Latest news with #SafetoSleep
Yahoo
15-05-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
RFK Jr. Insists He Hasn't Fired 'Any Working Scientists' ― After Firing Hundreds Of Them
WASHINGTON ― During a Senate committee hearing on Wednesday, Sen. Angela Alsobrooks (D-Md.) had a strange clash with Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. over the massive cuts he's overseen at his agency, including to personnel. 'You made it very clear here today you have no knowledge whatsoever of the absolutely amazing scientists and researchers who you have callously fired,' said Alsobrooks. 'I didn't fire any working scientists,' Kennedy said. 'That, sir, is not true either,' replied Alsobrooks. 'It is true,' repeated Kennedy 'It is not true,' Alsobrooks said, moving on. He made the same claim when the Maryland senator later brought up a 30-year program he axed at his agency, the Safe to Sleep campaign, along with all of its staff. He said it again to Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), the chairman of the committee, at the start of the hearing. 'The cuts we have made to date are administrative cuts. As far as I know we have not fired any working scientists,' said Kennedy. 'There are some people who were scientists that were doing IT or administration ... who did lose their jobs. But in terms of working scientists, our policy was to make sure none of them were lost and that that research continues.' That sounds nice. But also it is not true. Kennedy has been firing hundreds, if not thousands, of scientists and researchers doing critical work at various agencies under HHS. It's not even as if he's been doing this in secret; it's been widelyreported for months. Under his direction, the National Institutes of Health, the world's top biomedical research agency, axed 1,200 employees in February. A doctor behind award-winning research on Parkinson's disease was among the leading NIH scientists pushed out in April. Top scientific leaders at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and at the Food and Drug Administration were reassignedto remote Indian Health Service regions. Key scientists working on the bird flu at the Center for Veterinary Medicine were fired, as were nearly a dozen in-house senior scientists at NIH who worked on neuroscience. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention last month carried out mass firings that included a group of scientists who researched traumatic brain injury. Still more CDC scientists were fired after their entire lab tracking STIs and hepatitis outbreaks was axed. It's not clear if Kennedy is intentionally lying about not firing scientists or doesn't understand the scope of damage he's causing to the work of HHS, or if this a matter of semantics. Maybe he's bristling at the verb 'fire' to describe how he has been aggressively dismissing scientists from their employment or ordering scientists to give up their jobs. An HHS spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Alsobrooks said Kennedy is just lying, even as it's so absurdly obvious. 'I think that RFK Jr. clearly believes that the more he tells a lie, the more it becomes the truth,' she told HuffPost on Thursday. Kennedy's claim that HHS scientists have all kept their jobs 'flies in the face of the reality that there are hundreds of scientists from the NIH, CDC and FDA who have lost their jobs as a part of his plan to overhaul the department.' The Maryland senator should know. NIH is based in her state, and she's been hearing from scientists ― constituents ― for months who have lost their jobs or grants at various HHS agencies. She heard from some of those fired scientists after Wednesday's hearing, when Kennedy insisted he hadn't fired them. 'One is working specifically – or was working, before his untimely termination – on Parkinson's, and the other was working on doing some critical research around hepatitis,' said Alsobrooks. 'They heard the lie, you know, or the misrepresentation, should we call it, when he said working scientists had not been fired when they, in fact, have been.' HuffPost heard from some fired federal scientists after Kennedy's hearing, too. One, who'd been an epidemiologist working on infectious diseases, said they were fired by Kennedy along with their entire team, which was dozens of epidemiologists and health scientists. 'RFK seems unaware of what programs were actually affected by the [Reduction in Force],' said this scientist, who requested anonymity to speak freely. Asked what they made of Kennedy's repeated claims that he hadn't fired any 'working scientists,' this fired scientist simply said, 'It is not true.' 'This has consequences for public health as the programs are suddenly eliminated or severely reduced,' they said. 'It also severely affects the thousands of scientists who suddenly lost our careers and faced a challenging job market with so many public health cuts damaging our field.' A local chapter of the American Federation of Government Employees, a union that represents more than 700,000 federal employees and D.C. government workers, caught Kennedy's comments, and pushed back with data and charts. 'We find that approximately 1,586 civil servants affected by the RIF were scientists, medical professionals, veterinary professionals, engineers, and other STEM leaders,' reads a Wednesday post on AFGE Local 2883's website. 'These cuts were scientific, not administrative and not 'fraud, waste, and abuse.'' Their website offers lots of data related to HHS cuts, including on personnel cuts at CDC. One chart, for example, offers a rough estimate on the number of health scientists who have been fired as of mid-March: 605. Alsobrooks said she hopes that any fired federal scientists who heard Kennedy's claims know that she and other senators see through his nonsense and plan to keep highlighting the damage he's causing. 'We know the truth,' she said. 'That's what these hearings are about, exposing these mistruths and letting the public understand the consequences of the disastrous decisions and dangerous decisions made by Secretary Kennedy. And we're going to continue to do that.'
Yahoo
15-05-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Recap: RFK grilled over vaccines, lead, job cuts, as protesters tackled at HHS hearing
Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. defended the president's proposed cuts to top health agencies as committee members in the House and Senate pummeled him with questions on controversial topics and spending. He testified before the House committee on appropriations the morning of May 14 and before the Senate's Health, Education, Labor and Pensions committee in the afternoon. Nearly four months into his new job, Kennedy Jr. answered and dodged heated questions about vaccines, the measles outbreak and a recently approved spending bill. Before the Appropriations Committee, he noted that health agencies were handling the U.S. measles outbreak better than other nations have handled theirs, refusing to answer whether people should get shots for various vaccine-preventable diseases. He declined to comment on reorganization efforts at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Kennedy, who is known to take controversial stances on vaccines, recently backed vaccination as a preventive tool during a measles outbreak, but noted that vaccines should be left to parents' discretion. At the House hearing, he declined to answer a lawmaker's question about whether he would vaccinate his own child if it were born today. He recently rolled out plans to remove artificial food dyes from the U.S. food supply, which prompted a series of questions from one lawmaker about beloved snack food from his state, Little Debbie cakes. President Donald Trump's $1.7 trillion 'skinny budget' proposal for fiscal year 2026 reduces non-defense spending by 23% compared with 2025. The budget seeks $94 billion for the Department of Health and Human Services agencies, a reduction of about 26% from the 2025 level and cuts programs and staff at agencies, including the National Institutes of Health and the CDC. However, the president's budget aims to pump a $500 million infusion into Kennedy's "Make America Healthy Again" initiative, which is geared towards ending what he calls the 'chronic disease epidemic.' The program seeks to tackle the issue through nutrition and physical activity, and by cutting back on medications and improving food and drug quality and safety. One of the last lawmakers to question Kennedy about program cuts tossed out what should have been a softball question. Sen. Angela Alsobrooks asked the Health secretary to discuss the Safe to Sleep campaign that works to prevent sudden infant death syndrome, or SIDS. The question should have hit close to home since the department that houses the campaign, the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, was named after Kennedy's paternal aunt. The campaign provides materials and messaging around evidence-based, safe sleep recommendations. The agency's participation in the program, which began in 1994 as the Back to Sleep campaign, was cut on April 1, according to Dr. Rachel Moon, a lead author of safe sleep guidelines from the American Academy of Pediatrics. When asked what office spearheads the campaign, he tried one answer (Health Resources and Services Administration) and then a second (The Administration for Children and Families). Neither was correct, Alsobrooks said. Sen. Lisa Blunt Rochester, Alsobrooks' Democratic colleague from Delaware, who sits beside her at the dais, smirked. – Adrianna Rodriguez During committee hearings on May 14, Kennedy told lawmakers that patient privacy will be protected in a new database for autism research, while also reiterating that he thinks rising rates of autism are an epidemic, despite dissent from the medical and autism communities. 'Autism is an epidemic,' Kennedy said. 'Genes do not cause epidemics. They can contribute a vulnerability, but you need an environmental toxin.' On May 7, the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services announced their partnership to research the causes of the autism spectrum disorder, creating a database of autism-diagnosed Medicare and Medicaid enrollees. 'It's entirely voluntary, patient privacy is protected, the data is digitalized and depersonalized… and patients have an absolute right to opt out of it,' Kennedy said. Medical advice? RFK Jr. says don't take any advice from him. Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker signed an executive order shortly after restricting state agencies from collecting and sharing autism-related data, in response to federal efforts to create a database for autism research. Autism spectrum disorder, or ASD, is the clinical name for the condition most people refer to as autism. Autism is defined as "a complex developmental condition that affects communication, social interaction and behavior," says Christopher Banks, president and CEO of the Autism Society of America. "Claiming that autism is 'preventable' is not science-based, and places unnecessary blame on people, parents and families," he said. "Autism is not a chronic disease, nor a childhood disease, it is a lifelong developmental condition; it is not an epidemic, nor should it be compared to the COVID-19 pandemic, and using language like that perpetuates falsehoods, stigma and stereotypes." – Adrianna Rodriguez In a rare moment of pushback from Republican lawmakers, Sen. Susan Collins, chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, pressed Trump's Health secretary on the sweeping layoffs at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and cuts in funding for the National Institutes of Health. The Maine Republican noted that caring for people with Alzheimer's costs billions of dollars per year. Collins was a co-author of the Building Our Largest Dementia (BOLD) Infrastructure for Alzheimer's Reauthorization Act of 2024, signed into law by former President Joe Biden. The act authorized $33 million in support per year for Alzheimer's caregiving interventions and other matters. 'How can you ensure that the CDC continues to implement the BOLD Act and the Alzheimer's programs under it when all of the staff responsible for that administration have either been placed on administrative leave or let go?' she asked Kennedy. Kennedy replied that Alzheimer's runs in his family and said he was committed to working with Collins on the issue. However, he noted he was advised by his attorneys not to comment on the CDC reorganization. – Sudiksha Kochi Sen. Tammy Baldwin opened her remarks asking what, she said, she hoped was an easy question: 'Do you think lead poisoning in children is a significant concern?' Kennedy replied, 'It's an extremely significant concern.' Baldwin snapped back about the recent cuts to the CDC's Lead Poisoning Prevention Program. In a letter sent to Kennedy on April 23, Baldwin said over 2,000 CDC employees, including the entire Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention and Surveillance Branch, were fired. Baldwin highlighted Milwaukee, where community members requested expert assistance from the CDC to help address a growing problem of older elementary school students with lead poisoning, she said. The request for aid was denied due to a lack of staff, Baldwin said. Kennedy countered that the administration didn't intend to halt the work of this branch of government. 'You cannot tell us that you want to make America healthy again when you're willfully destroying programs that keep children safe and healthy from lead poisoning,' she said. – Adrianna Rodriguez Protesters interrupted Robert F. Kennedy Jr. a few minutes after he began his testimony before the Senate's Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. About five people in the audience rose from their seats and began charging towards the health secretary shouting, 'RFK kills people with AIDS.' Capitol police escorted the protestors – who appeared to range from people in their 20s to silver-haired men in suits – out of the room. Some were tackled and fell to the floor. Some of the HHS cuts have impacted the United States Agency for International Development, and experts have said the harms trickled down to global humanitarian organizations working on lifesaving programs, including ones that offered HIV health care, worked on landmine removal and provided food aid. – Swapna Venugopal Ramaswamy Democratic Rep. Madeleine Dean referenced Kennedy's history of heroin addiction and recovery when she asked why HHS is 'shuttering' the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. 'In active addiction, you know how difficult it is,' she said. 'This matters in my district. I've buried way too many kids.' Kennedy pushed back against the notion that the administration planned to 'shutter' the agency. Instead, he said, it would be 'shifted' into the newly created Administration for Healthy America. The number of Americans who died from overdoses of drugs like fentanyl and meth dropped nearly 30% last year, falling to a level not seen since before the COVID-19 pandemic, according to the CDC. Experts attribute the decrease to a combination of factors, including the wider availability of the opioid antidote naloxone, along with $50 billion in funding for drug-treatment and youth prevention efforts from the national opioid settlements. 'Why would we – when we're finally seeing some success – bury that success?' Dean asked. – Adrianna Rodriguez Tennessee Republican Chuck Fleischmann pressed Kennedy about a food item that's very important to folks in his state: Little Debbie snacks. He argued that he respects the FDA's process of banning synthetic food colorings over the years, but added that the current colors 'have been deemed safe for many years.' Fleischmann said he represents many snack manufacturers, including M&M's and Little Debbie's. 'You're going to come and visit me in a couple weeks, we can all have some M&M's and Little Debbie's together," he said. "But on a very serious note, we want to make sure that FDA has done due diligence to ensure the safety of these replacement colors." Last month, Kennedy announced that eight artificial dyes will be eliminated from medications and the nation's food supply by the end of 2026. Kennedy in the past has linked food dyes and additives to ADHD and chronic diseases, such as obesity. 'Candidly, I think these guys are safe. They've been approved, but really trying to find substitutes - the costs we've seen estimates five to 10 times to try to fix that. Will you work with me on that?' Fleischmann asked, to which Kennedy replied, 'Absolutely.' – Sudiksha Kochi Skirting a question on an issue that has gained him support and stoked opponents, Kennedy told Wisconsin Democrat Rep. Mark Pocan during a hearing before a House committee he thinks Americans should not be taking medical advice from him. The issue? Vaccines. Pocan asked Kennedy, 'If you had a child today, would you vaccinate that child for measles?' 'Probably for measles,' Kennedy said, before backpedaling. 'What I would say is my opinions about vaccines are irrelevant.' When pressed on whether he would vaccinate his children for chickenpox and Polio, Kennedy once again said he didn't want to be giving advice. Just last month, Kennedy claimed that measles vaccines are 'leaky' because their effectiveness wanes over time – an argument disputed by medical experts. Outbreaks of the highly contagious infection has led to more than 1,000 cases and three deaths in the U.S, including those of two unvaccinated children in Texas. Measles was eliminated in the U.S. by 2000 but has resurfaced with periodic outbreaks, mostly among people who are not vaccinated. In the current outbreak, 96% of measles cases occurred in unvaccinated patients or those whose vaccination status is unknown, according to the CDC. Measles vaccination rates dropped to about 92% in 2023-2024, below the 95% needed to ensure herd immunity. Babies usually get their first dose of MMR vaccine, which also protects against mumps and rubella, at around 12 months. – Swapna Venugopal Ramaswamy and Sudiksha Kochi When Rep. Rosa DeLauro, the ranking Democrat, asked why the Health and Human Services Department eliminated the CDC's Office on Smoking and Health, Kennedy said he was advised by his attorneys not to comment on the reorganization. 'We are under a court order not to do any further planning on the reorganization, and I've been advised by my attorneys not to comment," Kennedy told the Connecticut lawmaker. "But I will just say broadly, many of the programs that the Democrats are now saying were cut (at) the CDC were not cut at all." On May 9, a federal judge said the Trump administration must temporarily halt its sweeping government overhaul because Congress did not authorize it to carry out large-scale staffing cuts and the restructuring of agencies. U.S. District Judge Susan Illston in San Francisco sided with a group of unions, non-profits and local governments, and blocked large-scale mass layoffs known as "reductions in force" for 14 days. Dozens of lawsuits have challenged DOGE's work on various grounds, including violating privacy laws and exceeding its authority, with mixed results. Illston scheduled a hearing for May 22 to consider a longer-lasting preliminary injunction. – Sudiksha Kochi and Reuters Connecticut's Rep. Rosa DeLauro, ranking member of the House Appropriations Committee, opened her remarks by blasting President Donald Trump and billionaire Elon Musk for laying off federal employees at the Health and Human Services Department and proposing spending cuts to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The New England Democrat donned a flashy outfit at the hearing. Known for her 'hipster' style and jazzy accessories, DeLauro often stands out from her colleagues with her attire and brightly dyed hair accents. Her clash with Kennedy, once questioning began, came to a heated peak when DeLauro questioned the nation's top health official over a recently approved spending bill that funded the government through Sept. 30. Lawmakers contend the Constitution assigns them the responsibility to decide how much to spend. But Trump and his allies argue Congress sets limits while he can spend less than lawmakers provide. 'You have an obligation to carry out the law and implement what Congress has done,' Delauro said, shaking her head. 'Unbelievable.' – Adrianna Rodriguez and Sudiksha Kochi Mother's Day hike? RFK Jr., grandkids swim in contaminated DC creek despite advice to 'stay out' Top health organizations representing patients with Alzheimer's, cancer, heart and lung disease are warning of the dangers posed by recent and proposed federal budget cuts as Kennedy testifies before a pair of Congressional committees on May 14. Leaders from the American Heart Association, American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, American Lung Association and UsAgainstAlzheimer's outlined the consequences of these cuts and called on Congress to 'take immediate action' to protect funding for biomedical research and disease prevention. In roughly five weeks this year, the U.S. National Institutes of Health terminated $1.81 billion in medical research funding, according to a new analysis published in the Journal of the American Medical Association on May 8. 'The actions taken to date and proposed further actions to cut research funding will undermine public health, weaken our global competitiveness and delay and deny cures and treatment for patients in need,' said Emily Holubowich, national senior vice president of federal advocacy at the American Heart Association. – Adrianna Rodriguez Americans worry about the Trump administration's ability to contain an ongoing outbreak of measles, while the vast majority believe that vaccines for the disease are safe, according to a new Reuters/Ipsos poll. Just 31% of respondents in the two-day poll agreed with a statement that the administration is handling the measles outbreak responsibly, while 40% disagreed and the rest were unsure or did not answer the question. The poll comes as Secretary for Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. is testifying before a pair of Congressional committees on a range of controversial topics, including vaccines. The United States is currently facing its largest single outbreak of measles in 25 years, with the number of cases crossing the 1,000 mark as of May 8. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has reported three deaths, including two unvaccinated children in Texas. 'We're doing a better job at CDC than any nation in the world at controlling the measles outbreak,' Kennedy said before Congress. – Reuters Health officials have reversed cuts made in April to a massive women's health program that has been around for about thirty years. On May 6, researchers at the Women's Health Initiative learned the decision to let the program expire had "been rescinded' and that they could 'move forward with new task orders in September," according to a statement. The WHI has led women's research since the 1990s into conditions such as cancer and heart disease and influenced clinical guidelines throughout the decades. – Adrianna Rodriguez A group from the Alzheimer's Association of America lined up early outside the House Appropriations Committee meeting room. Dean Brenner, a volunteer with the association, said they had come to express their opposition to the HHS cuts, which include many Alzheimer's-related programs and research. 'There are 7 million people over the age of 65 suffering from Alzheimer's,' Brenner said. Many in the group, including Brenner, a Washington, D.C. resident, were wearing purple, the official color of the organization. He said he joined the association after his mother died in 2018 from the neurodegenerative disease. 'We just want to make sure we are top of mind for members of Congress,' he said. – Swapna Venugopal Ramaswamy Last month, Kennedy announced he was banning artificial food dyes, phasing out eight petroleum-based synthetic dyes in the nation's food supply. Kennedy has long criticized Big Food and Big Pharma, blaming the nation's 'chronic disease epidemic' on additives and junk food. He's also directed his department to conduct studies aimed at identifying "environmental toxins" behind the rising rates of autism. His critics have hammered him over his views on vaccines. Kennedy has also pushed to curb fluoride use in the water supply, saying the chemical used to protect teeth is making Americans "stupider." He has touted his plan to scale back its use in drinking water. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Recap: RFK Jr. defends massive HHS budget cuts before Congress
Yahoo
13-05-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
The Trump Administration's Reckless Policies Will Kill Children
The Trump administration has often claimed that it wants to increase the nation's fertility rate. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported last month that the rate is at roughly 1.6 births per woman. That is higher than in other major developed countries—South Korea has dropped to a fertility rate of 0.75, for example—but below the replacement level of 2.1. Trump described himself as 'the fertilization president' at a Women's History Month event at the White House earlier this spring, a title he claims is apt because of his verbal support of in vitro fertilization, a practice that many other Republicans oppose on religious grounds. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the secretary of health and human services, has expressed concern about the decline in potential fertility among younger Americans. 'Our fertility is dropping dramatically,' he claimed in April. 'Teenagers in this country have the same testosterone levels as 68-year-old men.' (He was presumably referring to teenage boys.) JD Vance and other top Trump officials have supported the so-called 'pronatalist' movement that advocates for much higher fertility rates, at least among certain groups of people. These concerns are shaping policy areas that might seem unrelated at first glance. Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy ordered his department in February to prioritize infrastructure projects in 'communities with marriage and birthrates higher than the national average.' Most of the decline in the U.S. fertility rate can be attributed to the sharp decline in teenage pregnancies, something that would have been seen as a policy victory by conservatives a generation ago. Increasing fertility rates is a vexing issue that countries in Asia and Europe have struggled with for the last 20 years with little success. Nonetheless, if the Trump administration is actually serious about the nation's fertility rate, it might want to stop doing numerous things that will likely kill American children. In April, for example, the Trump administration shuttered the communications office for the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, one of the components of the National Institutes of Health, and laid off its workforce. Among the office's responsibilities was coordinating the federal government's participation in the Safe to Sleep program, which aims to encourage parents to adopt safe-sleep practices for newborns and infants. The Safe to Sleep program emerged in the 1990s as researchers sought to identify the causes of sudden infant death syndrome, or SIDS, which killed thousands of infants every year at the time. While the specific causes of SIDS are still being studied, the program has helped persuade millions of parents to avoid practices that might seem safe or normal—bed-sharing, using blankets or stuffed animals, letting infants sleep at night in car seats and strollers—but actually contribute to suffocation risks. Those changes and others helped reduce SIDS deaths by 50 percent by the 2010s. It is hard to imagine a better use of taxpayer funds than preventing infant deaths—or one more aligned with so-called 'pronatalist' interests. Instead, the Trump administration appears poised to destroy how federal public health agencies track infant mortality and maternal health problems and communicate about them to Americans. Kennedy began his tenure at HHS by proposing a radical internal restructuring of the department, shuttering numerous programs, and directing layoffs for roughly 20,000 employees. Among the casualties are the Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System, or PRAMS, which collects data on prenatal and postpartum care across the country to improve policymaking on maternal and infant health. The Washington Post reported that HHS also dismantled programs that collect fertility and reproductive health statistics, with vast downstream implications for research that relies on official numbers for issues ranging from IVF success rates to postpartum depression. Personnel can be policy as well. Kennedy, the nation's top public health official, has a long history of spreading doubt and confusion about childhood vaccinations for personal gain. After the island nation of Samoa paused its measles vaccination program in 2019 after a fatal vaccination mishap, Kennedy flew in to encourage government officials there to engage in a 'natural experiment' to see what would happen if they went without vaccinating their children against the disease. The resulting measles epidemic killed at least 83 children and sickened thousands of others. While seeking Senate confirmation earlier this year, Kennedy downplayed his anti-vaccine views and told senators that he would leave current childhood immunization schedules intact. That pledge appears to be hanging by a thread. Kennedy and his allies are reportedly planning to remove the Covid-19 vaccine from the schedule. They also plan to require that future vaccine studies include unvaccinated control groups, a practice that health experts had long opposed because it was unethical. Some of Kennedy's critics have described his policies and rhetoric, especially toward people with autism and vaccines, as 'eugenic' in nature. After overseeing a measles outbreak in Texas that killed two children earlier this year, he recently suggested in a Fox News interview that the measles vaccine was unnecessary because the disease had a low mortality rate. 'Even in 1963, before the introduction of the vaccine, there were 400 deaths a year and there were up to two million measles cases,' he claimed. 'Only very, very sick kids should die from measles.' With sufficient vaccination rates, however, it is possible to eliminate childhood deaths from measles altogether. Kennedy's comments suggest that children who die from childhood measles outbreaks 'should' die from it and that vaccinations only impede this outcome. Other 'Make America Healthy Again' advocates are cut from the same anti-scientific and conspiratorial cloth, casting themselves as brave truth-tellers who propose treatments that the medical establishment rejects as unproven and inflaming doubts about scientifically proven practices. At Kennedy's behest, for example, Trump recently nominated Casey Means, a failed ENT surgeon with an inactive state medical license, to serve as the nation's next surgeon general. Means, like Kennedy, has espoused anti-vaccine views in the guise of questioning established truths and encouraging skepticism. That would make her a dangerous pick for an office that has long served as the nation's 'top doctor' of sorts. Among her other anti-child views is her promotion of 'raw milk,' a term used by promoters to make unpasteurized milk sound natural and wholesome. Unpasteurized milk can sicken healthy adults by introducing them to a wide range of pathogens; those same illnesses can severely injure or kill children. Means framed her advocacy of unpasteurized milk as one of personal empowerment. 'When it comes to a question like raw milk, I want to be free to form a relationship with a local farmer, understand his integrity, look him in the eyes, pet his cow, and then decide if I feel safe to drink the milk from his farm,' she once claimed. For decades, Americans did not need to engage in such feel-good nonsense to obtain safe milk for themselves and their children because the Food and Drug Administration operated a national quality-control program for dairy producers. The Trump administration laid off that task force's workers in April. Beyond the nation's public health apparatus, the Trump administration is also pushing federal agencies in ways that are directly harmful to children. Lee Zeldin, the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, has championed a radical plan to slash most of the agency's regulatory efforts. In April, the agency moved to end grants for a variety of health-related programs, including one that studies pesticide exposure among children in rural America and another that traces how 'forever chemicals' enter the nation's food supply. Other deregulatory efforts for air and water pollution will likely have an indirect health impact on American children in the years and decades to come. Last week, Trump also fired the three Democratic members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, which is charged with organizing recalls of unsafe products. While its mandate covers products for Americans of all ages, the CPSC's impact is most acutely felt in child-related products. The Trump administration eventually hopes to dismantle it altogether by absorbing it into Kennedy's HHS. This campaign is hardly new: I wrote last year about efforts by the conservative legal establishment to defang the commission on behalf of companies that are frustrated by efforts to prevent them from selling unsafe products to American customers. But it is still striking given the agency's cost-to-payoff ratio and uncontroversial nature. Trump administration officials do not generally describe these moves as if their goal is to increase childhood mortality. (Kennedy appears to be an exception.) They typically justify them as part of an effort to alleviate regulatory burdens on businesses, to reduce government costs, or to otherwise shrink the federal workforce. The net effect of these policy changes, however, is to make this country a more dangerous place for Americans to give birth and grow up. Is that at odds with Trumpworld's embrace of pronatalism? Perhaps not. Taken at face value, the term pronatalism simply means to be in favor of births and children. (Antinatalism, a fringe movement that supports human extinction on philosophical grounds, is its counterpart.) I would venture to guess that being pronatalist in that sense describes the overwhelming majority of Americans, even those who do not have or do not plan to have kids of their own. My child-free friends were all happy for me when I had a kid recently, for example. For American conservatives, pronatalism appears to mean something much different. DOGE head Elon Musk, a South African billionaire, has framed his concerns about 'birth rates' along white nationalist lines by focusing on declining fertility rates in Europe and the United States. Vance has favored shaming women who don't have children by deriding them as 'childless cat ladies,' claiming they have no stake in the country's future. Vance has also denounced federal subsidies for childcare that make it easier for working women to have children. Instead, he argued, children should be cared for at home by one of their parents. (Guess which parent he prefers.) The Trump administration's real goal is not to increase the fertility rate or, more specifically, to address policy issues that prevent Americans from having more children. Instead, it appears that they hope to reorient American society by driving women—and especially white women—out of the workforce and pressuring them to raise children at home. It is unlikely that the Trump administration can reverse a nearly century-long social and economic shift over the next four years. It is also unlikely that their efforts to do so will lead to any measurable boost to U.S. fertility rates. If the Trump administration's goal is to increase childhood mortality rates over the next four years, on the other hand, then it is off to a terrific start.
USA Today
10-05-2025
- Health
- USA Today
More babies are dying of SIDS. But the campaign to educate parents is in jeopardy.
More babies are dying of SIDS. But the campaign to educate parents is in jeopardy. Show Caption Hide Caption Protesters against planned National Institutes of Health funding cuts The Trump administration's push to slash funding at the National Institutes of Health has been temporarily blocked by a federal judge. Katie Stern has lived through every parent's worst nightmare. On Aug. 24, 2016, she put her newborn son Toby down for an afternoon nap – a nap he never woke up from. Toby was 12 weeks and 5 days old. Doctors told Stern and her husband, Daniel, that their son had died from sudden infant death syndrome, or SIDS. 'We weren't brand new parents or first-time parents but to hear it was SIDS is something that shocked us, because it was just something that wasn't talked about with us at all,' said Stern, 42, from Monroeville, Pennsylvania, located outside of Pittsburgh. She honored her son by establishing The Little Fox Toby's Foundation in 2017, a nonprofit focused on grief support, education and awareness related to pregnancy and infant loss. After eight years of advocacy, Stern was shocked to learn that a successful public health campaign dedicated to spreading SIDS awareness and prevention may face government cuts. The Safe to Sleep campaign, spearheaded by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, provides materials and messaging around evidence-based, safe sleep recommendations. The agency's participation in the program, which began in 1994 as the Back to Sleep campaign, was cut on April 1, according to Dr. Rachel Moon, a lead author of safe sleep guidelines from the American Academy of Pediatrics. But in a statement sent to USA TODAY, the National Institutes of Health said no final decision has been made regarding the future of the Safe to Sleep campaign. While some material is still available on the website, others are 'temporarily unavailable to order.' Families still need this information, said said Dr. Fern Hauck, a family medicine physician and professor of family medicine and public health sciences at the University of Virginia Studies show that 96% of SIDS cases in the U.S. are associated with at least one risk factor, while 78% were associated with two or more. Some risk factors for babies include sleeping on their side or stomach, sharing a bed with a parent or caregiver, using soft bedding or bumper pads and sleeping on an incline. 'That is why this campaign is still so important,' said Hauck, who helped create the AAP guidelines. 'There are still people out there not following the guidelines.' What causes SIDS? Study suggests genetics may be at play in sudden infant death syndrome. The Safe to Sleep campaign's uncertain future comes as cases of sudden unexpected infant death, or SUID, rise for the first time in decades, Hauck said. SIDS is the unexplained death of a seemingly healthy baby less than 1 year old, according to the Mayo Clinic. Death typically occurs during sleep and is sometimes known as crib death. Boston Children's Hospital says SIDS is part of a larger category of unexpected infant deaths called sudden unexpected infant death, or SUID, which includes babies whose deaths are later explained. The rate of sleep-related infant deaths increased almost 12% from 2020 to 2022, according to a January study published in JAMA Pediatrics. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that about 3,700 babies died from SUID in 2022. Study authors from Virginia Commonwealth University said the uptick could be partly explained by the rise of COVID-19 and other respiratory viruses, parental opioid use and misinformation on infant sleep practices spread on social media. 'This decision to take down the communications office, which harbors the Safe to Sleep campaign, is devastating,' said Hauck. The NIH's role as a leader in the Safe to Sleep campaign can't be understated, she said. The agency creates and provides free material to national institutions, healthcare providers and community organizations. It also translates the material into different languages and culturally appropriate formats, and makes updates based on the latest research and guidelines. In addition to the loss of leadership, Stern said cutting NIH's ties to the Safe to Sleep campaign sends a disconcerting message to families who have experienced infant loss. 'I felt like it was a personal message to us that Toby's death didn't matter,' she said. 'It's heartbreaking.' Adrianna Rodriguez can be reached at adrodriguez@
Yahoo
07-05-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
A Parents' Guide to Safe Sleep Practices For Your Baby
Yahoo is using AI to generate takeaways from this article. This means the info may not always match what's in the article. Reporting mistakes helps us improve the experience. Yahoo is using AI to generate takeaways from this article. This means the info may not always match what's in the article. Reporting mistakes helps us improve the experience. Yahoo is using AI to generate takeaways from this article. This means the info may not always match what's in the article. Reporting mistakes helps us improve the experience. Generate Key Takeaways Fact checked by SarahWhen you have a newborn—especially if it's your first child—there is nothing more perplexing and frustrating than your child's sleep patterns. Parents struggle to get their kid to sleep, get them to stay asleep, and even have a time deciding where they should sleep, whether it be a crib, bassinet, or even in the parents' bed. The potent mixture of this trial-by-fire learning experience, exhaustion, and frustration can lead to parents sometimes making unsafe sleep decisions—just so they can get a few hours of uninterrupted rest. That situation is understandable, and yet it is essential that parents stay informed about best practices for the safest sleep setup for their babies. Unfortunately, it might now be harder for sleep-deprived parents to find the resources they need: Recently, the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development shut down the office which manages the 'Safe to Sleep' campaign, which distributed information to new parents that saved thousands of babies lives in the three decades since it was launched. But that doesn't mean new parents are going to be left in the dark. Below we have assembled a guide that can help you ensure your baby sleeps in the safest environment possible. Here's what you need to know about where your baby should sleep and how long they should sleep, as well as what sleep practices to avoid. First, Know the ABCs of Safe Sleep Whether they want to sleep all the time, have their days and nights mixed up, or need to be held much of the time, infant sleep is a complex process that takes a while to even out, especially as they get used to life outside of the womb. As many as 3,500 babies die suddenly while they're sleeping each year in the U.S. Most of the time, these deaths are caused by suffocation, strangulation, or from sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS). To reduce the likelihood of these tragedies, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), has developed a number of safe sleep guidelines to help parents ensure their babies are sleeping safely. One way that they communicate these guidelines is with the phrase—the ABC's of sleep. This is a quick and easy way to remind parents like yourself that babies should be put down alone [A], on their back [B], and in a crib [C] that is free of blankets, toys, and other objects for every sleep. If you follow the ABC's you can ensure your baby's sleep is as safe as possible. Create a Safe Place to Sleep One of the best ways to keep your baby safe while sleeping is to create a safe place for them to sleep. For instance, your baby should sleep in a crib or bassinet that has a firm, flat mattress and a fitted sheet. Nothing else should be in the crib with your baby including bumper pads, blankets, pillows, and soft toys. You might worry that your baby is cold without a blanket, but no matter the temptation, do not add one to their crib (you can use a swaddle instead; more on that later). It's also important to keep your home smoke-free. This means not smoking or allowing others to smoke in your home or around your baby. Not only can secondhand smoke stunt the development of their lungs, but it also increases their risk of SIDS and serious health issues. Take Steps to Reduce the Risk of Sids There is no way to entirely prevent SIDS, and according to the National Institutes of Health, researchers are still not sure of the cause. However, there are things you can do to reduce the risk. To start, make sure your baby has a safe place to sleep and that you are following the ABC's of safe sleep, especially during their first year of life. Researchers have found that SIDS is most prevalent between 1 and 4 months of age and then decreases after 6 months with more than 90% of deaths occurring before a baby's 6-month birthday. Here are some ways you can reduce the risk of SIDS: Put your baby down on their back and never on their stomach or side Keep their crib clear of toys, blankets, bumpers, and more Avoid using positioners and other gadgets Keep their room at a comfortable temperature and avoid overheating Allow your baby to sleep in your room but not in your bed Consider giving your baby a pacifier According to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, there is no evidence that anti-SIDS gadgets and devices effectively reduce your baby's risk, and they are not a substitute for safe-sleep practices, so you can skip them There is also some evidence that breastfeeding might reduce the risk of SIDS Know the Risks of Sleeping in Swings, Car Seats, and More While it can be tempting, especially if your baby doesn't sleep well in their crib or bassinet, you should avoid allowing them to sleep on a couch, armchair, or your bed. If your little one falls asleep in their swing, bouncy chair, stroller, or even car seat—except while riding in the car—they should be transferred to a crib, bassinet, portable crib, or play yard as soon as possible. Researchers have found that infants who sleep upright are at risk for suffocation, especially if their head tips to the side and their breathing is impaired. One study found that of nearly 12,000 infant deaths studied, 3% occurred in a sitting device and 35% of those sitting devices were baby swings. Choose the Correct Sleeping Position Putting your baby down on their back for sleep is imperative. Researchers have found that this is the safest position for your baby to sleep in and that babies are less likely to die unexpectedly than if they are sleeping on their stomachs. Even putting them to sleep on their side is not recommended—even if they have issues with acid reflux. The primary issue with side sleeping is that your baby can more easily fall onto their stomach increasing the risk for SIDS. Opt for Room Sharing Over Bed Sharing The AAP recommends sharing a room with your baby until they are at least 6 months old. Not only does this allow you to comfort and care for your baby more easily, but research shows that having your baby's crib or bassinet in your room reduces the risk of SIDS by up to 50%. It also is much safer than sleeping in the same bed which can increase the risk of injury, suffocation, and even SIDS. You also should avoid falling asleep with your baby in other locations too, like in a soft chair or on the couch. Your baby's risk of a sleep-related death is up to 67 times higher when they sleep with you on a cushion, couch, or chair. Use Good Judgment With Swaddles, Blankets, and More When it comes to infant sleep, you likely know that putting a blanket over your sleeping baby is a big no-no, especially during that first 12 to 18 months of life. But swaddles and sleep sacks may provide a way to comfort your baby and keep them warm in the colder months. The key is knowing how to use them safely. For instance, it is generally safe to swaddle your baby until they are about 3 or 4 months old—or when they start to show signs that they are learning to roll over. Also, make sure the swaddle is snug but not too tight and that you avoid adjusting the material so that it is near their face. Some parents prefer sleep sacks, which are wearable blankets that zip or snap around your baby because they are easier to use. That said, you should avoid using weighted sleep sacks. These are not safe for your baby because they impair their ability to rouse themselves from sleep and can increase their risk of SIDS. Avoid Unsafe Sleep Products While it's perfectly natural to want to create a cozy space for your baby to sleep, you don't want to compromise their safety in the process. For this reason, there are a number of sleep products you should avoid in order to keep your baby safe during sleep. At the top of the list, are crib bumpers, loose sheets, soft toys, and blankets. You also want to avoid crib tents, sleep positioners, wedges, and bedside sleepers. None of these products are safe for your baby and could increase the risk of death or injury while they're sleeping. In other words, if a product increases your baby's risk of entrapment, suffocation, or strangulation, it should not be used. Know How Much Sleep They Need Perhaps one of the most challenging aspects of infant sleep is knowing how much your baby should be sleeping. In fact, most new parents are surprised by how much their newborn will sleep in those first few weeks. That said, when a baby is sleeping too much or you have a hard time rousing them from sleep they need immediate medical attention. Ideally, your newborn should wake up every two to three hours to eat. For sleep-derived parents who just want to stay in bed, that might seem frequent. While sleeping a lot during those first few weeks is important, you also need to make sure they are eating regularly too. For breastfed babies, you can expect to feed them 10 to 12 times in a 24 hour period and for bottled fed babies, you can expect to complete about 8 feedings in 24 hours. If your baby is still sleeping after three hours, you should wake them up. Other Important Sleep Tips Every baby has a unique sleeping pattern, but this doesn't address how taxing it can be on sleep-deprived parents to deal with the long days and sleepless nights that sometimes come with welcoming an infant. For this reason, it can be helpful to be armed with some safe sleeping tips that will help you—and your baby—get more sleep. Here are some things you can try to improve your baby's sleep without resorting to gadgets that claim to promote sleep. Establish a bedtime routine early. Babies take cues from their environment on when it's time to sleep and following the same routine each evening can provide some predictability that may eventually lead to more restful sleep. Put your baby down drowsy. If you get into the habit of rocking your baby to sleep, they will come to rely on that method to fall asleep. Instead, try putting them in their crib while they are sleepy but still awake. Aim for an early bedtime. Although it can be challenging, especially if you're working, you should aim for an early bedtime for your little one—around 7 or 8 p.m. Prioritize napping. A well-rested baby will sleep better at night and naps are an essential part of the process of getting them to sleep at night. So, try not to skip naps if you can help it. Approach sleep training with caution. There are a lot of different sleep training methods out there to get your baby to sleep, but not all of them are right for your family or for your baby. If your baby is having trouble sleeping, talk to their pediatrician about your concerns. They may be able to offer suggestions or tips that can help. Read the original article on Parents
