Connect with us

Politics

What the Trump administration’s hepatitis B vaccine rollback means for California

Published

on

What the Trump administration’s hepatitis B vaccine rollback means for California

For most American infants, the hepatitis B shot comes just before their first bath, in the blur of pokes, prods and pictures that attend a 21st century hospital delivery.

But as of this week, thousands of newborns across the U.S. will no longer receive the initial inoculation for hepatitis B — the first in a litany of childhood vaccinations and the top defense against one of the world’s deadliest cancers.

On Dec. 5, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s powerful vaccine advisory panel voted to nix the decades-old birth-dose recommendation.

The change was pushed by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and his “Make America Healthy Again” movement, which has long sought to rewrite the CDC’s childhood vaccine schedule and unwind state immunization requirements for kindergarten.

California officials have vowed to keep the state’s current guidelines in place, but the federal changes could threaten vaccine coverage by some insurers and public benefits programs, along with broader reverberations.

Advertisement

“It’s a gateway,” said Jessica Malaty Rivera, an infectious disease epidemiologist in Los Angeles. “It’s not just hepatitis B — it’s chipping away at the entire schedule.”

Democratic-led states and blue-chip insurance companies have scrambled to shore up access. California joined Hawaii, Oregon and Washington in forming the West Coast Health Alliance to maintain uniform public policy on vaccines in the face of official “mis- and dis-information.”

“Universal hepatitis B vaccinations at birth save lives, and walking away from this science is reckless,” California Gov. Gavin Newsom said in a statement. “The Trump administration’s ideological politics continue to drive increasingly high costs — for parents, for newborns, and for our entire public-health system.”

The issue is also already tied up in court.

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court sent a lawsuit over New York’s vaccine rules back to the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for review, signaling skepticism about the stringent shots-for-school requirements pioneered in California. On Friday, public health officials in Florida appeared poised to ax their schools’ hepatitis B immunization requirement, along with shots for chickenpox, a dozen strains of bacterial pneumonia and the longtime leading cause of deadly meningitis.

Advertisement

Boosters of the hep B change said it replaces impersonal prescriptions with “shared clinical decision-making” about whether and how to vaccinate, while preserving the more stringent recommendation for children of infected mothers and those whose status is unknown.

Critics say families were always free to decline the vaccine, as about 20% did nationwide in 2020, according to data published by the CDC. It’s the only shot on the schedule that children on Medicaid receive at the same rate as those with private insurance.

Rather than improve informed consent, critics say the CDC committee’s decision and the splashy public fight leading up to it have depressed vaccination rates, even among children of infected mothers.

“Hepatitis B is the most vulnerable vaccine in the schedule,” said Dr. Chari Cohen, president of the Hepatitis B Foundation. “The message we’re hearing from pediatricians and gynecologists is parents are making it clear that they don’t want their baby to get the birth dose, they don’t want their baby to get the vaccine.”

Much of that vulnerability has to do with timing: The first dose is given within hours of birth, while symptoms of the disease might not show up for decades.

Advertisement

“The whole Day One thing really messes with people,” Rivera said. “They think, ‘This is my perfect fresh baby and I don’t want to put anything inside of them.’ ”

U.S. surgeon general nominee Casey Means called the universal birth dose recommendation “absolute insanity,” saying in a post on X last year that it should “make every American pause and question the healthcare system’s mandates.”

“The disease is transmitted through needles and sex exclusively,” she said. “There is no benefit to the baby or the wider population for a child to get this vaccine who is not at risk for sexual or IV transmission. There is only risk.”

In fact, at least half of transmission occurs from mother to child, typically at birth. A smaller percentage of babies get the disease by sharing food, nail clippers or other common household items with their fathers, grandparents or day-care teachers. Because infections are often asymptomatic, most don’t know they have the virus, and at least 15% of pregnant women in the U.S. aren’t tested for the disease, experts said.

Infants who contract hepatitis B are overwhelmingly likely to develop chronic hepatitis, leading to liver cancer or cirrhosis in midlife. The vaccine, by contrast, is far less likely than those for flu or chickenpox to cause even minor reactions, such as fever.

Advertisement

“We’ve given 50 billion doses of the hepatitis B vaccine and we’ve not seen signals that make us concerned,” said Dr. Su Wang, medical director of Viral Hepatitis Programs and the Center for Asian Health at the Cooperman Barnabas Medical Center in New Jersey, who lives with the disease.

Still, “sex and drugs” remains a popular talking point, not only with Kennedy allies in Washington and Atlanta, but among many prominent Los Angeles pediatricians.

“It sets up on Day One this mentality of, ‘I don’t necessarily agree with this, so what else do I not agree with?’” said Dr. Joel Warsh, a Studio City pediatrician and MAHA luminary, whose recent book “Between a Shot and a Hard Place” is aimed at vaccine-hesitant families.

Hepatitis B also disproportionately affects immigrant communities, further stigmatizing an illness that first entered the mainstream consciousness as an early proxy for HIV infection in the 1980s, before it was fully understood.

At the committee meeting last week, member Dr. Evelyn Griffin called illegal immigration the “elephant in the room” in the birth dose debate.

Advertisement

The move comes as post-pandemic wellness culture has supercharged vaccine hesitancy, expanding objections from a long-debunked link between the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine and autism to a more generalized, equally false belief that “healthy” children who eat whole foods and play outside are unlikely to get sick from vaccine-preventable diseases and, if they do, can be treated with “natural” remedies such as beef tallow and cod liver oil.

“It’s about your quality of life, it’s about what you put in your body, it’s about your wellness journey — we have debunked this before,” Rivera said. “This is eugenics.”

Across Southern California, pediatricians, preschool teachers and public health experts say they’ve seen a surge in families seeking to prune certain shots from the schedule and many delay others based on “individualized risk.” The trend has spawned a cottage industry of e-books, Zoom workshops by “vaccine friendly” doctors offering alternative schedules, bespoke inoculations and post-vaccine detox regimens.

CDC data show state exemptions for kindergarten vaccines have surged since the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, with about 5% of schoolchildren in Georgia, Florida and Ohio, more than 6% in Pennsylvania and nearly 7% in Michigan waved out of the requirement last year.

In Alaska and Arizona, those numbers topped 9%. In Idaho, 1 in 6 kindergartners are exempt.

Advertisement

California is one of four states — alongside New York, Connecticut and Maine — with no religious or personal-belief exemptions for school vaccines.

It is also among at least 20 states that have committed to keep the hepatitis B birth dose for babies on public insurance, which covers about half of American children. It is not clear whether the revised recommendation will affect government coverage of the vaccine in other states.

Experts warn that the success of the birth-dose reversal over near-universal objection from the medical establishment puts the entire pediatric vaccination schedule up for grabs, and threatens the school-based rules that enforce it.

Ongoing measles outbreaks in Texas and elsewhere that have killed three and sickened close to 2,000 show the risks of rolling back requirements, experts said.

Hepatitis is not nearly as contagious as measles, which can linger in the air for about two hours. But it’s still fairly easy to pick up, and devastating to those who contract it, experts said.

Advertisement

“These decisions happening today are going to have terrible residual effects later,” said Rivera, the L.A. epidemiologist. “I can’t imagine being a new mom having to navigate this.”

Politics

Rubio targets Nicaraguan official over alleged torture tied to ‘brutal’ Ortega regime

Published

on

Rubio targets Nicaraguan official over alleged torture tied to ‘brutal’ Ortega regime

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced Saturday that the Trump administration is sanctioning a senior Nicaraguan official over alleged human rights violations.

Rubio said the U.S. is designating Vice Minister of the Interior Luis Roberto Cañas Novoa for his role in “gross violations of human rights” under the government of President Daniel Ortega and Vice President Rosario Murillo, marking what he said was the latest effort to hold the regime accountable.

“The Trump administration continues to hold the Murillo-Ortega dictatorship accountable for brutal human rights violations against Nicaraguans,” Rubio said in a post on X. “I’m designating Nicaraguan Vice Minister of the Interior Luis Roberto Cañas Novoa for his role in human rights violations.”

RUBIO TESTIFIES IN TRIAL OF EX-FLORIDA CONGRESSMAN ALLEGEDLY HIRED BY MADURO GOVERNMENT TO LOBBY FOR VENEZUELA

Advertisement

Secretary of State Marco Rubio speaks at the State Department, April 14, 2026. The U.S. announced sanctions on a Nicaraguan official tied to alleged human rights abuses under the Ortega-Murillo government. (Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

The designation was made under Section 7031(c), which allows the State Department to bar foreign officials and their immediate family members from entering the United States due to involvement in significant corruption or human rights abuses.

The State Department has said the Ortega-Murillo government has engaged in arbitrary arrests, torture and extrajudicial killings following mass protests that began in April 2018.

“Nearly eight years ago, the Rosario Murillo and Daniel Ortega dictatorship unleashed a brutal wave of repression against Nicaraguans who courageously stood against the regime’s increased tyranny, corruption, and abuse,” the statement reads.

The State Department said that the sanction marked the anniversary of the 2018 protests, after which more than 325 protesters were murdered in the aftermath.

Advertisement

A panel of U.N.-backed human rights experts previously accused Nicaragua’s government of systematic abuses “tantamount to crimes against humanity,” following an investigation into the country’s crackdown on political dissent, according to The Associated Press.

The experts said the repression intensified after mass protests in 2018 and has since expanded across large parts of society, targeting perceived opponents of the government.

TRUMP ADMIN ANNOUNCES EXPANSION OF VISA RESTRICTION POLICY IN WESTERN HEMISPHERE

Nicaragua President Daniel Ortega delivers a speech during a ceremony to mark the 199th Independence Day anniversary, in Managua, Nicaragua Sept. 15, 2020.   (Nicaragua’s Presidency/Cesar Perez/Handout via Reuters)

Nicaragua’s government has rejected those findings.

Advertisement

The designation follows a series of recent U.S. actions targeting the Ortega-Murillo government. In February, the State Department sanctioned five senior Nicaraguan officials tied to repression, citing arbitrary detention, torture, killings and the targeting of clergy, media and civil society.

Earlier this week, the department also announced sanctions on individuals and companies linked to Nicaragua’s gold sector, including two of Ortega and Murillo’s sons, accusing the regime of using the industry to generate foreign currency, launder assets and consolidate power within the ruling family.

The State Department said the move is part of ongoing efforts to hold the Nicaraguan government accountable for its actions.

Fox News Digital reached out to the Nicaraguan government and its embassy in Washington for comment but did not immediately receive a response.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Advertisement

A man waves a Nicaraguan flag during a demonstration to commemorate Nicaragua’s national Day of Peace, which is celebrated in the country on April 19, and to protest against the government of Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega in San Jose, Costa Rica on April 16, 2023. (Jose Cordero/AFP)

The Trump administration has taken an increasingly aggressive posture in the Western Hemisphere in recent months, including a Jan. 3, 2026, operation that resulted in the capture of Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores.

The U.S. has also carried out a series of strikes targeting suspected drug-trafficking vessels in the region, part of a broader crackdown tied to regional security and narcotics enforcement efforts.

Continue Reading

Politics

Outlines of a deal emerge with major concessions to Iran

Published

on

Outlines of a deal emerge with major concessions to Iran

Upbeat claims from President Trump over an imminent peace deal to end the war with Iran were met with deep skepticism Friday across the Middle East, where Iranian and Israeli officials questioned the prospects for a lasting agreement that would satisfy all parties.

The outlines of an agreement began to emerge that would provide Iran with a major strategic victory — and a potential financial windfall — allowing the Islamic Republic to leverage its control over the Strait of Hormuz to exact significant concessions from the United States and its ally Israel as Trump presses for a swift end to the conflict.

In a series of social media posts and interviews with reporters, Trump announced that the strait was “fully open,” vowing Tehran would never again attempt to control it. But Iranian officials and state media said that conditions remained on passage through the waterway, including the imposition of tolls and coordination with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

Iranian diplomats posted threats that its closure could resume at any time of their choosing, and warned that restrictions would return unless the United States agreed to lift a blockade of its ports. Trump had said Friday that the blockade would remain in place.

“The conditional and limited reopening of a portion of the Strait of Hormuz is solely an Iranian initiative, one that creates responsibility and serves to test the firm commitments of the opposing side,” said a top aide to Iran’s president, dismissing Trump’s statements on the contours of a deal as “baseless.”

Advertisement

“If they renege on their promises,” he added, “they will face dire consequences.”

In an overture to Iran, Trump said Israel would be “prohibited” from conducting additional military strikes in Lebanon, where the Israeli government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu seeks to prevent Hezbollah, an Iranian proxy militia, from rearming, a potential threat to communities in the Israeli north.

But in a speech delivered in Hebrew, Netanyahu would say only that Israel had agreed to a temporary ceasefire, while members of his Cabinet warned that Israel Defense Forces operations in southern Lebanon were not yet finished. A top ally of the prime minister at a right-wing Israeli news outlet warned that Trump was “surrendering” to Iran in the talks.

It was a day of public messaging from a president eager to end a war that has proved historically unpopular with the American public, and has driven a rise in gas prices that could weigh on his party entering this year’s midterm elections.

Yet, Republican allies of the president have begun warning him that an agreement skewed heavily in Tehran’s favor could carry political costs of its own.

Advertisement

Trump was forced to deny an Axios report Friday that his negotiating team had offered to release $20 billion in frozen Iranian assets in exchange for Tehran agreeing to hand over its fissile material, buried under rubble from a U.S. bombing raid last year.

That sum would amount to more than 10 times what President Obama released to Iran under a 2015 nuclear deal, called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, that was the subject of fierce Republican criticism in the decade since.

“I have every confidence that President Trump will not allow Iran to be enriched by tens of billions of dollars for holding the world hostage and creating mayhem in the region,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), a strong supporter of the war. “No JCPOAs on President Trump’s watch.”

Still, Trump said in a round of interviews that a deal could be reached in a matter of days, ending less than two weeks of negotiations.

He claimed that Tehran had agreed to permanently end its enrichment of uranium — a development that, if true, would mark a dramatic reversal for the Islamic Republic from decades developing its nuclear program, and from just 10 days ago, when Iranian diplomats rejected a U.S. proposal of a 20-year pause on domestic enrichment in favor of a five-year moratorium.

Advertisement

He said Iran had agreed never to build nuclear weapons — a pledge Tehran has made repeatedly, including under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, in a religious decree from then-Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and in the 2015 agreement — while continuing nuclear activities viewed by the international community as exceeding civilian needs.

And he repeatedly stated that Iran had agreed to the removal of its enriched uranium from the country, either to the United States or to a third party. Iranian state media stated Friday afternoon that a proposal to remove the country’s highly enriched uranium had been “rejected.”

Iran’s agreement to allow safe passage for commercial vessels through the Strait of Hormuz is linked to a ceasefire in Lebanon that the Israeli Cabinet approved for only a 10-day period. Regardless of whether it holds or is extended, Israeli officials said their military would not retreat from its current positions in southern Lebanon — opening up Israeli forces to potential attack by Hezbollah militants unbound by a truce brokered by the Lebanese government.

The Lebanese people, Hezbollah officials said, have “the right to resist” Israeli occupation of their land. Whether the fighting resumes, the group added, “will be determined based on how developments unfold.”

An Iranian official threw cold water on the prospects of reaching a comprehensive peace deal in the coming days, telling Reuters that a temporary extension of the current ceasefire, set to expire Tuesday, would “create space for more talks on lifting sanctions on Iran and securing compensation for war damages.”

Advertisement

“In exchange, Iran will provide assurances to the international community about the peaceful nature of its nuclear program,” the official said, adding that “any other narrative about the ongoing talks is a misrepresentation of the situation.”

Trump told reporters Friday that the talks will continue through the weekend.

While Trump claimed there aren’t “too many significant differences” remaining, he said the United States would continue the blockade until negotiations are finalized and formalized.

“When the agreement is signed, the blockade ends,” the president told reporters in Phoenix.

Times staff writer Ana Ceballos contributed to this report.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Read the Supreme Court’s Shadow Papers

Published

on

Read the Supreme Court’s Shadow Papers

CHAMBERS OF

JUSTICE ELENA KAGAN

Supreme Court of the United States Washington, D. C. 20343

February 7, 2016

Memorandum to the Conference

Re: 15A773 West Virginia, et al. v. EPA, et al.
15A776 Basin Elec. Power Cooperative, et al. v. EPA, et al. 15A787 Chamber of Commerce, et al. v. EPA, et al.
15A778 Murray Energy Corp., et al. v. EPA, et al.

-

15A793 North Dakota v. EPA, et al.

I agree with Steve that we should direct the States to seek an extension from the EPA before asking this Court to intervene. We could also include, at the end of such an order, language along the lines of the following, to encourage the D. C. Circuit to act expeditiously in its resolution of this matter: “In light of that court’s agreement to consider this case on an expedited schedule, we are confident that it will [or even: we urge it to] render a decision with appropriate dispatch.” See Doe v. Gonzales, 546 U. S. 1301, 1308 (2005) (GINSBURG, J., in chambers); Kemp v. Smith, 463 U. S. 1344, 1345 (1983) (Powell, J., in chambers); Holtzman v. Schlesinger, 414 U. S. 1304, 1305, n. 2 (1973) (Marshall, J., in chambers).

The unique nature of the relief sought in these applications gives me real pause. The applicants ask us to enjoin a regulation pending initial review in the court of appeals. As we often say, “we are a court of review, not of first view.” See Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U. S. 709, 718 n. 7 (2005); cf. Doe, 546 U. S., at 1308 (“Re- spect for the assessment of the Court of Appeals is especially warranted when that court is proceeding to adjudication on the merits with due expedition.”). As far as I can tell, it would be unprecedented for us to second-guess the D. C. Circuit’s deci sion that a stay is not warranted, without the benefit of full briefing or a prior judi- cial decision.

On the merits, this is a difficult case involving a complex statutory and regu- latory regime. Although the parties’ abbreviated discussion of the issues at stake here makes it difficult for me to determine with any confidence which side is likely to ultimately prevail, it seems to me that at this stage the government has the bet- ter of the arguments. The Chief’s memo focuses on the applicants’ argument that the “best system of emission reduction” refers “solely [to] installation of control technologies (e.g., scrubbers).” 2/5 Memo, at 2. The ordinary meaning of “system” is in fact quite broad, appearing to encompass what EPA has done here. Of course, we would want to consider this term in the larger context of the Clean Air Act’s regula-

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending