On May 27, US  Health and Human Services secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced that the federal government no longer recommends COVID-19 vaccines for healthy children.

On May 30, the US Centers for Disease Control contradicted Kennedy, instead simply recommending that parents of children between the ages of six months and 17 years “discuss the benefits of vaccination with a healthcare provider.”

On August 20, the American Academy of Pediatrics took yet a third position: That “all young children” between the ages of six months and 23 months, possibly excluding “older children in certain risk groups,” should receive the vaccines.

One of these positions — the CDC’s — is consistent with both good medical practice and parental rights/responsibilities.

The other two — Kennedy’s and the AAP’s — try to substitute the one-size-fits-all judgment of  a few supposed “experts” for the case-by-case judgments of millions of parents and doctors.

It’s not very often that you’ll see a good word from me where CDC is concerned. Its operations and recommendations often seem geared more toward affirming establishment policy positions than protecting Americans’ health. It’s nice to see the correct take coming from that corner.

Why should decisions on childhood vaccination be made by parents with the advice of their family doctors?

Put simply, vaccination entails both benefits and risks.

I’m not referring to “fringe” theories about the dangers of mRNA “clot shots,” or to the notion that preservatives in some vaccines may be linked to autism,  although those certainly are, and should remain, up for discussion.

It’s an indisputable fact that some vaccines, including but not limited to COVID-19 vaccines produce allergic reactions in some patients. Those reactions can be fatal.

Vaccines, including but not limited to COVID-19 vaccines, have also been linked to Guillain-Barré Syndrome, a rare autoimmune disorder. Whether that linkage is directly causal or whether a vaccine is just the tipping point that “activates” GBS seems unclear, but it’s a risk either way.

Individual doctors are better positioned than “experts” a thousand miles away to evaluate their patients, their patients’ needs, and their patients’ risk levels, and offer their best advice on whether to undergo any medical procedure.

And individual patients — or, in the case of children, their parents/guardians — are the ones entitled by right to weigh the benefits and risks, seek advice or not, and make the decisions.

When a vaccine is administered, it’s injected into the patient’s body, not RFK’s body or the AAP’s body.

Does the phrase “my body, my choice” ring any bells?

It’s not just about vaccines. It’s about the whole range of health issues.

Oddly, many of those inveighing against vaccine choice take the correct position on treatment for gender dysphoria in minors — that parents and doctors should be free to do their best to help children.

Also oddly, many of those rightly invoking “parental rights” on childhood vaccine decisions claim that politicians, rather than parents and doctors, are entitled to decide for everyone on child gender dysphoria treatment.

Individual/parental choice is always preferable to letting politicians and bureaucrats choose for everyone.

Thomas L. Knapp (X: @thomaslknapp | Bluesky: @knappster.bsky.social | Mastodon: @knappster) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

On August 15, US president Donald Trump met with Russian Federation president Vladimir Putin in Alaska. On August 18, Trump met with Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy and a collection of European politicians in Washington. The goal of both meetings: Bringing an end to the Russia-Ukraine war now well into its fourth year.

Media coverage of both events centered more on Trump than on the other participants, and more on Trump’s motives and competence than on either the desired outcome or how that outcome might transpire.

Trump, we’re told, got rolled — used and humiliated — by Putin in Alaska.

Trump, we’re told, played the Emperor in his new clothes to a fawning Zelenskyy et al., hiding his cankles and flaunting his crackpottery.

And in both cases, we’re told, Trump’s motives are impure: He’s just after a Nobel Peace Prize and sees ending the war, on any terms, as a way to get it.

I can’t think of any way to sufficiently emphasize my opinion on those speculations, so let’s just go with all caps and too many periods:

I. DON’T. CARE.

I don’t care if Trump’s an easy mark for Putin.

I don’t care if Trump’s mad as a hatter or if other world “leaders” try to placate him by pretending otherwise.

I don’t care if Trump’s obsessed with cadging yet another participation trophy for his mantel.

Nor do I care whether the Moscow gang or the Kyiv gang gets to treat the people damaged and displaced by this war as livestock at best, slaves as the norm, and meat for their mutual slaughterhouse project at worst.

The ideal answer is “neither, and none,” and the second-best answer is “let those people decide for themselves,” but the only thing on the table at the moment seems to be shutting down the slaughterhouse part.

If Trump can help make that happen, award him all the ribbons, plaques, and trophies he craves and let him babble nonsense to his heart’s content on whatever subject he pleases.

Two important things to remember:

First, millions of people have been killed, injured, abducted, detained, enslaved, displaced, or some combination of those things, over the last 42 months. That needs to stop.

Second, we’ve gone 42 months with no one else succeeding in stopping it.

So how about just letting Trump take his best shot at getting the job  done, instead of quibbling over the details (which we can’t even know from moment to moment), or over his supposed motives or inadequacies?

It’s not like there’s any shortage of things to complain about when it comes to Trump. Why turn this into one of those things?

If Trump can help end this war, he has my support and should have yours.

Thomas L. Knapp (X: @thomaslknapp | Bluesky: @knappster.bsky.social | Mastodon: @knappster) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

At a 1992 debate, an audience member hit incumbent US president George H.W. Bush, as well as candidates Bill Clinton and Ross Perot, with an interesting question. I personally recall the moment, and found it somewhat odd at the time, but I’m trusting AI on the exact quote, so don’t ask for my oath on its accuracy:

“I ask the three of you to look into the camera and talk to us about how you would be as a president, as a father of the country. Why should we entrust you with our future, our hopes, and our children?”

At the time, I remember thinking to myself “What? The president as our national parent? How could anyone fall for that kind of nonsense?”

But the three candidates actually took the audience member’s question seriously instead of pushing back, and the 33 years between then and now answer my own follow-up question dispositively. The answer is “the vast majority of voters.”

How did we arrive at the near-complete abdication of real parental responsibility, in favor of government proxy, that we see around us today? It’s tempting to just blame opportunistic politicians, but in this case it definitely took two to tango.

The late right-wing pundit Andrew Breitbart confidently asserted that “politics is downstream from culture.” The interplay seems more complex than that to me — politicians both curry, and respond to, moral panic — but he had a point.

Government has increasingly taken charge of all our lives — almost always yelling that it’s “for the children” — because we’ve not just allowed it to, but demanded that it do so.

That’s neither a “left-wing” nor a “right-wing” phenomenon. It’s everywhere.

Three incidents over the last decade:

During the 2016 presidential election cycle, I recall students at a university complaining to the school administration that some sidewalk chalk — “Trump 2016” — made them feel “unsafe,” and asking for SOMETHING TO BE DONE, because their feelz were more important than freedom of speech in the public square.

Post-COVID, parents on the other side of the political fence demanded legislation to “protect their parental rights” by requiring tax-paid teachers at tax-funded schools to invade students’ privacy and report anything indicating a child might be LGBTQ-curious, because their “parental rights” entitled them to free private investigator services at taxpayer expense.

On August 15, online game platform Roblox prostrated itself before, among other politicians, Louisiana attorney general Liz Murill, announcing new content controls to “protect” the “safety” of minors on the platform, lest they be exposed to imaginary alcohol consumption, fantasy sex, etc., and, just possibly, real predators seeking offline molestation opportunities.

As a parent, it’s YOUR job to explain to your kids that free speech doesn’t harm them, to discus sexual orientation/gender identity (and your values) with them, and to monitor their online activity for hazards, not the government’s job to control everyone else so you can ignore your kids and watch football.

When you fob your parental responsibilities off ON the government, you’re giving your kids (and everyone else’s) TO the government.

Thomas L. Knapp (X: @thomaslknapp | Bluesky: @knappster.bsky.social | Mastodon: @knappster) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY