
Key GOP senator finally challenges RFK Jr.'s anti-vaccine policies — but he's too late
A physician, Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) had long enjoyed bipartisan respect for his record of supporting child vaccinations. Indeed, as a doctor in Baton Rouge, he had personally played a role in getting hepatitis-B and flu vaccines into local schools.
But Cassidy's reputation as a stalwart defender of public health crumbled on Feb. 4.
That's when he took to the Senate floor to announce that he would vote to confirm the noted anti-vaccine activist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as Secretary of Health and Human Services. Kennedy's nomination had hung by a thread while Cassidy's GOP colleagues waited to see how he would vote. His decision to confirm Kennedy put the nomination over the top when the confirmation vote was held on Feb. 13.
Kennedy had assuaged Cassidy's doubts about him by promising that he and Cassidy would have 'an unprecedentedly close collaborative working relationship if he is confirmed,' Cassidy said.
Among other promises, Kennedy pledged to maintain the key Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 'without changes.'
He even promised to give Cassidy, the chair of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP), the right to appoint a member on 'any board of commission formed to review vaccine safety.'
It has since become clear that Kennedy thoroughly bamboozled Cassidy. On June 9, Kennedy fired all 17 members of ACIP and handpicked eight new members. The new cadre included 'antivaxxers, the antivax-adjacent, and the unqualified,' as veteran pseudoscience debunker David Gorski noted. None of them was nominated by Cassidy.
Cassidy remained silent—until Monday, two days before the reconstituted ACIP is scheduled to hold its first two-day conference.
In a post on X, Cassidy decried Kennedy's appointments. Many of them 'do not have significant experience studying microbiology, epidemiology or immunology,' he observed. 'In particular, some lack experience studying new technologies such as mRNA vaccines, and may even have a preconceived bias against them. (The mRNA vaccines are the COVID vaccines in global use marketed by Pfizer and Moderna.)
Cassidy said the conference should be delayed until the panel is 'fully staffed with more robust and balanced representation—as required by law—including those with more direct relevant expertise.'
It was Cassidy's first overt criticism of Kennedy's management of Health and Human Services, and long overdue. It wasn't entirely free of the pusillanimous approach he has taken thus far to Kennedy's regime, however.
'He asks for a delay until this committee is more 'balanced,' but 'balanced' in what way?' asks Paul Offit of Childrens Hospital of Philadelphia, one of the nation's most eminent vaccine experts (and a former ACIP member). 'Does that mean you have anti-vaccine activists and people who actually support the science? Does that mean you have an adequate balance of people who are good scientists and people who aren't?'
There's also reason to wonder whether credible immunologists, epidemiologists and vaccinologists would even accept appointment to ACIP as long as anti-vaxxers are on the panel. 'I'm not sure many will be knocking down the door to sit with antiscience activists on the other side,' says Peter Hotez, a leading vaccine developer and expert. 'At this point the current committee needs to be dissolved.'
Cassidy's reference to the law's requirement looks like something of a dodge. The law he refers to—the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1982, or FACA — does require the membership of advisory committees to be 'fairly balanced in terms of the points of view represented.' But that doesn't require just any views about vaccines to be represented.
'That does not mean 'put science deniers on a vaccine advisory committee to represent the anti-science perspective,'' Dorit R. Reiss, an expert on vaccine law at UC College of the Law, told me. The committee's charter anticipates that the members will have varied expertise in different vaccines and vaccine-preventable diseases: 'It's not a violation of FACA to not appoint anti-vaccine activists,' she says.
A spokesman for Kennedy didn't respond to my request for comment on Cassidy's statement. As of this writing, it's still scheduled to convene Wednesday morning and continue Thursday with the eight members Kennedy appointed.
A final agenda posted Tuesday lists a presentation by Lyn Redwood on thimerosal in vaccines. The item was not present on earlier agenda drafts.
Thimerosol is a preservative previously used in vaccines that long has been a target of anti-vaccine activists who asserted that it caused autism in children given the shots; that claim has been decisively debunked. Redwood is a former president of Children's Health Defense, an anti-vaccine organization long associated with Kennedy. Its resurrection as an agenda item suggests that Kennedy has not given up on the debunked claim that vaccines and autism are linked.
I asked Cassidy to expand on his tweet, but a spokesman told me he wouldn't have anything to say beyond that.
When I asked earlier whether Cassidy thought he had been deceived when Kennedy reneged on his pledge to keep ACIP functioning 'without changes,' his spokesman replied that Kennedy's commitment 'was about the ACIP process, not staffing.' That's not at all how Cassidy described Kennedy's commitment on Feb. 4.
ACIP's recommendations on vaccine use don't become law until they're accepted by the head of the CDC. At this moment, however, the CDC doesn't have a director.
Donald Trump withdrew his first nominee for the post, former Republican Congressman Dave Weldon of Florida, after the emergence of his anti-vaccination views, including his support for the long-debunked claim that the MMR vaccine causes autism—a view also espoused by Kennedy.
Donald Trump subsequently nominated Susan Monarez, who is currently the agency's acting director, but she hasn't been confirmed by the Senate. Monarez holds a doctorate in microbiology but would be the first CDC director since 1953 not to have a medical degree.
The vacuum atop the CDC facilitated Kennedy's unilateral decision to take the COVID vaccines off the recommended list for pregnant women and healthy children, which ran counter to the position of the larger medical community.
It doesn't seem likely that Cassidy's modest pushback against Kennedy's evisceration of ACIP will restore his standing as the Senate's go-to authority on vaccines and public health, given the deference he showed to Kennedy up to now.
'I don't think he can do anything,,' Offit told me. 'His moment came when he voted 'yes'' on Kennedy's confirmation. 'Cassidy keeps drawing lines, RFK Jr. crosses them, and he draws another line, and another line. He said that RFK Jr. promised he wouldn't change existing recommendations, and that's just what he did, for pregnant people and young children for the COVID vaccine. He said he wouldn't alter the [ACIP] panel, and that's exactly what he did. Worse, he brought people on who don't have the expertise to give us the kind of advice we need.'
Even if Kennedy takes Cassidy's advice and postpones the ACIP meeting to give the membership 'balance,' the damage to its authority will be lasting.
'The entire medical and scientific community will now reject the ACIP—and for that matter, the CDC—as a source of information,' Offit says. 'That's what Cassidy has done while standing back and letting all this happen.'
Kennedy has plunged ACIP and the CDC into a partisan and ideological morass. 'Until Kennedy, this was a non-political expert committee,' says Reiss. 'He is reshaping it to promote an anti-vaccine agenda, and likely in an effort to deny people vaccines.'
Thanks to Kennedy, America's once-vaunted expertise in public health has been infected with the anti-science virus. For that virus, there doesn't appear to be a vaccine on the horizon.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Intercept
15 minutes ago
- The Intercept
War Powers Resolution From House Democratic Leaders May Not Limit Trump's War Powers
As Democrats try to push forward legislation that would block further strikes on Iran, one measure advanced by House leadership could actually strengthen the Trump administration's justification for subsequent attacks, anti-war advocates warn. House progressives on Wednesday were trying to reach a compromise with Democratic leaders that would curb further U.S. military involvement in Iran while satisfying concerns from pro-Israel members about American support for Israel's missile defense. There are three different war powers resolutions in play in Washington. In the Senate, a resolution from Tim Kaine, D-Va., appears to be on track for a vote on Friday. In the House, however, Democrats remain sharply divided between two resolutions. 'There's no upside to advancing a competing War Powers Resolution. It's not just unnecessary — it's actively counterproductive,' Cavan Kharrazian, a senior policy adviser at Demand Progress, said in a statement. 'There's still time to reconcile this on the House side, and we hope an agreement can be reached to enable a strong vote with the best possible language.' The resolutions in both chambers face long odds, thanks to near-unanimous support from the majority Republicans for President Donald Trump's strikes. Congressional Democrats are responding to Trump's strikes by pursuing a vote under the War Powers Act, the Vietnam War-era law designed to limit presidents' ability to launch military action abroad without congressional approval. Kaine's initial resolution introduced last week directs Trump to halt hostilities against Iran, while making clear that the president can still defend the U.S. from imminent attack. Kaine's resolution has drawn support from Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. It is expected to come to a voter later this week. Amid concerns from pro-Israel Democrats, Kaine said Tuesday that he was co-sponsoring an amendment to his resolution with Sens. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., and Andy Kim, D-N.J. The amendment is intended to continue to allow the U.S. to participate in Israeli missile defense. Pentagon officials said last April that the U.S. — not Israel — shot down most Iranian drones and missiles during an Iranian attack. 'This amendment would leave no doubt that Senator Kaine's resolution would ensure that President Trump has to make the case to the American people for further action against Iran without constraining our ability to help defend the Israeli people from Iranian attacks,' Kim said in a statement. While most Senate Democrats appeared to have coalesced around Kaine's resolution, House Democrats remained split on Wednesday over how to respond to Trump's strikes. Advocates last week said they were frustrated that Democratic leaders were not moving forward with a resolution as Trump publicly mulled attacking Iran. Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., teamed up with Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., to introduce a resolution. After the strikes were launched, three House Democratic committee ranking members introduced an alternative resolution that its authors claim would also force Trump to cease hostilities with Iran. The sponsors are Reps. Jim Himes of Connecticut, Adam Smith of Washington, and Gregory Meeks of New York. Anti-war advocates worry that the House leadership measure could actually wind up strengthening Trump's justification for launching further strikes on Iran. In an apparent nod to Israel, the leaders' resolution would give the president the power to 'defend the United States or an ally or partner of the United States from imminent attack.' Trump has already justified his strike on Iran as an act of 'collective self-defense of our ally, Israel,' according to a letter he sent Congress, despite the assessment of U.S intelligence agencies that Iran was not building a nuclear weapon. Critics say the House Democratic leadership resolution mirrors the language of Trump's justification far too closely. 'We think if it passes, it would be worse than not having a war powers resolution.' 'We think if it passes, it would be worse than not having a war powers resolution,' said Yasmine Taeb, the legislative and political director for the Muslim advocacy group MPower Change. 'This war powers resolution gives the impression that the president has broad authority to be able to engage in military offensive action with respect to Iran — if Israel is asking us to.' Spokespersons for Himes, Meeks, and Smith's offices did not immediately comment. Khanna has said that his resolution is intended to preserve the U.S. military's ability to participate in Israeli missile defense. Advocates said they understood there were ongoing discussions about a compromise. The two sides have ample time: A vote on the measure is not expected to come to the floor before mid- to late-July. Whether or not the two sides come to an accord, however, the push to respond to Trump's strikes could face serious pushback from Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson. Johnson said Tuesday that he thought the War Powers Act itself was unconstitutional and signaled that he may use a procedural move to prevent it from coming to the floor. The War Powers Act states that resolutions brought under its auspices must be fast-tracked to the House floor within 15 working days. Johnson, however, could try to block the resolution from receiving such a 'privileged' status — although that would likely force a vote on the procedural maneuver itself. Massie's co-sponsorship of the resolution gave it bipartisan support, but it's unclear whether he will continue to push its passage in the face of intense pressure from the White House and the ceasefire announced by Trump on Monday. Massie has said he is taking a 'wait and see' approach. As a shaky ceasefire between Israel and Iran continued to hold Wednesday morning, progressives in the House said they were pursuing a vote on their preferred resolution despite the opposition from Johnson. Khanna said at a Capitol press conference that blocking the vote with a procedural maneuver would be an 'unprecedented abrogation of congressional power.' 'The fundamental point here is that we don't know what the strikes accomplished, but we do know a lot of the harm,' Khanna said. 'It has hardened the resolve in Iran to now race towards a nuclear weapon.'

Wall Street Journal
22 minutes ago
- Wall Street Journal
Why a Medicaid Penalty Would Prove Costly
The Senate's reconciliation bill, which would reduce the federal Medicaid match for states that cover certain healthcare services for immigrants living in the U.S. unlawfully, may sound like a way to cut federal spending. In reality, it would increase healthcare costs, strain emergency rooms and make healthcare worse for all ('Blue States Reverse Course on Insuring Undocumented,' U.S. News, June 20). Consider that outpatient dialysis costs about $90,000 a year, while emergency inpatient dialysis can exceed $300,000 annually. That extra cost falls on hospitals, state budgets and, ultimately, the taxpayer. That's why 20 states, both Democratic- and Republican-led, have chosen to provide outpatient dialysis through Medicaid. It isn't about immigration policy or a gesture of generosity; it is fiscally responsible. Patients with kidney failure need dialysis three times a week to survive. Immigrants here unlawfully typically can't access private insurance or Medicaid. That doesn't mean they go without care; it means they show up in emergency rooms when their condition is life-threatening. Under federal law, hospitals must treat anyone in an emergency, regardless of immigration or insurance status.

E&E News
25 minutes ago
- E&E News
RFK Jr. says US won't donate to global vaccine effort
The United States won't contribute anymore to Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, until the global health organization has 're-earned the public trust,' U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said Wednesday. In an inflammatory video speech delivered to the Gavi pledging summit, seen by POLITICO, Kennedy accused Gavi of neglecting vaccine safety, making questionable recommendations around Covid-19 vaccines and silencing dissenting views. 'When the science was inconvenient, Gavi ignored the science,' Kennedy alleged. Advertisement 'I call on Gavi today to re-earn the public trust and to justify the $8 billion that America has provided in funding since 2001,' he said. 'And I'll tell you how to start taking vaccine safety seriously: Consider the best science available, even when the science contradicts established paradigms. Until that happens, the United States won't contribute more to Gavi.'