Tag: health policy

The Judiciary Jabs Back at RFK Jr.’s Changes to the Childhood Vaccine Schedule

On March 16, 2026, U.S. District Court Judge Brian E. Murphy granted an injunction preventing HHS from revising the childhood immunization schedule and staying the appointments of thirteen members of the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). A legal challenge to these changes to the vaccine schedule seemed all but inevitable when they were made, as Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s actions as health secretary over the past year have grown more and more polarizing. Vaccine supporters began to sound the alarm in June 2025 after Secretary Kennedy suddenly fired all seventeen members of ACIP, citing a need for a “clean sweep” to “re-establish public confidence in vaccine science.” However, Secretary Kennedy’s actions as head of HHS have continued to amplify the Trump administration’s skepticism of vaccines rather than solidify confidence in them. In a press conference in September 2025, President Trump made comments on vaccines and the childhood vaccine schedule, claiming that groups of people who do not use vaccines do not have autism and that they are injecting “a vat of eighty different vaccines” into young children. Trump also noted his distrust in the presence of aluminum and mercury in vaccines and his desire for vaccines for mumps, measles, and rubella to be taken separately rather than all together in the MMR vaccine. Trump  provided limited scientific support for these views at that time, stating “this is based on what I feel,” yet a few months later in December 2025, he released a Presidential Memorandum directing Secretary Kennedy to review vaccine schedules from other peer countries which vaccinate for fewer diseases and revise the childhood vaccine schedule to conform to best practices. This memorandum prompted HHS to release a decision memo updating the childhood vaccine schedule on January 5, 2026. 

Although Secretary Kennedy and President Trump’s stated policy goal of these actions was to improve confidence in vaccines, in practice these actions actually may lead to less confidence in vaccines and the government entities that govern public health. Physicians are noticing that they are getting more questions from families regarding the childhood vaccine schedule due to the changes. Physicians report that changes have caused confusion and anxiety for parents regarding which vaccines are appropriate and when they should be administered, and this confusion is leading some physicians to disregard the changes altogether and follow recommendations made by the American Academy of Pediatrics. The American Academy of Pediatrics was one of many groups who sued HHS to block the changes to the vaccine schedule and stay the appointment of other vaccine skeptics to the ACIP,  arguing that these actions violated the Administrative Procedure Act because they constituted arbitrary or capricious agency action not in accordance with statutory authority. Although Judge Murphy granted the injunction staying the appointments due to their likelihood of success on the merits, likelihood of suffering irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, balance of equities in their favor, and the fact that injunction would be in the public interest, this decision is not necessarily permanent. Whether or not the changes to the vaccine schedule and the appointments to ACIP are allowed to stand will come down to the result of a trial or a decision for summary judgment. No matter the final outcome of the litigation, the changes and associated legal challenges alone may worsen public confidence in vaccines more than these policies could ever improve it. The resulting instability in policy highlights the importance of following the appropriate protocols for agency rulemaking.

Ethical Considerations in Plasma Donations Across the United States

For the past twelve years, William Jacques has visited CSL Plasma twice a week to donate his plasma. He brings in $460 a month, likening it to a part-time job. He’s not the only one. Across the United States, Americans are consistently frequenting plasma donation centers in exchange for a quick buck. 

The number of these centers continues to rise. Currently, the United States has more plasma donation centers, at 1,247, than community colleges. The number of centers varies per state, largely due to differences in regulations. However, one thing is consistent– the presence of these centers in economically disadvantaged neighborhoods. The average plasma seller is low-income, under 35, unemployed, and lacking a college degree. Over two-thirds of donors are motivated to donate to pay for day-to-day essentials and emergencies.   

The United States’ paid-donor plasma system supplies 75% of the world’s plasma, despite North America accounting for 44% of the demand. This is largely because the FDA allows individuals to donate plasma more frequently and at higher annual volumes than in any other country. In the United States, donors are remunerated $50-75 per donation. In 2025 alone, more than $4.7 billion was spent on donor compensation. 

However, paid donations are not the only way. 64 countries have reached over 99% of their blood supply by unpaid donors, and 54 countries have reached over 50%. In fact, the World Health Organization has set a goal to achieve 100% voluntary non-renumerated donors by 2030. The World Health Organization advises countries against rumination, raising concerns about the harmful consequences of frequent donation. 

This is especially concerning, considering the vulnerability of poor Americans who historically have worse health outcomes than their wealthier counterparts. There is a gap in knowledge about the effects of frequent plasma donation, raising serious ethical questions. Without this knowledge, how can an individual fully understand the risks of selling their plasma, and how can we determine the fair market value of plasma? One comparative study found that in countries with donor remuneration (causing more frequent donations), donor safety is at risk, and the infectious burden of donated plasma is higher, and plasma-derived medicinal product prices increased less in countries with a volunteer-based system.

It is imperative that we do not exploit the financial deprivation of poor Americans while also balancing the growing need for plasma donations. It is time for the FDA to reconsider the regulations regarding the frequency and remuneration of plasma donors. Some suggest regular audits of donation centers to monitor compliance with ethical standards and address possible exploitation. There must be research into the long-term health effects of frequent donation on vulnerable donors to ensure the long-term health and safety of donors and a sustainable blood and plasma supply for the United States and beyond. 

Two Florida Women Subject to Judge-Mandated C-Sections Raise New Concerns About Pregnant People’s Diminishing Right to Bodily Integrity

A recent ProPublica investigation revealed how two Florida women, Cherise Doyley and Brianna Bennet, were forced via a judge-ordered mandate to birth their children through C-sections, overriding their wishes for vaginal births and highlighting a new and concerning element to Florida’s fetal-personhood agenda.

In September of 2024, during her twelfth hour of labor, nurses instructed Cherise Doyle to cover up as they brought in a tablet showing a virtual meeting with a team of lawyers and a robed judge. The hospital had sought an emergency petition for a mandated C-section as doctors thought the unborn child’s life was at risk. Cherise, a professional birthing doula, had experienced three prior C-section deliveries and was against having another due to past hemorrhaging complications. Throughout the three-hour hearing, in which Cherise had no lawyer or advocate present, she explained that she understood the risk of uterine rupture was less than 2% and clearly stated she did not want a C-section. Ultimately, her wishes were dismissed, and the judge ruled that Cherise had no choice; if anything went wrong at all, she would be receiving a C-section. After the baby’s heart rate dropped, Cherise was wheeled into surgery and forcibly underwent the C-section.

A year and a half earlier, Brianna Bennet faced an eerily similar situation.  Brianna had also undergone three prior C-sections, and after experiencing intense complications from those procedures, she wanted a vaginal birth for her fourth child. Twenty-four hours into her active labor, fifteen people crowded into her room for a virtual meeting with a judge. Despite voicing her wishes and concerns centered around her past experiences with C-sections, emphasizing the lack of help she would have if incapacitated in such a way again, the judge voted in favor of the hospital’s petition.  Brianna was forced to have a C-section and suffered emotional trauma afterwards.

Generally, the United States recognizes the constitutional right to bodily integrity, which includes the right to refuse medical treatment. However, in the post-Dobbs world, the country now sees no national consensus as to whether bodily integrity extends to pregnant patients or if fetal rights can supersede; Florida is a state that upholds the latter.

Florida’s stance on restricted bodily integrity for pregnant people is largely a result of the state’s fetal personhood legislation and policy ambitions, including the Heartbeat Protection Act passed in 2024, which criminalizes abortions performed after six weeks. Religious and moral beliefs stand as a large motivating factor behind these practices, but some believe that a more malicious goal is the strongest undercurrent of these court-mandated C-sections.

Florida relies heavily on private equity for its healthcare centers and investors remain hungry for profits. A state law passed in 2025 allows doctors to deliver children via C-sections outside of hospitals; critics of this law point to the role it plays in circulating more money in the private equity-backed healthcare system while simultaneously taking patients away from the few public hospitals left in the state. Because C-section patient costs are, on average, 85% higher than those from a vaginal birth, sexual health advocates worry that this law’s primary goal sees C-sections as a way to generate more profits at the expense of patient safety.

If these fears are founded, it would raise the question of whether hospitals’ petitions for C-sections in cases like Cherise and Brianna’s are truly made in the patient’s best interest or if hospital investors are casting a shadow over these types of decisions. What’s even more concerning is that Cherise and Brianna’s stories aren’t outliers; pregnant people in other states are experiencing similar judicial control over their bodies in the name of fetal personhood via judge-ordered C-sections. With the number of private equity-backed healthcare facilities and hospitals growing nationally every year, this newly emerging legislature and judicial coalition may be building a new profit-churning machine at the expense of pregnant people’s health, safety, autonomy, and constitutional rights.

Biosecurity Catching Up to the Modern Era: A Look Into S.3741

Biotechnology is a rapidly evolving field, touching almost all parts of the human experience. The field has become a stronghold in the United States due to increased investment and a new multi-disciplinary approach to the developing research. Though these innovations are important for the future of disease prevention and the eradication of hunger and petrochemical dependence, it also leaves the door open to potential bioterrorism if these technologies get into the hands of bad actors. Currently, oversight for biosecurity in the US government is spread among multiple agencies without clear and streamlined protections and processes. 

On January 29th, 2026, senators Tom Cotton (R-Arkansas) and Amy Klobuchar (D-Minnesota) introduced the Biosecurity Modernization and Innovation Act, a bipartisan bill aimed at closing some of the gaps in current biosecurity procedures. The bill has three main elements: the biosecurity element, the sandbox element, and the streamlining element. 

The biosecurity element creates screening protocols and reporting requirements. The screening protocols are twofold: there are protocols for both DNA sequences and for customers. The protocols for sequences include creating lists of sequences that have potential for security concern, and updating and monitoring those sequences often. The protocols also require that each customer purchasing a sequence is properly vetted and screened before the sequence is given. The bill also creates safeguards for innovation, including expedited processing for institutions and exceptions for non-concerning sequences. The bill requires yearly reports to Congress and biyearly updates to standards. 

The sandbox element directly impacts efforts to create innovation. Sandboxes are “environment[s] featuring short-term trials of proposed tests so that [researchers] can evaluate new regulatory pathways and potential improvements to existing pathways.” They allow for safe and efficient environments for technologies to be tested. The goal of this element is to create secure testing for innovation, and to foster participation of nongovernmental experts in the research and regulation process. 

Finally, the streamlining element gets to the core of what biosecurity advocates have requested from the government. Science organizations, including the Federation of American Scientists and the Nuclear Threat Initiative have requested streamlined processes from the government because of the disjointed processes to protect sequences from getting into the hands of bad actors. The bill gives the White House 90 days after the law is enacted to assess the needs of biosecurity and identify gaps that need to be filled, followed by a period of implementation that includes further legislation or executive action if necessary. 

The bill in its current state is a good first step toward biosecurity regulation in the quickly changing market. The government is making an effort to create long-term fixes to a problem that has before only received short-term band-aids. Its goal is to shift the burden from the researchers to the government, as the burden on researchers has inhibited efficient developments. Proponents of the bill state that this legislation is a step in the right direction, but make it clear that it is only a step, and that there is a lot more change that needs to be made to meet the quickly changing biotechnology environment. There is some concern about the short time period that the White House and executive branch are provided to start making discoveries and changes, but stakeholders find that the timeline matches the urgency that the issue requires. 

It is obvious that this bill is the culmination of the leading senators listening to the requests of important stakeholders. It remains to be seen how this bill will fare in committee, but with bipartisan and stakeholder support, there is a sense of hope that this can kickstart rapid change that is urgently needed. 

Deregulating the EPA: How the Elimination of the Endangerment Finding Ignores Health Consequences for Infants and Children

This month, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Trump administration rescinded the Obama-era Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Endangerment Finding and the subsequent emission regulation standards that have accompanied it. Published by the EPA on December 15, 2009, the Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act found that six greenhouse gases—carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride—contribute to air pollution and endanger public health and welfare of current and future generations. In the sixteen years since the endangerment finding was published, scientific evidence supporting each impact noted in the finding has become virtually indisputable; every ton of emissions increases the severity of expected climate impact, and every exposure to compound climate events “can increase morbidity and mortality.” Notably absent from the Agency’s news release is any discussion of or consideration for the health impacts that the finding sought to protect against.

Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks has directed government agencies to identify and assess environmental health risks that may “disproportionately affect children” since 1997. In its full report, the EPA uses careful language to skirt this obligation, stating that children “are not expected to experience greater ambient concentrations of air pollutants than the general population.” The statement points out the obvious–children are breathing air with the same chemical composition as everyone else–while ignoring the reality that the health consequences of air pollution have a far greater impact on growing and developing bodies than it does on fully developed adults. 

Increased concentrations of greenhouse gases have caused overall warming and more extreme weather patterns and heat events. In looking at the health impacts on children, the American Academy of Pediatrics 2024 Policy Statement outlined the specific effects of increased emissions against real health consequences. One study analyzed infant mortality data on an individual level against outdoor air temperature data for over 60,000 sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) cases between 1972 and 2006, finding that a ten degree Fahrenheit temperature increase during the summer was associated with an 8.6% increase in the risk of SIDS. For black infants, the increased risk was 18.5%. In addition to the risk of rising temperatures, an analysis of six years of pediatric respiratory health data in San Diego County found particulate pollution from wildfires to be approximately ten times more harmful to children’s health than particulate matter from other sources. While climate change alone is not the sole cause of wildfires, the scientific consensus is that human-caused global warming contributes significantly to the trend of larger, more severe wildfires across California and the Southwest. 

Air pollution and heat exposure from climate change are also associated with adverse pregnancy outcomes. Exposure to ultrafine particulate matter is associated with increased risk of preterm birth and low birth weight, with higher risk found among black mothers, and mothers with asthma. Continued exposure to air pollution after birth can also affect lung development, leading to a greater risk of lung disease.

While the announcement from the EPA this month focused its priorities on the American consumer’s freedom to buy whatever car they want, it ignores its own origins as an agency founded on principles of achieving national air quality standards and reducing automobile pollution. The science of the last sixteen years makes it abundantly clear that not only does climate change increase the risk of negative health outcomes, but those risks are substantially higher for children and other high risk groups. The battle over this deregulation, however, has only just begun. The American Public Health Association, jointly with numerous other health and environmental groups, has already filed suit challenging the EPA and California is expected to follow soon.

The Politicization of Research: NIH Cuts, DEI Litigation, and the Future of Health Equity Research

Under the Trump administration, hospitals, medical schools, and academic research centers have faced an increasing wave of legal and regulatory challenges to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. What began as coordinated complaints to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office for Civil Rights quickly expanded into a massive wave of National Institutes of Health (NIH) grant cancellations.  

According to a Congressional Research Service review of HHS data, as of November 28, 2025, the department had terminated 977 NIH grant awards, representing approximately $1.7 billion in obligated funding, pursuant to a presidential memorandum. As noted in a dissent authored by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, NIH grant terminations have been historically rare. From 2012 to January 20, 2025, the NIH terminated fewer than 6 grants midstream in the 13 years. However, starting in February 2025, the administration took a drastic departure from that when they terminated $1 billion in NIH grants focused on disparities research. In the termination letter from the NIH, researchers were informed that their grants were ended because the projects allegedly “harm the health of Americans,” “offer a low return on investment,” or “fail to improve health, extend or reduce disease.” Many researchers felt that their research “was not evaluated on its merits, but nixed because words like ‘race’ or ‘gender’ were in the project’s title or description.” Additionally, in August, the NIH Director, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, announced a new unified strategy for research priorities, stating that “research based on ideologies that promote differential treatment of people based on race or ethnicity, rely on poorly defined concepts or on unfalsifiable theories, does not follow the principles of gold-standard science.”

In June 2025, two lawsuits filed in federal court in Massachusetts challenged actions by the Trump administration and resulted in the restoration of more than 2,000 previously terminated grants. In August, the Supreme Court held that the lower court likely lacked the jurisdiction to review the termination of research grants focused on disfavored topics and populations, but declined to block the district court’s ruling. In December 2025, an additional agreement with the plaintiff required the administration to reconsider certain DEI-related research proposals, leading to the release of over 100 grants whose reviews had been on hold, and stated that decisions on additional grants would be made in the coming weeks. However, in remarks on a podcast in December last year, NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya suggested that the reinstated June grants may only offer temporary relief and could be terminated in 2026. He stated that “when it comes to renewal, those grants no longer meet NIH priorities. . . So when they come up for renewal over the course of the year, we won’t renew them.”

Physicians and academic researchers worry that the NIH cuts may slow down innovation and ultimately undermine patient care. The Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) has argued that these developments threaten biomedical research and academic medicine more broadly. AAMC warns that the termination of NIH grants could risk access to treatment for clinical patients and slow scientific progress. Beyond immediate funding losses, legal scholars note that the uncertainty surrounding grant renewals, shifting research priorities, and ongoing litigation has created a chilling effect within academic medicine, prompting institutions to reevaluate compliance frameworks, research portfolios, and DEI-related programming to mitigate enforcement risk. 

According to recent coverage, the researchers have now moved to remove terms related to DEI and health disparities from research grants. Additionally, organizations have compiled lists of diversity-related language based on manual reviews of grant materials, which have since been circulated among research institutions and online forums frequented by scientists. Other reports have described researchers as self-censoring their language around diversity to secure grant funding. Experts have also stated that the termination of grant programs that support students from underserved backgrounds “could close off scientific careers for individuals who wouldn’t otherwise have access to research opportunities.”

From a legal perspective, these changes represent both regulatory and funding risks. According to the AHLA Fraud and Abuse Practice Group, board and compliance officers now have toevaluate DEI programs not only under Title VI and Section 1157 frameworks, but also in light of the sustainability of the research portfolio. Compliance Officers must now review all federally funded programs to ensure eligibility requirements and documentation are in place. They must ensure that disparity-focused research is framed in scientifically and population-neutral terms. They must also closely monitor NIH statements and funding guidance updates and develop contingency plans for non-renewal scenarios. 

The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2026 (P.L 119.75) rejected the Trump administration’s proposed 40% NIH cuts, instead providing an increase of $210 million. The legislation also included a provision blocking the Office of Management and Budget’s multi-year funding proposal, which contributed to 2,000 fewer NIH grants being awarded in 2025. This represents a promising sign for medical research, but it does not fully resolve the instability surrounding NIH priorities, grant renewals, and administrative overhaul. Whether courts ultimately constrain the executive branch’s authority to deprioritize entire categories of research remains unsettled. The central question moving forward is not only whether DEI-related programs will remain legally defensible, but also whether the nation’s biomedical research can continue to address documented disparities amid shifting political priorities.