Last month’s decision by Cochise County’s two Republican board supervisors to turn down $1.9 million in additional COVID-19 funds remains a hot-button issue with residents, even prompting disagreement among local Republicans who say the funds could have been put to good use.
Recently, the vote garnered the attention of the New York Times.
The Feb. 11 New York Times article accurately reports why Supervisor Peggy Judd voted against the funding available from the Arizona Department of Health Services. It also focuses on the “no” vote by Supervisor Tom Crosby, citing his desire to “to get the county out of the vaccine business” along with his concerns of “eroding constitutional rights.
But there was a glaring omission in the New York Times report which even Crosby’s detractors agree would have provided a clearer picture of why he opposed accepting the money. The omission relates to Crosby’s well-publicized concern with a promise Cochise County had to make to accept the money — specifically a pledge to follow any future federal public health guidance.
“What if we take the money now and later run afoul with some future requirement?” Crosby asked. “What if they demand we return the funding down the road? Those types of strings are a red flag that should worry us all.”
The article also suggests Crosby, a retired U.S. Border Patrol agent who worked in intelligence positions. believes the current COVID-19 vaccine is similar to Agent Orange. However, what Crosby has expressed several times is concern with the long-term medical unknowns, similar to other previously championed products such as Agent Orange which ended up having devastating impacts on Americans.
It is one reason he refused to push mandatory vaccinations for county staff, although fully supports the right of someone to voluntarily get a COVID-19 vaccination.
“I try to be careful not to unduly influence other people that might not have my exact circumstances, and let them make an informed decision,” Crosby said after voting against the funds. “Nonetheless, my stance is to get the County out of the vaccine business, for several reasons.”
He then listed those reasons, including the lack of studies into the long term vaccine effects, his opposition to socialist medicine, his belief that the government should be neutral on vaccination choice, and his belief that the private sector would “take up the slack if the County were to get out of it.”
“Proponents on both sides of the issue accuse the other of misinformation, therefore I don’t feel confident that I can know the truth [about the vaccines] with certainty,” Crosby has said. “As somebody in a position of authority, I’m not going to endorse something that might turn out like ‘agent orange’ or something that messes people up.”
The supervisors’ vote and Crosby’s position on the $1.9 million funding opportunity made headlines not only in Cochise County but across the state, A Tucson reporter tried to get in touch with the supervisors, prompting the county’s public information officer to email Crosby.
“If you have received an email or phone call from him, I kindly request you loop me into the communication before any responses are provided (if any),” PIO Camila Rochin wrote in a Jan. 21 email. “This goes for all future media requests as well.”
In Crosby fashion, the elected supervisor responded to Rochin without addressing her request, as a county employee, to be made aware of his future media contacts in advance of issuing any statements.