Montana

Montana pediatrician group pushes back against CDC vaccine changes

Published

2 weeks ago

January 9, 2026

Montana pediatrician group pushes back against CDC vaccine changes

This story is excerpted from the MT Lowdown, a weekly newsletter digest containing original reporting and analysis published every Friday.

On Monday, Jan. 5, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced it would downgrade six vaccines on the routine schedule for childhood immunizations. The changes scale back recommendations for hepatitis A and B, influenza, rotavirus, RSV and meningococcal disease.

That decision — shared by top officials at the federal Department of Health and Human Services — took many public health experts by surprise, in part because of how the administration of President Donald Trump departed from the CDC’s typical process for changing childhood vaccine recommendations.

Montana Free Press spoke to Atty Moriarty, a Missoula-based pediatrician and president of the Montana Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics, about her perspective on the CDC’s changes. The interview has been edited for length and clarity.

MTFP: What happened in this most recent change and how does that differ from the CDC’s normal process for adjusting childhood vaccination schedules?

Moriarty: The way that vaccines have traditionally been recommended in the past is that vaccines were developed, and then they traditionally went through a formal vetting process before going to the [CDC]’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, or ACIP, which did a full review of the safety data, the efficacy data, and then made recommendations based on that. Since November 2025, that committee has completely been changed and is not a panel of experts, but it is a panel of political appointees that don’t have expertise in public health, let alone infectious disease or immunology. So now, this decision was made purely based unilaterally on opinion and not on any new data or evidence-based medicine.

MTFP: Can you walk through some of the administration’s stated reasons for these changes?

Moriarty: To be honest, these changes are so nonsensical that it’s really hard. There’s a lot of concern in the new administration and in the Department of Health and Human Services and the CDC that we are giving too many immunizations. That, again, is not based on any kind of data or science. And there’s a lot of publicity surrounding the number of vaccines as compared to 30 years ago, and questioning why we give so many. The answer to that is fairly simple. It’s because science has evolved enough that we actually can prevent more diseases. Now, some comparisons have been made to other countries, specifically Denmark, that do not give as many vaccines, but also are a completely different public health landscape and population than the United States and have a completely different public health system in general than we do.

MTFP: Where is the American Academy of Pediatrics [AAP] getting its guidance from now, if not ACIP?

Moriarty: We really started to separate with the [CDC’s] vaccine recommendations earlier in 2025. So as soon as they stopped recommending the COVID vaccine, that’s when [AAP] published our vaccine schedule that we have published for the last 45 years, but it’s the first time that it differed from the CDC’s. We continue to advocate for immunizations as a public health measure for families and kids, and are using the previous immunization schedule. And that schedule can be found on the [AAP’s] healthychildren.org website.

MTFP: Do any of the recent vaccine scheduling changes concern you more than others?

Moriarty: I think that any pediatrician will tell you that 20-30 years ago, hospitals were completely full of babies with rotavirus infection. That is an infection that is a gastrointestinal disease and causes severe dehydration in babies. I’m nervous about that coming roaring back because babies die of dehydration. It’s one of the top reasons they’re admitted to the hospital. I’m nervous about their recommendation against the flu vaccine. [The U.S. is] in one of the worst flu outbreaks we’ve ever seen currently right now and have had many children die already this season.

MTFP: Do you think, though, that hearing this changed guidance from the Trump administration will change some families’ minds about what vaccines they’ll elect to get for their children?

Moriarty: Oh, absolutely. We saw that before this recommendation. I mean, social media is such a scary place to get medical information, and [listening to] talking heads on the news is just really not an effective way to find medical information, but we see people getting it all the time. I meet families in the hospital that make decisions for their kids based on TikTok. So I think that one of the effects of this is going to be to sow more distrust in the public health infrastructure that we have in the United States that has kept our country healthy.

LATEST STORIES

Former judge-elect sentenced to probation in drug case

A Lake County attorney who was elected judge but resigned before even taking the bench was sentenced to three years of probation in the very courtroom he was once going to oversee.

Group refiles corporate political spending ban days after court setback

The Transparent Election Initiative, an anti-dark money group, filed with the Montana Secretary of State two ballot initiatives that aim to prevent corporate political spending. The filing came just two days after the state Supreme Court found an earlier version of the initiative legally insufficient.

Source link

Click to comment

Montana

Montana deserves better than attack ads and political junk food • Daily Montanan

Published

11 hours ago

January 24, 2026

Press Room

Montana deserves better than attack ads and political junk food • Daily Montanan

Let’s talk about attack ads. You know the ones—ominous music, grainy photos, and a narrator who sounds like they gargle gravel for a living. We’ve all seen them. We’ve all heard them. And at this point, we’re anesthetized. Political Novocaine.

Enough.

Montana deserves better than campaigns that treat voters like raccoons rummaging through ideological trash cans. We deserve ideas, not insults. Debates, not drive-by smear jobs. Sunlight, not sludge.

And that brings us—unavoidably—to incumbent Sen. Steve Daines.

Rather than showing up in Montana for public town halls, rather than standing in front of voters and answering unscripted questions, Daines has perfected a different approach – absence. He won’t hold a public town hall. He won’t face constituents. Instead, Montanans get something else entirely—well-financed, vicious attack ads, launched long before an election and even before a candidate has formally declared.

That’s offensive.

If you won’t show up, don’t send a hit piece in your place. Montana is not a focus group. Democracy is not a mailer campaign. And an attack ad is not a substitute for showing your face and answering hard questions.

Daines should show up. Sending a slick, cynical attack ad instead doesn’t cut it.

Now let’s be honest about what just happened—because it tells us everything we need to know.

University of Montana President Seth Bodnar resigns his position, and before he even announces a campaign, before he files for office, before he says a word about running, Republicans launch a vicious attack ad.

Day. One.

That’s not confidence. That’s fear.

You don’t unload the attack ads that early unless you’re scared stiff.

No welcome. No thanks for service. No “let’s debate the issues.” Just straight into the gutter, guns blazing, facts optional. Misleading claims. Flat-out untruths. The political equivalent of throwing a punch before the bell rings.

Shame on them.

This is exactly why Bodnar is such a compelling candidate. The very speed and savagery of the attacks are the tell. When the ideas are weak, the attacks get loud. When the record can’t compete, the mud comes out early.

Here’s a radical thought: What if candidates held 56 debates across Montana? Fifty-six. One for every county. Let voters ask questions. Let candidates explain who they are, what they’ve done, and what they actually plan to do—rather than explaining why their opponent is apparently the third cousin of Satan.

Crazy, right?

Attack ads don’t persuade; they poison. No one watches one and says, “Wow, that really enriched my understanding of public policy.” They say, “I hate all of you now.” These ads ruin television, make public service unattractive, and convince good people that running for office isn’t worth the personal abuse.

Attack ads are why decent people stay home and cable news stays rich.

This isn’t the Montana way. Or at least, it didn’t used to be.

Which brings me back to Bodnar.

Under his leadership, UM stretched to new heights: roughly $300 million in infrastructure improvements—much donor-funded; R-1 research status (a very big deal); rising enrollment; better retention. He took on a tough job and exceeded expectations.

Now, according to reports, Bodnar may run for the U.S. Senate—as an independent. And suddenly the political establishment loses its mind.

Let’s pause on something important: Bodnar is a real public servant. Full stop.

First in his class at West Point. Rhodes Scholar. Truman Scholar. Green Beret. Multiple combat deployments. Lieutenant Colonel in the Montana National Guard—still serving. Leadership under fire isn’t theoretical for him; it’s lived.

This guy didn’t read about leadership—he graded it.

He taught economics at West Point. He served as a senior executive at General Electric. He knows how large, complicated systems work—and how to fix them.

So what do the attack ads do? They lie.

They claim Bodnar raised tuition by 30%. False. Tuition is set by the Board of Regents, appointed by Gov. Gianforte. If you’re angry, aim accordingly.

What Bodnar actually did was create the Grizzly Promise: Students from families earning $50,000 or less attend UM tuition-free—about a quarter of undergraduates. The average Montana student paid around $3,000 a year in tuition. That’s not an increase. That’s a lifeline.

They claim he’s anti-woman. Also false. His record includes hiring and promoting accomplished women across campus leadership—law, business, conservation and beyond.

Montana deserves truth—not attack-ad garbage. Not politics as a blood sport. Not tribal stupidity served with gusto.

Public service should not require body armor.

This is a call for higher integrity and higher discourse—from every party and every candidate. Tell us your vision. Tell us your ideas. Tell us how you’ll make Montana stronger.

And if you’re already in office, show up. Face the people you represent.

Just spare us the lies, the fear-mongering, and the political junk food.

Montana deserves better. And we should demand it—loudly.

Source link