CDC Reverses Course on COVID Vaccines for Pregnant Women and Children. Here's What to Know
What's happening
The CDC is no longer advising COVID-19 vaccines for pregnant women and healthy children. Why it matters
The change reverses previous federal guidance, shifting focus to high-risk groups.
In a shift to federal public health guidance, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention will no longer encourage COVID-19 vaccinations for pregnant women and healthy children. The pivot, shared by Kennedy in a 58-second video posted to X, formerly Twitter, marks a significant departure from the CDC's stance just two weeks ago, when it reiterated the importance of high-risk groups, which included expecting mothers.
"I couldn't be more pleased to announce that as of today, the COVID vaccine for healthy children and healthy pregnant women has been removed from the CDC recommended immunization schedule," Kennedy said, flanked by Jay Bhattacharya, director of the National Institutes of Health, and FDA Commissioner Marty Makary.
The trio framed the decision as a return to evidence-based policymaking. Makary said "no evidence" supports healthy children benefit from routine COVID vaccination, while Bhattacharya called the update "common sense and good science."
The update comes just after a similar policy announcement from the Trump administration, which last week stated it would no longer recommend annual COVID shots for younger adults and children. Instead, older adults (65 and up), and anyone over six months with underlying conditions like diabetes, obesity, chronic respiratory diseases or cancer will be prioritized in vaccination efforts.
Meanwhile, pregnant women appear to have been reclassified under the new CDC guidance and are no longer encouraged to get COVID-19 vaccines.
The CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices is scheduled to meet on June 25 to finalize COVID-19 vaccine recommendations for this fall.
What does this new COVID-19 vaccine guidance mean for families?
The new CDC guidance may leave parents or expecting mothers wondering how to move forward. While the change reflects a broader approach based on individual risk assessment, it also places more responsibility on families to navigate complex medical decisions without the same level of clear federal direction.
The new guidelines remove COVID vaccination from the standard immunization schedule for families with healthy children. Children with underlying conditions such as diabetes, asthma or a compromised immune system are still advised to receive vaccines.
The guidance is more unclear for pregnant women. This change reopens the debate about whether vaccination during pregnancy remains a protective measure or an unnecessary risk.
What should you do now?
Here are a few tips for navigating the latest vaccine guidance changes and making the most informed decisions for yourself and your family.
Talk to your doctor
Any medical decisions, especially during pregnancy and for young children, should be consulted with your primary care provider or OB-GYN. They can help you determine individual needs and risks.
Assess your risk factors
The new COVID-19 vaccination guidelines still recommend shots for people over 65 and those with health conditions like cancer, obesity, diabetes or chronic respiratory illnesses. If you or your child falls into one of these groups, vaccination may still be advised.
Stay informed
As federal health guidance evolves, it's important to monitor updates from reputable and trusted medical sources, including your state health department and professional medical associations.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Associated Press
22 minutes ago
- Associated Press
New Mexico appeals court rejects lawsuit against oil and gas regulators
SANTA FE, N.M. (AP) — A New Mexico appeals court rejected a lawsuit alleging that the nation's No. 2 oil-producing state failed to meet constitutional provisions for protecting against oil and gas industry pollution, in an opinion Tuesday. Environmental advocates vowed to appeal the matter to the state's top court. A panel of three judges on the New Mexico Court of Appeals found that it was beyond the judiciary's authority to weigh whether the pollution controls are adequate, writing that they'll defer to the Legislature to balance the benefits of environmental regulation with natural resources development. The 2023 lawsuit from a coalition of environmental groups was the first to invoke the constitution's pollution-control clause, a 1971 amendment requiring that New Mexico prevent the contamination of air, water and other natural resources. 'While plaintiffs correctly observe that, as the 'Land of Enchantment,' the state's beauty is central to our identity, we cannot ignore the long history of permitting oil and gas extraction within our borders,' the panel wrote, invoking the state motto. 'If anything, the law, history, and tradition of our state demonstrates that resource extraction must be considered alongside, and must coexist with, pollution control legislation.' Gail Evans, an attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity and lead counsel on the case, said Tuesday's opinion would dismiss the case entirely if unchallenged and 'displays a fundamental misunderstanding of our constitution and constitutional rights.' She said plaintiffs intent to appeal to the state Supreme Court. 'Fifty years ago, New Mexico voted to amend the constitution and to provide protections from industry pollution and the court has found today that the amendment — the pollution control clause — is essentially meaningless, and that has to be wrong,' Evans said. The court challenge comes as New Mexico's state government rides a wave of record income from development in the Permian Basin, one of the world's most productive, oil-producing regions. Oil-related revenue collections underwrite a considerable amount of the state's budget, including public education. Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham's administration is policing the industry with regulations that target methane and other emissions. But the Center for Biological Diversity and other groups say these efforts are not enough and that the state is failing to enforce existing pollution-control measures. Attorneys for the Democratic-led Legislature and environmental regulators said the lawsuit threatened their constitutional authority. Appeals Judge Katherine Wray issued an additional concurring opinion, expressing further limitations of the pollution control clause.
CBS News
22 minutes ago
- CBS News
Worcester street renamed to honor teen who died after "One Chip Challenge"
A street in Worcester has been renamed in honor of a 14-year-old boy who died in 2023 after eating a spicy chip as part of a social media challenge. The "One Chip Challenge" In 2023, Paqui's "One Chip Challenge" hit social media, encouraging fans to try their super spicy chip. The single wrapped chip came in a box labeled "Carolina Reaper" and "Naga Viper Pepper." Harris Wolobah was a sophomore at Doherty High School when a friend gave him the chip in September 2023. Harris fainted after eating the chip, and the school nurse called his parents. His parents said Harris fainted again that night, and they rushed him to the hospital, where he died. Paqui pulled the chips from the shelves after Harris's death. An autopsy revealed Harris died of cardiopulmonary arrest "in the setting of recent ingestion of a food substance with high capsaicin concentration." The medical examiner also found Harris had an enlarged heart and a congenital heart defect. In 2024, Harris's family sued Paqui, also naming Hershey and Walgreens in the lawsuit. Honoring "a young man's spirit" "Today is not just about a name; it is about a young man's spirit. It is about the light he brought to those around him. To the children of Worcester who walk these streets, let Harris's name be a reminder that you matter, your life matters," said Harris's mother, Lois Wolobah. Shore Drive will also be known as Harris Thompson Wolobah Way. The sign was unveiled at the corner of Shore Drive and South Frontage Road, in front of the YMCA, where Harris spent a lot of his time playing basketball.
Fast Company
25 minutes ago
- Fast Company
Business leaders must prioritize employee well-being
As I've been watching deep cuts unfold across the federal government and nonprofit sectors, I can't help but feel deeply sad for the work that is at risk or has been cancelled, the knowledge that will be lost, and for the people who did the work. I know firsthand what it means to be on both sides of the equation. I've been the leader tasked with executing layoffs, and I've also been the one laid off. Both experiences gutted me. They made me reflect on what leadership really means and what we should be measuring when we define success. The problem is that we often gauge success by revenue, efficiency, and productivity while completely overlooking a key factor:the well-being of the people doing the work. A 2024 Gallup report revealed that only 21% of employees strongly agree that their organization cares about their overall well-being. While I agree that there are inefficiencies in every bureaucracy and organization, leaders have a responsibility to balance financial performance with other measures of success. At Catapult Design, a social impact design firm, we've made well-being a non-negotiable metric—on equal footing with financial performance and creative excellence. Because if an organization's work is meant to improve lives—whether in social innovation, government services, or private enterprise—how can we ignore what's happening inside our own walls? Well-being is the missing metric I worked at one consultancy that had indicators for measuring the quality of work and the financial health of the company. I thought that was amazing. It really kept the company on track because both were reported quarterly. The work was consistently good by many measures, and the company was very healthy from a financial perspective. When I left there to take a CEO position, I suggested to my new board that we measure the quality of our work and financial health but also add another indicator around team well-being. At first, this was around ensuring that we had the best benefits that a small business could offer. We were thoughtful around vacation time, sick leave, training days, and professional and personal stipends. But over time, we realized that well-being isn't just about benefits or hours worked—it's about how people experience their work. We started paying closer attention to overwork—not as the cause of burnout, but as an early signal. Research shows that burnout is less about working too many hours and more about things like lack of clarity, autonomy, or alignment with values. Still, sustained overwork often points to deeper systemic issues. We use it as a 'check engine' light of the well-being of the team. That's why we've built a practice that if anyone is consistently working more than 45 hours a week, they message me directly. Then we talk about why. Is it a broken process? Poorly scoped projects? Is someone quietly drowning? We bring those issues to the board and leadership meetings, treating them as seriously as financial projections. As we've deepened our approach to well-being, we've also learned it's shaped just as much by leadership behavior as by organizational policy. A few months ago, my team asked to formally review me. Their feedback was honest, thoughtful, and generous. One thing they shared was that when something seems obvious to me, I tend to move forward without discussion. But what's clear to me isn't always clear to others—and they wanted more transparency and space for shared decision making. That feedback was a gift. One small but meaningful change I made was to begin sharing my weekly board emails with the entire team. It's helped remove ambiguity and reduce stress about what's happening behind the scenes. We all know at Catapult Design that we are not immune to what is happening in the U.S. government right now. While I'm happy to see efforts for efficiency in financial performance, I worry about what's being lost in the process. As budgets shrink and priorities shift, how will the quality of government services be measured? And what happens to the well-being of those providing—and relying on—those services if we fail to track what really matters? 4 ways to prioritize employee well-being Prioritizing well-being isn't just a leadership philosophy; it's a strategic decision. We're always refining what this looks like, but here's how organizations can make it real: Make well-being a key performance indicator. Measure engagement, workload balance, and psychological safety as rigorously as revenue. Normalize feedback loops. If leaders aren't being reviewed by their teams, they're missing critical data about what's working (and what's not). Recalibrate workloads. If overwork is the norm, the problem isn't employees—it's leadership. Project scoping must align with reality, not just ambition. Champion transparency. When teams understand the organization's financial health and strategic direction, they feel more invested—and less anxious. Well-being matters more than ever We're in a moment of reckoning. Layoffs are making headlines across industries—from tech to media to government—and many organizations are under pressure to do more with less. It's not surprising that burnout and questions about leadership are surfacing more often in the process. In a world where talent is mobile and exhaustion is widespread, the best organizations won't just be those that survive financially—they'll be the ones that create workplaces where people want to stay, grow, and thrive. I've learned the hard way that leadership isn't about having all the answers. But I do wonder, if we don't prioritize the people who make the work possible, will anything else matter.
