Professionals

Pro-life movement has mixed reaction after Trump’s first year of second term #Catholic 
 
 Participants in a pro-life rally hold signs in front of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C., on June 24, 2023, at a rally marking the first anniversary of the Supreme Court's Dobbs decision that overturned Roe v. Wade. | Credit: Joseph Portolano/EWTN News

Jan 20, 2026 / 14:37 pm (CNA).
Members of the pro-life movement have mixed thoughts on the first year of President Donald Trump’s second term, noting many wins early into his presidency but a number of shortfalls as time has gone by.Some wins include defunding Planned Parenthood, walking back some of President Joe Biden’s initiatives, and removing foreign aid funding for organizations that promote abortion. However, a lack of action on chemical abortions and weakened rhetoric surrounding taxpayer-funded abortions are causing concern.A notable pro-life win was included in the tax overhaul bill signed by Trump in July, which cut off all Medicaid reimbursements for organizations that provide a large number of abortions, such as Planned Parenthood.Amid funding cuts, nearly 70 Planned Parenthood affiliates shut down. The administration also initially cut off Title X family planning grants from the abortion giant, but those have resumed.The president pardoned pro-life protesters convicted of violating the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act and blocked foreign aid from supporting organizations that promote abortion. He rescinded several policies from the Biden administration, including one that paid Pentagon workers to travel for abortions. He also established strong conscience protections for pro-life doctors.“Right out the gate, we saw some progress on the pro-life issue,” Kelsey Pritchard, a spokesperson for Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America (SBA), told EWTN.Yet, she cautioned: “We have also not seen progress in the one area that matters the most — and that’s on abortion drugs.”Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. launched a study into the safety of the abortion pill mifepristone in September 2025, but so far no action has been taken to curtail the drug. Rather, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) went in the opposite direction, approving a generic version of mifepristone later that same month.Pritchard said that move was “the opposite of what they should have done,” and referred to the generic mifepristone as “a new kill pill to increase the number of abortions that are done in this country.”She said Kennedy’s promised study has “absolutely been moving too slow” and added that there is no confirmation it even began or is taking place. SBA called for FDA Commissioner Marty Makary to be fired following allegations he was “slow-walking the report for political reasons,” she said.Trump has said abortion should be regulated by the states, but Pritchard warned “those [pro-life] laws can’t be in effect at all, really, when mail-order abortion happens with the abortion drugs.”“They’re allowing [California Gov.] Gavin Newsom and [New York Gov.] Kathy Hochul and their blue state friends to completely nullify the pro-life laws in states like Texas and Florida,” she said.Joseph Meaney, a senior ethicist at the National Catholic Bioethics Center, similarly said “the delay in the promised review of the rushed process in which mifepristone was approved as an abortion drug by the FDA has frustrated pro-lifers.”“When the FDA approved a second generic version of mifepristone, … it highlighted the lack of progress in fighting the leading means of doing abortions in the [United States],” he said.Trump also began to waver on taxpayer-funded abortions early in 2026, asking Republicans to be “flexible” on the Hyde Amendment amid negotiations on extending health care subsidies for the Affordable Care Act. Trump later unveiled “The Great Healthcare Plan” and said the White House intends to negotiate with Congress to ensure pro-life protections.Pritchard called taxpayer-funded abortion “a very basic red line” and said it’s “concerning to see Republicans back away from something so basic.”She warned Republicans to not take pro-life voters for granted in the upcoming midterms, saying “you’ll lose the elections and we won’t have the majority of Congress” without pro-life voters.“You must remain the pro-life party or you will lose the midterms if you decide to bow to the pro-death Democrat agenda,” Pritchard said.Meaney said there is “a widespread feeling that the second Trump administration has seemed to deprioritize issues important to the pro-life community,” adding he has “seen calls for pro-life groups to ‘flex their muscles’ and show that they cannot be taken for granted.”However, he said the shortfalls “should not obscure the fact that the Trump administration has rolled back the Biden-era pro-abortion measures internationally and domestically.”“It even achieved a temporary defunding of Planned Parenthood domestically in legislation,” he said. “The federal government no longer funds research on fetal tissues and defends the conscience rights of health care professionals and others robustly.”Trump also signed an executive order that directed departments and agencies to boost access to and reduce the cost of in vitro fertilization (IVF). The Catholic Church opposes IVF, which results in the destruction of human embryos, ending human lives.

Pro-life movement has mixed reaction after Trump’s first year of second term #Catholic Participants in a pro-life rally hold signs in front of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C., on June 24, 2023, at a rally marking the first anniversary of the Supreme Court's Dobbs decision that overturned Roe v. Wade. | Credit: Joseph Portolano/EWTN News Jan 20, 2026 / 14:37 pm (CNA). Members of the pro-life movement have mixed thoughts on the first year of President Donald Trump’s second term, noting many wins early into his presidency but a number of shortfalls as time has gone by.Some wins include defunding Planned Parenthood, walking back some of President Joe Biden’s initiatives, and removing foreign aid funding for organizations that promote abortion. However, a lack of action on chemical abortions and weakened rhetoric surrounding taxpayer-funded abortions are causing concern.A notable pro-life win was included in the tax overhaul bill signed by Trump in July, which cut off all Medicaid reimbursements for organizations that provide a large number of abortions, such as Planned Parenthood.Amid funding cuts, nearly 70 Planned Parenthood affiliates shut down. The administration also initially cut off Title X family planning grants from the abortion giant, but those have resumed.The president pardoned pro-life protesters convicted of violating the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act and blocked foreign aid from supporting organizations that promote abortion. He rescinded several policies from the Biden administration, including one that paid Pentagon workers to travel for abortions. He also established strong conscience protections for pro-life doctors.“Right out the gate, we saw some progress on the pro-life issue,” Kelsey Pritchard, a spokesperson for Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America (SBA), told EWTN.Yet, she cautioned: “We have also not seen progress in the one area that matters the most — and that’s on abortion drugs.”Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. launched a study into the safety of the abortion pill mifepristone in September 2025, but so far no action has been taken to curtail the drug. Rather, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) went in the opposite direction, approving a generic version of mifepristone later that same month.Pritchard said that move was “the opposite of what they should have done,” and referred to the generic mifepristone as “a new kill pill to increase the number of abortions that are done in this country.”She said Kennedy’s promised study has “absolutely been moving too slow” and added that there is no confirmation it even began or is taking place. SBA called for FDA Commissioner Marty Makary to be fired following allegations he was “slow-walking the report for political reasons,” she said.Trump has said abortion should be regulated by the states, but Pritchard warned “those [pro-life] laws can’t be in effect at all, really, when mail-order abortion happens with the abortion drugs.”“They’re allowing [California Gov.] Gavin Newsom and [New York Gov.] Kathy Hochul and their blue state friends to completely nullify the pro-life laws in states like Texas and Florida,” she said.Joseph Meaney, a senior ethicist at the National Catholic Bioethics Center, similarly said “the delay in the promised review of the rushed process in which mifepristone was approved as an abortion drug by the FDA has frustrated pro-lifers.”“When the FDA approved a second generic version of mifepristone, … it highlighted the lack of progress in fighting the leading means of doing abortions in the [United States],” he said.Trump also began to waver on taxpayer-funded abortions early in 2026, asking Republicans to be “flexible” on the Hyde Amendment amid negotiations on extending health care subsidies for the Affordable Care Act. Trump later unveiled “The Great Healthcare Plan” and said the White House intends to negotiate with Congress to ensure pro-life protections.Pritchard called taxpayer-funded abortion “a very basic red line” and said it’s “concerning to see Republicans back away from something so basic.”She warned Republicans to not take pro-life voters for granted in the upcoming midterms, saying “you’ll lose the elections and we won’t have the majority of Congress” without pro-life voters.“You must remain the pro-life party or you will lose the midterms if you decide to bow to the pro-death Democrat agenda,” Pritchard said.Meaney said there is “a widespread feeling that the second Trump administration has seemed to deprioritize issues important to the pro-life community,” adding he has “seen calls for pro-life groups to ‘flex their muscles’ and show that they cannot be taken for granted.”However, he said the shortfalls “should not obscure the fact that the Trump administration has rolled back the Biden-era pro-abortion measures internationally and domestically.”“It even achieved a temporary defunding of Planned Parenthood domestically in legislation,” he said. “The federal government no longer funds research on fetal tissues and defends the conscience rights of health care professionals and others robustly.”Trump also signed an executive order that directed departments and agencies to boost access to and reduce the cost of in vitro fertilization (IVF). The Catholic Church opposes IVF, which results in the destruction of human embryos, ending human lives.


Participants in a pro-life rally hold signs in front of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C., on June 24, 2023, at a rally marking the first anniversary of the Supreme Court's Dobbs decision that overturned Roe v. Wade. | Credit: Joseph Portolano/EWTN News

Jan 20, 2026 / 14:37 pm (CNA).

Members of the pro-life movement have mixed thoughts on the first year of President Donald Trump’s second term, noting many wins early into his presidency but a number of shortfalls as time has gone by.

Some wins include defunding Planned Parenthood, walking back some of President Joe Biden’s initiatives, and removing foreign aid funding for organizations that promote abortion. However, a lack of action on chemical abortions and weakened rhetoric surrounding taxpayer-funded abortions are causing concern.

A notable pro-life win was included in the tax overhaul bill signed by Trump in July, which cut off all Medicaid reimbursements for organizations that provide a large number of abortions, such as Planned Parenthood.

Amid funding cuts, nearly 70 Planned Parenthood affiliates shut down. The administration also initially cut off Title X family planning grants from the abortion giant, but those have resumed.

The president pardoned pro-life protesters convicted of violating the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act and blocked foreign aid from supporting organizations that promote abortion. He rescinded several policies from the Biden administration, including one that paid Pentagon workers to travel for abortions. He also established strong conscience protections for pro-life doctors.

“Right out the gate, we saw some progress on the pro-life issue,” Kelsey Pritchard, a spokesperson for Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America (SBA), told EWTN.

Yet, she cautioned: “We have also not seen progress in the one area that matters the most — and that’s on abortion drugs.”

Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. launched a study into the safety of the abortion pill mifepristone in September 2025, but so far no action has been taken to curtail the drug. Rather, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) went in the opposite direction, approving a generic version of mifepristone later that same month.

Pritchard said that move was “the opposite of what they should have done,” and referred to the generic mifepristone as “a new kill pill to increase the number of abortions that are done in this country.”

She said Kennedy’s promised study has “absolutely been moving too slow” and added that there is no confirmation it even began or is taking place. SBA called for FDA Commissioner Marty Makary to be fired following allegations he was “slow-walking the report for political reasons,” she said.

Trump has said abortion should be regulated by the states, but Pritchard warned “those [pro-life] laws can’t be in effect at all, really, when mail-order abortion happens with the abortion drugs.”

“They’re allowing [California Gov.] Gavin Newsom and [New York Gov.] Kathy Hochul and their blue state friends to completely nullify the pro-life laws in states like Texas and Florida,” she said.

Joseph Meaney, a senior ethicist at the National Catholic Bioethics Center, similarly said “the delay in the promised review of the rushed process in which mifepristone was approved as an abortion drug by the FDA has frustrated pro-lifers.”

“When the FDA approved a second generic version of mifepristone, … it highlighted the lack of progress in fighting the leading means of doing abortions in the [United States],” he said.

Trump also began to waver on taxpayer-funded abortions early in 2026, asking Republicans to be “flexible” on the Hyde Amendment amid negotiations on extending health care subsidies for the Affordable Care Act. Trump later unveiled “The Great Healthcare Plan” and said the White House intends to negotiate with Congress to ensure pro-life protections.

Pritchard called taxpayer-funded abortion “a very basic red line” and said it’s “concerning to see Republicans back away from something so basic.”

She warned Republicans to not take pro-life voters for granted in the upcoming midterms, saying “you’ll lose the elections and we won’t have the majority of Congress” without pro-life voters.

“You must remain the pro-life party or you will lose the midterms if you decide to bow to the pro-death Democrat agenda,” Pritchard said.

Meaney said there is “a widespread feeling that the second Trump administration has seemed to deprioritize issues important to the pro-life community,” adding he has “seen calls for pro-life groups to ‘flex their muscles’ and show that they cannot be taken for granted.”

However, he said the shortfalls “should not obscure the fact that the Trump administration has rolled back the Biden-era pro-abortion measures internationally and domestically.”

“It even achieved a temporary defunding of Planned Parenthood domestically in legislation,” he said. “The federal government no longer funds research on fetal tissues and defends the conscience rights of health care professionals and others robustly.”

Trump also signed an executive order that directed departments and agencies to boost access to and reduce the cost of in vitro fertilization (IVF). The Catholic Church opposes IVF, which results in the destruction of human embryos, ending human lives.

Read More
Catholic doctors and ethicists react to CDC’s revised childhood vaccine schedule #Catholic 
 
 Credit: CDC/Debora Cartagena

Jan 12, 2026 / 06:00 am (CNA).
Catholic medical professionals and ethicists had mixed reactions to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) announcement last week that it has revised the recommended childhood and adolescent vaccine schedule.In a press release on Jan. 5, the CDC announced a revised recommended childhood immunization schedule, which reduces the number of universally recommended vaccines from 18 to 11. It retains routine recommendations for all children against measles, mumps, rubella, polio, pertussis, tetanus, diphtheria, Haemophilus influenzae type b, pneumococcal disease, human papillomavirus (HPV), and varicella (chickenpox).Vaccines for rotavirus, influenza, COVID-19, hepatitis A, hepatitis B, meningococcal disease, and RSV now shift to recommendations for high-risk groups or after “shared clinical decision-making” between providers and families.According to a Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) memo, the CDC “applies shared clinical decision-making recommendations when evidence indicates that individuals may benefit from vaccination based on an analysis of the individual’s characteristics, values, and preferences, the provider’s medical judgment, and the characteristics of the vaccine being considered.”Insurance companies must continue to cover all vaccines.The changes come after President Donald Trump directed the heads of the CDC and HHS in December 2025 to “review best practices from peer, developed nations regarding childhood vaccination recommendations and the scientific evidence underlying those practices” and to make changes accordingly.After reviewing the vaccination practices of 20 peer nations, a scientific assessment found that “the U.S. is a global outlier among developed nations in both the number of diseases addressed in its routine childhood vaccination schedule and the total number of recommended doses but does not have higher vaccination rates than such countries.”“Science demands continuous evaluation,” Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), said in the CDC press release. “This decision commits NIH, CDC, and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to gold standard science, greater transparency, and ongoing reassessment as new data emerge.”Dr. Tim Millea, chair of the health care policy committee at the Catholic Medical Association (CMA), welcomed the changes, telling CNA that he thought the CDC approached the revisions “in a very logical way.”“There has been a huge drop in trust surrounding vaccines since the COVID-19 pandemic,” Millea said. “The suggestions during COVID that the science was ‘settled’ rubbed a lot of us the wrong way.”“The loudest critics of these new recommendations say this is ideology over science,” he said. “Science is a process, not an end. If we need more evidence, let’s get it,” he said, pointing out Bhattacharya’s call for “gold standard” science and “ongoing reassessment.”Millea, a retired orthopedic surgeon, said he has confidence that Bhattacharya and Dr. Marty Makary, head of the FDA, are “not going to let ideology get ahead of science.”The president of the National Catholic Bioethics Center (NCBC), John Di Camillo, told CNA in a statement regarding the updated immunization recommendations: “The people look to public health authorities precisely for this kind of guidance, which is responsive to continually evolving research, ongoing discussions among professionals in the medical field, and ethical principles that promote the common good, respect the dignity of the human person, and limit the interference of financial and ideological conflicts.”‘Let those closest to the children make the decisions’Millea acknowledged that critics of the CDC’s revised recommendations say comparing the U.S. vaccine schedule to that of much smaller, more homogeneous nations such as Denmark is like “comparing apples to oranges.”However, he pointed out that the CDC’s revised schedule is simply a recommendation, and each of the 50 U.S. states is free to do what it deems best. “It’s like 50 laboratories. Let’s see what works the best.”Invoking the Catholic principle of subsidiarity, Millea said “let those closest to the children who are getting the vaccinations make the decisions.”“One of the positive aspects of the pandemic is that now we can take a step back and we’re questioning, not because something may be wrong, but maybe because it could be improved upon,” Millea said.John F. Brehany, executive vice president and director of Institutional Relations at the NCBC, told CNA that “the new schedule appears to have been designed with good intent; that is, … to have gained public trust in the absence of mandates and to have contributed to population health outcomes that meet or exceed those of the U.S.”“The new schedule does not take a ‘one size fits all’ approach but rather structures recommendations based on the nature of the diseases, vaccines in question, and characteristics of the children or patients who may receive them,” he continued. “This approach appears to be well-founded and to provide a sound foundation for respecting the dignity and rights of every unique human person.”This will ‘sow more confusion’Dr. Gwyneth Spaeder, a Catholic pediatrician in North Carolina, did not welcome the changes to the immunization schedule.While she acknowledged that the damage to trust in institutions was substantial after the COVID-19 pandemic, she thinks the issues surrounding the COVID-19 vaccine’s safety and efficacy “cannot be compared” with the decades of studies demonstrating the safety of common children’s immunizations.“It is not the same moral calculus,” she said.She does not believe revising the immunization schedule this way will restore trust in institutions, which she said might take “years or even generations” to rebuild.This method will “sow more confusion,” Spaeder said. “Instead of trying to rebuild trust in transparent, evidence-based practices, we have created a situation where everyone is told different things … For this child, we think this schedule is the best, for that child, there’s a different one. That’s not how public health works.”She also said that comparing the homogeneous, relatively tiny population of 6 million in Denmark to that of the diverse population of 340 million in the U.S. is “a false comparison.”“Their children are at less risk from falling through the cracks and contracting these diseases we try to vaccinate against,” she said, noting the protective public health effects of Denmark’s universal health care and generous parental leave policies.“The children who will be most harmed in the U.S. are the underserved,” Spaeder said. “That’s being lost in this conversation. We can have a lot of high-level political arguments, but I am most concerned about my patients from single-parent homes who attend day care from young ages, or who are born to mothers who don’t have adequate prenatal care.”“They will lose out the most from not being protected from these diseases.”

Catholic doctors and ethicists react to CDC’s revised childhood vaccine schedule #Catholic Credit: CDC/Debora Cartagena Jan 12, 2026 / 06:00 am (CNA). Catholic medical professionals and ethicists had mixed reactions to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) announcement last week that it has revised the recommended childhood and adolescent vaccine schedule.In a press release on Jan. 5, the CDC announced a revised recommended childhood immunization schedule, which reduces the number of universally recommended vaccines from 18 to 11. It retains routine recommendations for all children against measles, mumps, rubella, polio, pertussis, tetanus, diphtheria, Haemophilus influenzae type b, pneumococcal disease, human papillomavirus (HPV), and varicella (chickenpox).Vaccines for rotavirus, influenza, COVID-19, hepatitis A, hepatitis B, meningococcal disease, and RSV now shift to recommendations for high-risk groups or after “shared clinical decision-making” between providers and families.According to a Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) memo, the CDC “applies shared clinical decision-making recommendations when evidence indicates that individuals may benefit from vaccination based on an analysis of the individual’s characteristics, values, and preferences, the provider’s medical judgment, and the characteristics of the vaccine being considered.”Insurance companies must continue to cover all vaccines.The changes come after President Donald Trump directed the heads of the CDC and HHS in December 2025 to “review best practices from peer, developed nations regarding childhood vaccination recommendations and the scientific evidence underlying those practices” and to make changes accordingly.After reviewing the vaccination practices of 20 peer nations, a scientific assessment found that “the U.S. is a global outlier among developed nations in both the number of diseases addressed in its routine childhood vaccination schedule and the total number of recommended doses but does not have higher vaccination rates than such countries.”“Science demands continuous evaluation,” Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), said in the CDC press release. “This decision commits NIH, CDC, and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to gold standard science, greater transparency, and ongoing reassessment as new data emerge.”Dr. Tim Millea, chair of the health care policy committee at the Catholic Medical Association (CMA), welcomed the changes, telling CNA that he thought the CDC approached the revisions “in a very logical way.”“There has been a huge drop in trust surrounding vaccines since the COVID-19 pandemic,” Millea said. “The suggestions during COVID that the science was ‘settled’ rubbed a lot of us the wrong way.”“The loudest critics of these new recommendations say this is ideology over science,” he said. “Science is a process, not an end. If we need more evidence, let’s get it,” he said, pointing out Bhattacharya’s call for “gold standard” science and “ongoing reassessment.”Millea, a retired orthopedic surgeon, said he has confidence that Bhattacharya and Dr. Marty Makary, head of the FDA, are “not going to let ideology get ahead of science.”The president of the National Catholic Bioethics Center (NCBC), John Di Camillo, told CNA in a statement regarding the updated immunization recommendations: “The people look to public health authorities precisely for this kind of guidance, which is responsive to continually evolving research, ongoing discussions among professionals in the medical field, and ethical principles that promote the common good, respect the dignity of the human person, and limit the interference of financial and ideological conflicts.”‘Let those closest to the children make the decisions’Millea acknowledged that critics of the CDC’s revised recommendations say comparing the U.S. vaccine schedule to that of much smaller, more homogeneous nations such as Denmark is like “comparing apples to oranges.”However, he pointed out that the CDC’s revised schedule is simply a recommendation, and each of the 50 U.S. states is free to do what it deems best. “It’s like 50 laboratories. Let’s see what works the best.”Invoking the Catholic principle of subsidiarity, Millea said “let those closest to the children who are getting the vaccinations make the decisions.”“One of the positive aspects of the pandemic is that now we can take a step back and we’re questioning, not because something may be wrong, but maybe because it could be improved upon,” Millea said.John F. Brehany, executive vice president and director of Institutional Relations at the NCBC, told CNA that “the new schedule appears to have been designed with good intent; that is, … to have gained public trust in the absence of mandates and to have contributed to population health outcomes that meet or exceed those of the U.S.”“The new schedule does not take a ‘one size fits all’ approach but rather structures recommendations based on the nature of the diseases, vaccines in question, and characteristics of the children or patients who may receive them,” he continued. “This approach appears to be well-founded and to provide a sound foundation for respecting the dignity and rights of every unique human person.”This will ‘sow more confusion’Dr. Gwyneth Spaeder, a Catholic pediatrician in North Carolina, did not welcome the changes to the immunization schedule.While she acknowledged that the damage to trust in institutions was substantial after the COVID-19 pandemic, she thinks the issues surrounding the COVID-19 vaccine’s safety and efficacy “cannot be compared” with the decades of studies demonstrating the safety of common children’s immunizations.“It is not the same moral calculus,” she said.She does not believe revising the immunization schedule this way will restore trust in institutions, which she said might take “years or even generations” to rebuild.This method will “sow more confusion,” Spaeder said. “Instead of trying to rebuild trust in transparent, evidence-based practices, we have created a situation where everyone is told different things … For this child, we think this schedule is the best, for that child, there’s a different one. That’s not how public health works.”She also said that comparing the homogeneous, relatively tiny population of 6 million in Denmark to that of the diverse population of 340 million in the U.S. is “a false comparison.”“Their children are at less risk from falling through the cracks and contracting these diseases we try to vaccinate against,” she said, noting the protective public health effects of Denmark’s universal health care and generous parental leave policies.“The children who will be most harmed in the U.S. are the underserved,” Spaeder said. “That’s being lost in this conversation. We can have a lot of high-level political arguments, but I am most concerned about my patients from single-parent homes who attend day care from young ages, or who are born to mothers who don’t have adequate prenatal care.”“They will lose out the most from not being protected from these diseases.”


Credit: CDC/Debora Cartagena

Jan 12, 2026 / 06:00 am (CNA).

Catholic medical professionals and ethicists had mixed reactions to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) announcement last week that it has revised the recommended childhood and adolescent vaccine schedule.

In a press release on Jan. 5, the CDC announced a revised recommended childhood immunization schedule, which reduces the number of universally recommended vaccines from 18 to 11. It retains routine recommendations for all children against measles, mumps, rubella, polio, pertussis, tetanus, diphtheria, Haemophilus influenzae type b, pneumococcal disease, human papillomavirus (HPV), and varicella (chickenpox).

Vaccines for rotavirus, influenza, COVID-19, hepatitis A, hepatitis B, meningococcal disease, and RSV now shift to recommendations for high-risk groups or after “shared clinical decision-making” between providers and families.

According to a Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) memo, the CDC “applies shared clinical decision-making recommendations when evidence indicates that individuals may benefit from vaccination based on an analysis of the individual’s characteristics, values, and preferences, the provider’s medical judgment, and the characteristics of the vaccine being considered.”

Insurance companies must continue to cover all vaccines.

The changes come after President Donald Trump directed the heads of the CDC and HHS in December 2025 to “review best practices from peer, developed nations regarding childhood vaccination recommendations and the scientific evidence underlying those practices” and to make changes accordingly.

After reviewing the vaccination practices of 20 peer nations, a scientific assessment found that “the U.S. is a global outlier among developed nations in both the number of diseases addressed in its routine childhood vaccination schedule and the total number of recommended doses but does not have higher vaccination rates than such countries.”

“Science demands continuous evaluation,” Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), said in the CDC press release. “This decision commits NIH, CDC, and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to gold standard science, greater transparency, and ongoing reassessment as new data emerge.”

Dr. Tim Millea, chair of the health care policy committee at the Catholic Medical Association (CMA), welcomed the changes, telling CNA that he thought the CDC approached the revisions “in a very logical way.”

“There has been a huge drop in trust surrounding vaccines since the COVID-19 pandemic,” Millea said. “The suggestions during COVID that the science was ‘settled’ rubbed a lot of us the wrong way.”

“The loudest critics of these new recommendations say this is ideology over science,” he said. “Science is a process, not an end. If we need more evidence, let’s get it,” he said, pointing out Bhattacharya’s call for “gold standard” science and “ongoing reassessment.”

Millea, a retired orthopedic surgeon, said he has confidence that Bhattacharya and Dr. Marty Makary, head of the FDA, are “not going to let ideology get ahead of science.”

The president of the National Catholic Bioethics Center (NCBC), John Di Camillo, told CNA in a statement regarding the updated immunization recommendations: “The people look to public health authorities precisely for this kind of guidance, which is responsive to continually evolving research, ongoing discussions among professionals in the medical field, and ethical principles that promote the common good, respect the dignity of the human person, and limit the interference of financial and ideological conflicts.”

‘Let those closest to the children make the decisions’

Millea acknowledged that critics of the CDC’s revised recommendations say comparing the U.S. vaccine schedule to that of much smaller, more homogeneous nations such as Denmark is like “comparing apples to oranges.”

However, he pointed out that the CDC’s revised schedule is simply a recommendation, and each of the 50 U.S. states is free to do what it deems best. “It’s like 50 laboratories. Let’s see what works the best.”

Invoking the Catholic principle of subsidiarity, Millea said “let those closest to the children who are getting the vaccinations make the decisions.”

“One of the positive aspects of the pandemic is that now we can take a step back and we’re questioning, not because something may be wrong, but maybe because it could be improved upon,” Millea said.

John F. Brehany, executive vice president and director of Institutional Relations at the NCBC, told CNA that “the new schedule appears to have been designed with good intent; that is, … to have gained public trust in the absence of mandates and to have contributed to population health outcomes that meet or exceed those of the U.S.”

“The new schedule does not take a ‘one size fits all’ approach but rather structures recommendations based on the nature of the diseases, vaccines in question, and characteristics of the children or patients who may receive them,” he continued. “This approach appears to be well-founded and to provide a sound foundation for respecting the dignity and rights of every unique human person.”

This will ‘sow more confusion’

Dr. Gwyneth Spaeder, a Catholic pediatrician in North Carolina, did not welcome the changes to the immunization schedule.

While she acknowledged that the damage to trust in institutions was substantial after the COVID-19 pandemic, she thinks the issues surrounding the COVID-19 vaccine’s safety and efficacy “cannot be compared” with the decades of studies demonstrating the safety of common children’s immunizations.

“It is not the same moral calculus,” she said.

She does not believe revising the immunization schedule this way will restore trust in institutions, which she said might take “years or even generations” to rebuild.

This method will “sow more confusion,” Spaeder said. “Instead of trying to rebuild trust in transparent, evidence-based practices, we have created a situation where everyone is told different things … For this child, we think this schedule is the best, for that child, there’s a different one. That’s not how public health works.”

She also said that comparing the homogeneous, relatively tiny population of 6 million in Denmark to that of the diverse population of 340 million in the U.S. is “a false comparison.”

“Their children are at less risk from falling through the cracks and contracting these diseases we try to vaccinate against,” she said, noting the protective public health effects of Denmark’s universal health care and generous parental leave policies.

“The children who will be most harmed in the U.S. are the underserved,” Spaeder said. “That’s being lost in this conversation. We can have a lot of high-level political arguments, but I am most concerned about my patients from single-parent homes who attend day care from young ages, or who are born to mothers who don’t have adequate prenatal care.”

“They will lose out the most from not being protected from these diseases.”

Read More