The Dictatorship
The most alarming aspect of RFK Jr.’s potential appointment is bigger than vaccines
As a physician who has dedicated my life to improving public health, I find myself deeply troubled and, frankly, alarmed at the prospect of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. becoming the secretary of Health and Human Services. This isn’t just a matter of political disagreement. It’s a scenario that could have profound, far-reaching consequences for the health and well-being of every American, including you and your loved ones.
Despite overwhelming scientific evidence that supports the safety and efficacy of vaccines, Kennedy has repeatedly promoted debunked theories inaccurately linking vaccines to autism and other health issues.
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is the principal agency for protecting the health of all Americans. It oversees critical institutions like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH), which are responsible for disease prevention, food and drug safety, medical research and implementing health policies that affect every American. Imagine a health care system where scientifically proven treatments are called into question, where long-established safety nets we take for granted are dismantled and where misinformation guides critical health policies. This isn’t a dystopian fiction — it’s a very real possibility if Kennedy assumes this pivotal role.
One of the most alarming aspects of Kennedy’s potential appointment is his long-standing skepticism of vaccines. Despite overwhelming scientific evidence that supports the safety and efficacy of vaccines, Kennedy has repeatedly promoted debunked theories inaccurately linking vaccines to autism and other health issues. Although he told NPR that “we’re not going to take vaccines away from anybody,” that’s small consolation.
If he were to implement policies based on these unfounded beliefs, it could lead to, among other things, decreased vaccination rates, potentially causing outbreaks of preventable diseases; weakened immunization programs, putting vulnerable populations at risk; and erosion of public trust in vital health institutions.
Over at the NIH and FDA, Kennedy’s skepticism toward established medical practices and pharmaceutical companies could lead to delays in drug approvals, potentially withholding lifesaving treatments from patients; reduced funding for critical medical research; and the promotion of unproven or dangerous alternative treatments. The FDA has drawn Kennedy’s particular attention, and he has said he intends to overhaul the agencyspecifically its nutrition regulators. While improving our food system is a worthy goal, Kennedy’s approach, which includes promoting raw milk consumption, could expose Americans to increased risks from foodborne illnesses.
Kennedy’s national reputation was built on his environmental advocacy, but even there his approach has been antiscientific. Should he bring his approach to chemical regulation to the role of HHS secretary, it could have unintended consequences. Without the proper scientific backing and researchoverzealous regulation could impede the development of actually beneficial products and treatments.
Perhaps most concerning is the potential for Kennedy’s views to shape broader public health policy. His stance on issues like water fluoridationdespite its proven benefits for dental health, could lead to policy changes that harm millions of Americans.
Our health and the health of our loved ones is too important to be guided by unfounded theories and misguided policies.
The HHS secretary approves policies and decisions that have a direct effect on your daily life, such as the safety of the food you eat and the drugs you take; the availability and cost of health care services; the information you receive about health risks and preventive measures; and the funding and direction of medical research that can lead to new treatments for diseases.
With Kennedy’s unscientific views guiding these decisions, it could mean less reliable health information from government sources; increased risk of infectious disease outbreaks in your community; reduced access to proven medical treatments; and higher health care costs due to ineffective policies.
In an era when public health challenges are increasingly complex, we need leadership at HHS that is firmly grounded in scientific evidence and best practices. Kennedy’s appointment could undermine decades of progress in public health and put Americans at unnecessary risk.
As a physician, I urge all Americans to consider the implications of this potential appointment carefully. The health and well-being of our nation depend on having leadership at HHS that respects and upholds scientific integrity and evidence-based practices. A role for healthy skepticism is appropriate, but our health and the health of our loved ones is too important to be guided by unfounded theories and misguided policies.
Dr. Kavita Patel is a teaching professor of medicine, Division of Hospital Medicine at Stanford University and a board certified internal medicine physician. She served in the Obama administration as director of policy for the Office of Intergovernmental Affairs and Public Engagement in the White House. Her area of expertise is around the intersection of health policy, clinical medicine and innovation. She also spends time advising venture capital and is a medical contributor for NBC news.
The Dictatorship
Trump wants a Supreme Court do-over on birthright citizenship, but he won’t get one
For months, Donald Trump made clear that he expected the Supreme Court to rule against him on birthright citizenship, and his expectations were correct: Last week, a narrow majority of the high court ruled that the Constitution’s 14th Amendment means what it says.
Hours after the decision came down, the president downplayed the importance of his defeat, saying that he would pursue a legislative solution through Congress, but eight days later, the Republican published a very different kind of message to his social media platform that approached the issue in a more hysterical way. The missive read, in its entirety:
Signs and Billboards are being put up all over our Southern Border, and Mexico, advertising BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP, with “Deliveries starting at $4000.” Likewise, similar signs going up all over our Country. Billions of Dollars will be illegally made by this SCAM, with Citizenship going to anyone willing to pay. It will be, by far, the number one way of becoming a citizen, and then the entire family will be allowed to follow. Not sustainable.
NOBODY SAW THIS COMING!!! AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP IS NOT FOR SALE! In fact, that is a crime, and therefore, the Supreme Court’s ruling is wrong. I will be asking for a Rehearing by the United States Supreme Court, IMMEDIATELY. This miscarriage of justice will destroy America if they don’t change their absolutely insane decision. Thank you for your attention to this matter!
Even by Trump standards, this one’s a doozy.
The New York Times reported“The president appeared to be referring to a Fox News report that identified a hospital in Texas that had advertised paying for ‘Birth Packages in South Texas’ on billboards in Mexico. The outlet reported that Gov. Greg Abbott of Texas, a Republican, had ordered an investigation into the hospital, which told Fox News that “marketing materials regarding maternity services are no longer in use due to any unintended misunderstanding.”
Trump apparently took this report and ran with it, inventing various other details, including the amusing idea that cross-border birth tourism will somehow become “the number one way of becoming a citizen” (“by far,” the president added), as opposed to simply being born on U.S. soil to American parents.
But even if such an advertising campaign existed, it wouldn’t generate a rehearing from the Supreme Court. There is no scenario in which justices would say, “Sure, we ruled last week that the unambiguous language of the 14th Amendment means what it says, but if there are billboards going up, that changes everything.”
For good measure, let’s not forget that, according to Trump, his administration has effectively ended illegal border crossings, so as a practical matter, he really shouldn’t be that concerned.
The president’s online rant said he intends to ask for an immediate rehearing. If he orders administration lawyers to go through with such a pointless exercise and they bother to do the paperwork, they should keep their collective expectations low.
Steve Benen is a producer for “The Rachel Maddow Show,” the editor of MaddowBlog and an MS NOW political contributor. He’s also the bestselling author of “Ministry of Truth: Democracy, Reality, and the Republicans’ War on the Recent Past.”
Maine Democrats are scrambling to replace Graham Platner a day after their nominee for U.S. Senate ended his bid following an allegation of sexual assault.
There’s a July 27 deadline set by state law for the party faithful to pick a new standard bearer in a race that is expected to be instrumental when it comes to whether Republicans can keep control of the Senate in this fall’s midterms.
Incumbent Republican Sen. Susan Collins may be vulnerable, but she has won five straight races for the seat dating back to 1996, and trying to defeat her was likely to carry challenges for Democrats even in the best case scenario.
Their new candidate will have to essentially start from nothing in the race, mend the divisions sown by Platner, introduce (or reintroduce) themselves to the broader electorate and corral support from the ex-candidate’s outsider-minded current and former followers, all in less than four months.
That amounts to a daunting task with massive implications not only for Maine Democrats, but potentially for the final two years of President Donald Trump’s time in the White House. Democrats need to flip at least four GOP-held Senate seats, and maintain all their current ones from several competitive states, to vault themselves into the majority in the midterms. A loss in Maine would be a significant setback.
Maine Democratic Party leaders announced plans “to hold a nominating convention to choose a new nominee,” while stating that “transparency is of the utmost importance.”
Already, several major voices are in the race, including unsuccessful candidate for governor and past Platner supporter Troy Jackson. The former state senate president made his bid clear less than an hour after Platner left the race. One major Bernie Sanders-aligned group, Our Revolution, has quickly rallied around Jackson.
Dan Kleban, co-founder of Maine Beer Company,”https://x.com/mainebeerbrewer/status/2075028234962677872?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet”>is also in the fray, along with former governor candidate Nirav Shah, who worked as Director of the Maine Center for Disease Control and Prevention during the pandemic. Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows who also ran for governor this summer is among other potential contenders.
Platner’s exit also brings difficulty for Collins and Republicans as well, however. Instead of facing a Democratic rival with a string of alarming controversies even before the sexual assault allegationan accustation Platner has denied, Collins instead will have to try to keep her seat in a blue state against someone far less defined, and potentially with far fewer vulnerabilities, in November.
Across the country this year, Democrats have navigated a political environment rife with divisions over how to sway voters in these strange times, with tension between more entrenched party leaders and an energetic and angered left wing often spilling out into the open.
What happens in Maine over the coming weeks may prove to be no different.
Hunter Woodall covers politics for MS NOW. He’s reported on politics and presidential campaigns for The Associated Press and CBS News and reported on Congress for The Minnesota Star Tribune.
It’s been almost three years since Kevin McCarthy became the first sitting House speaker to be ousted in the middle of a congressional sessionbut the California Republican has nevertheless tried to maintain a public profile and has routinely appeared on conservative media to push partisan talking points.
So it wasn’t too surprising to see McCarthy on Fox News on Monday night, responding to the latest sexual assault allegations against Graham Platner, still a candidate for Senate at the time.
As part of an apparent effort to contextualize the scandals surrounding the Maine Democrat, the former GOP leader said, “One thing I know about Republicans is when we had a very bad candidate and found out, we didn’t vote for that person. We walked away.”
Moments later, McCarthy added, “When Matt Gaetz came forward, we got rid of him.”
As is too often the case, the failed former House speaker not only had it backward, but his mistake also offered a timely reminder of details that made him and his party look worse, not better.
Indeed, Gaetz offers a rather extraordinary example. The Justice Department investigated the Florida Republican over allegations of alleged sex trafficking, and while Gaetz repeatedly denied any wrongdoing and the prosecutors’ probe ended without charges, his House GOP colleagues made no effort to “get rid of him” as the scandal intensified.
What’s more, the House Ethics Committee found “substantial evidence” that Gaetz “regularly” paid women for sex, had sex with a 17-year-old during his tenure on Capitol Hill and possessed illegal drugs. Nevertheless, as that evidence came together, he remained a GOP member in good standing; he won re-election in 2024 with the Republican Party’s backing; and President Donald Trump thought it would be a good idea to nominate Gaetz to serve as the U.S. attorney general — a nomination endorsed by Republican senators such as South Carolina’s Lindsey Graham and Alabama’s Tommy Tubervilleeven after they had seen the House Ethics Committee’s findings.
This is what McCarthy cited as an example of the GOP maintaining the highest standards and throwing “very bad candidates” to the curb. That’s ridiculous.
But there’s no reason to stop with Gaetz. Indeed, the list of scandal-plagued Republicans who continued to enjoy the party’s backing long after ugly allegations had reached the public is not short. Trump is obviously the most glaring example, but the list includes other contemporary figures, including Rep. Cory Mills of Florida and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton.
There’s no reason to limit the list to electoral candidates, either: Former Fox News host Pete Hegseth faced an avalanche of scandals during his confirmation fight early last year, but Senate Republicans decided to ignore the allegations and make him defense secretary anyway.
As the Hegseth fight unfolded, political scientist Jonathan Bernstein published a smart piece that remains relevant: “I do not believe that Republicans or conservatives are any more prone to [scandals] than Democrats. What has changed, however, is the incentive structure. Once upon a time both parties were equally likely to rid themselves of bad actors; now Republicans are far more likely to tolerate, and in some cases even celebrate, behavior they once would have shunned.”
When Democrats learned of serious allegations against then-Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, the party abandoned him. When then-New Jersey Sen. Bob Menendez faced serious criminal charges for which he was later convicted, the party abandoned him, too.
In Maine, the Platner example followed the same path, as evidenced by his decision to withdraw from the Maine race after Democratic officials left him with no other choice.
Former U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance, an MS NOW legal analyst, explained this week“The contrast here is hard to ignore. Democrats have shown that when credible allegations of sexual misconduct emerge against one of their own, the conversation turns quickly to accountability. Republicans have made a different choice. That’s not a partisan talking point, it’s a difference in how the two parties have approached questions of character and fitness for office over the last 10 years.”
That’s true, whether McCarthy wants to acknowledge it or not.
Steve Benen is a producer for “The Rachel Maddow Show,” the editor of MaddowBlog and an MS NOW political contributor. He’s also the bestselling author of “Ministry of Truth: Democracy, Reality, and the Republicans’ War on the Recent Past.”
- ‘They got their rear end kicked,’ DeSantis says of U.S. team
- Emmanuel Macron cheers Les Bleus. So does Jordan Bardella.
- Morris Katz: ‘I’m deeply disappointed’
- Macron’s sports protectionism
- Dream lives for Moroccans in Brussels
- Morocco has its eye on the 2030 final
- Trump’s renewed Iran strikes put Republicans in a bind
- Brussels wants action over Trump-Infantino red card controversy
- Capitol agenda: Collins loses her foil in Platner
- Why the House’s Epstein investigation isn’t going away
-
Politics1 year agoFormer ‘Squad’ members launching ‘Bowman and Bush’ YouTube show
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoLuigi Mangione acknowledges public support in first official statement since arrest
-
The Josh Fourrier Show2 years agoDOOMSDAY: Trump won, now what?
-
Politics1 year agoFormer Kentucky AG Daniel Cameron launches Senate bid
-
Uncategorized2 years ago
Bob Good to step down as Freedom Caucus chair this week
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoPete Hegseth’s tenure at the Pentagon goes from bad to worse
-
Politics1 year agoBlue Light News’s Editorial Director Ryan Hutchins speaks at Blue Light News’s 2025 Governors Summit
-
The Dictatorship10 months agoMike Johnson sums up the GOP’s arrogant position on military occupation with two words