserting the country when they are finally being put to the true test of their commitment?”

He said that without the testimony of the three–all active-duty military officers–it will be impossible for Congress to determine whether the President had any role in the decision to divert profits from the Iranian arms sales to the Nicaraguan rebels.

Durenberger called upon the three men to reconsider, and suggested that Reagan should encourage them to cooperate.

“Maybe he can help them define ‘national hero,’ ” he said. “Somebody is going to have to define for them what ‘national hero’ means. It doesn’t mean you come in here and you stiff the whole country.”

The witness refusing to testify Friday was Marine Lt. Col. Robert Earl, an employee of the National Security Council staff and former deputy to Marine Lt. Col. Oliver L. North, a central figure in the scandal. Committee members were hoping Earl could tell them how profits from the Iranian arms sales were transferred to the contras– something the committee has yet to establish.

In a Nov. 25 interview with Time magazine, Reagan called North “a national hero,” even though he was fired by the President for allegedly arranging the secret profits transfer to help the contras while a congressional ban on U.S. military aid to them was in place.

Durenberger noted that unlike North and former National Security Adviser John M. Poindexter–both of whom cited their Fifth Amendment rights against possible self-incrimination when they declined to testify before several congressional committees–Earl is still employed by the President, who has promised full cooperation with the investigation.

“He’s going from here back to a desk in the White House,” he said.

Durenberger said that Earl, North and Poindexter, who is an admiral, had “put their narrow personal interest and maybe their misplaced loyalty to some of their friends ahead of the national interest that they are sworn to uphold.”

“This committee is no threat to any of these soldiers,” he said. “They have nothing to fear from this committee. Hopefully they have nothing to fear from the facts if in fact they are so heroic.”

Cites Sixth Amendment

Durenberger said that Earl, who received a summons from the committee a week ago, declined to testify on grounds that he had not been given sufficient time to prepare his testimony and had been denied his Sixth Amendment right to adequate counsel.

Earl refused to be represented by a lawyer provided by the White House, and instead insisted upon representation by a private attorney who lacked the necessary top-secret clearances to participate in the case.

The chairman indicated he was angered not only by Earl’s refusal to testify but also because he was accompanied by an attorney “who read us the riot act on the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution.”

Another committee member, who declined to be identified, said Earl appeared apprehensive about testifying. “People are scared,” the senator said.

Earl was one of three National Security Council aides called to testify on Friday. The other two were Howard Teicher, who as head of the political-military affairs office was North’s immediate boss, and Craig P. Coy, who worked for North as deputy director of political-military affairs.

Testimony Rescheduled

Coy was described by Durenberger as “very helpful.” But Teicher’s testimony was rescheduled for next Tuesday when he told the committee members that his private attorneys would have top-secret security clearance by then.

If Poindexter, North and Earl do not testify, Durenberger said that Congress will never be able to satisfy all the questions that remain about the Iranian arms shipment and the diversion of profits to the contras.

The Administration has said Poindexter, who resigned last month, and his predecessor, Robert C. McFarlane, had some general knowledge of the controversial funds diversion, but that no other officials were apparently involved. Reagan repeatedly has denied any knowledge of the diversion.

“The problem for all of us is going to be what did the President know about it–what was the President’s exact role in this process and why did all of this happen,” he said. “And that kind of evidence can only come from these three–the admiral and the two colonels.”

Meanwhile, it was reported that CIA Director William J. Casey had told the House Foreign Affairs Committee earlier this week that he had been assured by North last October that no funds from the Iranian arms sales were being diverted anywhere. Casey is expected to appear before the Senate Intelligence Committee in secret session next Tuesday.

Businessman’s Testimony

Roy M. Furmark, a New York businessman, told the committee on Thursday that he had informed Casey on Oct. 7 that some of the money was being diverted to the contras, according to sources. Casey has testified that the Oct. 7 conversation with Furmark raised questions in his mind about the arms sale operation, but that he did not “learn” of the diversion until it was disclosed publicly by Atty. Gen. Edwin Meese III on Nov. 25.

Rep. Larry Smith (D-Fla.) was quoted by United Press International as saying that Casey contacted North after hearing from Furmark and North denied any diversion of funds to the contras. He said North also reportedly told Casey there was no CIA involvement in the matter.

“North said ‘no’ to both and that satisfied Casey,” Smith said.

Furmark testified that he heard of the diversion from a group of Canadian investors who had put up millions of dollars to help finance the Iranian arms sales in hopes of earning a profit when the arms were sold to Iran. Durenberger said the testimony has apparently upset the Canadian ambassador to the United States, Alan Gotleib.

“The nervous ambassador calls everybody on the committee and says, ‘What’s going on? Is there anything more to come?’ ” Durenberger said. He added that committee members assured Gotleib that there is no evidence of Canadian government involvement in the matter. “We said, ‘Forget about it. It’s not a problem for you. Go to the race track. It’s not a big deal.’ ”

One day at an Idaho hospital, half the newborns Dr. Tom Patterson saw didn’t get the vitamin K shots that have been given to babies for decades to prevent potentially deadly bleeding. On another recent day, more than a quarter didn’t get the shot. Their parents wouldn’t allow it.

“When you look at a child who’s innocent and vulnerable — and a simple intervention that’s been done since 1961 is refused — knowing that baby’s going out into the world is super worrisome to me,” said Patterson, who’s been a pediatrician for nearly three decades.

Doctors across the nation are alarmed that skepticism fueled by rising anti-science sentiment and medical mistrust is increasingly reaching beyond vaccines to other proven, routine preventive care for babies.

A recent study in the Journal of the American Medical Assn., which analyzed more than 5 million births nationwide, found that refusals of vitamin K shots nearly doubled between 2017 and 2024, from 2.9% to 5.2%. Other research suggests that parents who decline vitamin K shots are much more likely to refuse getting their newborns the hepatitis B vaccine and an eye ointment to prevent potentially blinding infections. Rates for that vaccination at birth dropped in recent years, and doctors confirm that more parents are refusing the eye medication.

“I do think these families care deeply about their infants,” said Dr. Kelly Wade, a Philadelphia neonatologist. “But I hear from families that it’s hard to make decisions right now because they’re hearing conflicting information.”

Innumerable social media posts question doctors’ advice on safe and effective measures like vitamin K and eye ointment. And the Trump administration has repeatedly undermined established science. A federal advisory committee whose members were appointed by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. — a leading anti-vaccine activist before joining the administration — voted to end the long-standing recommendation to immunize all babies against hepatitis B right after birth. On Monday a federal judge temporarily blocked all decisions made by the reconfigured committee.

One common thread that ties together anti-vaccine views and growing sentiments against other protective measures for newborns is the fallacy that natural is always better than artificial, said Dr. David Hill, a Seattle pediatrician and researcher.

“Nature will allow 1 in 5 human infants to die in the first year of life,” Hill said, “which is why generations of scientists and doctors have worked to bring that number way, way down.”

Vitamin K’s importance

Babies are born with low levels of vitamin K, leaving them vulnerable because their intestines can’t produce enough until they start eating solid foods at around 6 months old.

“Vitamin K is important for helping the blood clot and preventing dangerous bleeding in babies, like bleeding into the brain,” said Dr. Kristan Scott of the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, lead author of the JAMA study.

Before injections became routine, up to about 1 in 60 babies suffered vitamin K deficiency bleeding, which can also affect the gastrointestinal tract. Today the condition is rare, but research shows that newborns who don’t get a vitamin K shot are 81 times more likely to develop severe bleeding than those who do.

Hill has seen what can happen.

“I cared for a toddler whose parents had chosen that risk,” the Seattle doctor said. The child essentially had a stroke as a newborn and wound up with severe developmental delays and ongoing seizures.

At a February meeting of the Idaho chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics, doctors said they knew of eight deaths from vitamin K deficiency bleeding in the state over the preceding 13 months, said Patterson, who is president of the chapter.

Infections prevented by other newborn measures can also have grave consequences. Erythromycin eye ointment protects against gonorrhea that can be contracted during birth and potentially cause blindness if untreated. The hepatitis B vaccine prevents a disease that can lead to liver failure, liver cancer or cirrhosis.

Even if a pregnant woman is tested for gonorrhea and hepatitis B, no test is perfect, and she may get infected after testing, said Dr. Susan Sirota, a pediatrician in Highland Park, Ill. Either way, she risks passing the infection to her child.

Why are parents refusing routine care?

Parents give many reasons for turning down preventive measures, including fear that they might cause problems and not wanting newborns to feel pain.

“Some will just say they want more of a natural birth philosophy,” said Dr. Steven Abelowitz, founder of Ocean Pediatrics, which has three clinics in Orange County. “Then there’s a ton of misinformation. … There are outside influences, friends, celebrities, nonprofessionals and political agendas.”

Abelowitz practices in an area of the county with about an equal mix of Republicans and Democrats.

“There’s more mistrust from the conservative side, but there’s plenty on the more liberal side as well,” he said, “It’s across-the-board mistrust.”

Social media provides ample fuel, spreading myths and pushing unregulated vitamin K drops that doctors warn babies can’t absorb well.

Doctors in numerous states say parents refusing vitamin K shots often also decline other measures. Sirota, in Illinois, encountered a family that refused a heel stick to monitor glucose for a baby at high risk for having potentially life-threatening low blood sugar.

Care refusals aren’t a new phenomenon. Wade, in Philadelphia, said she’s seen them for 20 years. But until recently, they were rare.

Twelve years ago, Dana Morrison, now a Minnesota doula, declined the vitamin K shot for her newborn son, giving him oral drops instead.

“It came from a space of really wanting to protect the bonding time with my baby,” she said. “I was trying to eliminate more pokes.”

Her daughter’s birth a couple of years later was less straightforward, leaving the infant with a bruised leg. Morrison got the vitamin K shot for her.

Knowing what she does now, Morrison said, she would have gotten it for her son, too.

Efforts to persuade

Doctors hope to change minds, one parent at a time. And that begins with respect.

“If I walk into the room with judgment, we are going to have a really useless conversation,” Hill said. “Every parent I serve wants the best for their children.”

When parents question the need for the vitamin K shot, Dr. Heather Felton tries to address their specific concerns. She explains why it’s given and the risks of not getting it. Most families decide to get it, said Felton, who has seen no uptick in refusals.

“It really helps that you can take that time and really listen and be able to provide some education,” said Felton, a pediatrician at Norton Children’s in Louisville, Ky.

In Idaho, Patterson sometimes finds himself clearing up misconceptions. Some parents will agree to a vitamin K shot when they find out it’s not a vaccine, for example.

These conversations can take time, especially since the parents doctors see in hospitals usually aren’t people they know through their practices.

But doctors are happy to invest that time if it might save babies.

“I end every discussion with parents with this: ‘Please understand at the end of the day, I’m passionate about this because I have the best interest of children in my mind and heart,’” Patterson said. “I understand this is a hot topic, and I don’t want to disrespect anybody. But at the same time, I’m desperately saddened that we’re losing babies for no reason.”

Ungar writes for the Associated Press.