Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s decision to downgrade recommendations for four childhood vaccines has triggered sharp reactions. Anti-vaccine activists view this as a breakthrough that could erode long-standing liability protections for vaccine manufacturers. Critics argue that shifting vaccines to a “shared clinical decisionmaking” category opens the door for civil lawsuits and threatens public trust in immunization programs.
Vaccine Injury Lawsuits Could Surge
By removing flu, meningitis, hepatitis A, and rotavirus vaccines from the routine schedule, Kennedy’s administration has stirred legal and political controversy. Vaccine injury lawyers like Aaron Siri believe this move may allow claimants to bypass the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) and sue manufacturers directly. That program, created in 1986, shields manufacturers while compensating victims. However, its protection only applies to vaccines recommended for “routine” use in children and pregnant women.
Legal Uncertainty Fuels Divided Expectations
While HHS insists the shift won’t change liability coverage, both advocates and legal experts anticipate court challenges. Del Bigtree, a prominent Kennedy ally, called the legal argument “hypothetical” but “solid ground.” Some see this as a backdoor method to eliminate liability protections without involving Congress. Acting CDC Director Jim O’Neill enacted the change unilaterally, sidestepping the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.
Supporters Warn of Risks to Public Health
Public health officials and legal experts caution that litigation risks may drive vaccine makers out of the market. Renée Gentry, a vaccine injury law expert, warns that removing protections might harm injured individuals more by eliminating accessible compensation. Others argue that the legal process for revising VICP eligibility is complex and hasn’t yet occurred. Any removal from the injury table requires formal rulemaking, including public comment and advisory review.
Future Challenges and Legal Battles Loom
Kennedy’s critics suggest the change was crafted to avoid legal scrutiny by keeping insurance and compensation structures intact. Still, vaccine proponents are preparing to challenge the policy. Meanwhile, anti-vaccine advocates are planning lawsuits to test the limits of current legal interpretations. If successful, such cases could reshape vaccine policy and legal precedent nationwide.
Source:
The big plan behind Kennedy’s overhaul of childhood vaccines
Photo by Sasun Bughdaryan on Unsplash
About Post Author
