A heated political battle has erupted in Pennsylvania over how Governor Josh Shapiro is reporting fatalities amid a surging measles outbreak that has already seen 460 confirmed cases across 31 counties. Joshua Parsons, a Lancaster County commissioner, is accusing the Democratic governor of being intentionally deceptive after Shapiro held a press conference announcing two measles associated deaths. According to Parsons, the way the information was presented led the public and national media to believe that measles was the direct cause of death, rather than simply being present in the patients.
The controversy centers on a distinction between dying of a disease and dying with it. During his announcement, Governor Shapiro emphasized that these deaths were preventable through vaccination, urging residents to seek immunizations immediately. However, Lancaster County Coroner Dr. Stephen Diamoantoni expressed surprise at the announcement, stating he had not been contacted by the governor or the state health department prior to the briefing. The coroner clarified that while one infant who died during a home birth tested positive for measles, medical examiners determined the actual cause of death was a lacerated spleen.
Adding fuel to the fire is Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has joined the fray by blasting the governor’s framing of the situation. Commissioner Parsons noted that because infectious disease deaths must be reported to county coroners under state law, the absence of such reports makes the administration’s claims suspicious. He argued that unless a resident contracted measles locally but passed away in another jurisdiction, there is no reason for these figures to remain hidden from local officials.
In response to the backlash, the Pennsylvania Department of Health defended its language, insisting it consistently used the term measles associated. They explained that this phrasing indicates laboratory evidence of the virus was present even if it wasn’t listed as the primary cause of death on a certificate. Despite this clarification, critics argue that using such terminology in high profile press conferences creates an inaccurate narrative designed to pressure citizens into vaccination programs regardless of clinical specifics.