‘Publicity Stunt Dressed Up as a Lawsuit’: 15 States Sue HHS Over New Vaccine Guidance
This was never about children’s health. It was about making you comply.
This article originally appeared on The Defender and was republished with permission.
Guest post by Suzanne Burdick, Ph.D.
The lawsuit, filed late Tuesday, asks the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to nullify the January decision by HHS to reduce, from 17 to 11, the recommended number of diseases children are routinely vaccinated against. An HHS spokesperson said, “By law, the health secretary has clear authority to make determinations on the CDC immunization schedule.”
Fifteen states led by Democrats on Tuesday announced they are suing the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) over recent changes to federal vaccine recommendations.
The lawsuit, filed by 14 attorneys general and the governor of Pennsylvania, asks the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to nullify the Jan. 5 decision by HHS to reduce, from 17 to 11, the recommended number of diseases the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) routinely recommends children be vaccinated against.
The states also want the court to “set aside” the CDC vaccine panel members that HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. appointed last June after removing the panel’s former members, the complaint said.
HHS Press Secretary Emily G. Hilliard defended HHS’ actions, telling The Defender the case “is a publicity stunt dressed up as a lawsuit.” She said:
“By law, the health secretary has clear authority to make determinations on the CDC immunization schedule and the composition of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. The CDC immunization schedule reforms reflect common-sense public health policy shared by peer, developed countries.”
Children’s Health Defense (CHD) CEO Mary Holland said the suit’s claims are “essentially the same” as the claims brought by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) in its lawsuit against HHS.
The AAP and other medical groups sued Kennedy and HHS in federal court in Massachusetts, seeking to block the vaccine schedule changes and disband the Kennedy-appointed Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. CHD seeks to intervene in the AAP case.
Holland said, “Perhaps the plaintiffs believe that the Northern District of California is a more friendly forum or that a second front in this attack on HHS will further their cause.”
The suit names HHS, Kennedy, the CDC and its acting director, Jay Bhattacharya, M.D., Ph.D., as defendants.
Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania joined the lawsuit.
The suit alleges that HHS violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) when it revised the CDC’s vaccine schedule and changed the membership of the CDC vaccine panel.
Typically, lawsuits brought under the APA, which governs how federal agencies make decisions, don’t garner so much attention, said attorney Ray Flores. But “since the subject is vaccines, and Secretary Kennedy is the target, what would otherwise be a run-of-the-mill lawsuit is national news,” he said.
Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro said in a press release that the new federal vaccine policies “will lead to more children getting sick from preventable diseases,” leading to an increase in state healthcare costs.
The complaint failed to mention how increased chronic disease among vaccinated children, compared with unvaccinated children, may burden state healthcare systems.
Attorneys general from Arizona and California are co-leading the suit, according to a press release.
Injuries in the complaint ‘boil down to administrative inconvenience’
Last month, the CDC announced it would stop recommending that all children get vaccinated against the flu, rotavirus, hepatitis A, hepatitis B, some forms of meningitis and RSV.
The new guidance recommends the shots for children in certain high-risk groups or when doctors recommend the shots in what’s called “shared clinical decision-making.”
The states’ lawsuit alleges these changes will “mislead and confuse patients and reduce vaccination rates.” States must spend time and resources to dispel confusion, they said.
They also argued that the new vaccine schedule will harm the states.
However, attorney Rick Jaffe said the harms cited in the complaint “boil down to administrative inconvenience: updating websites, retraining staff, answering provider questions.”
“That’s not the kind of harm that justifies a federal court ordering the executive branch to reinstate a particular vaccine schedule,” he said.
Jaffe represents CHD in its effort to intervene in AAP’s lawsuit against HHS.
He is also the lead attorney in another lawsuit brought by CHD against the AAP over fraudulent vaccine safety claims.
States don’t have to follow CDC recommendations
Jaffe also pointed out that states aren’t legally bound to follow the CDC’s vaccine schedule. The federal government makes vaccine recommendations. It’s up to states to create vaccine mandates for school attendance, Jaffe said.
He added:
“Here’s the irony: most of these 15 plaintiff states mandate immunizations against fewer diseases than the CDC’s new 11-disease consensus schedule. Different states mandate different vaccines from each other and from the CDC — no two plaintiff states require the same list. They’re all working from different menus.
“And four of the seven ‘demoted’ vaccines — COVID-19, RSV, rotavirus, and influenza — aren’t mandated for school-age children by any of the states suing HHS.”
Jaffe said the states’ lawsuit is on shaky ground because California, a lead plaintiff, already legislated itself out of CDC recommendations last September. California’s new law allows the California Department of Public Health to issue vaccine guidance, based on recommendations set by organizations like the AAP, rather than recent CDC guidelines.
“You can’t divorce yourself from federal recommendations and then claim you’re injured when those recommendations change,” Jaffe said. “That’s a serious venue problem because California does not appear to have ‘standing.’”
Standing refers to having the legal right to sue, according to Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute.
CHD General Counsel Kim Mack Rosenberg said the lawsuit seemed “politically driven,” not based on “current science concerning vaccines” — and not based on the “best interests of the children receiving vaccines.” She said:
“Instead, this lawsuit seems founded on cherry-picked science that prop up those with a financial interest in as many children receiving vaccines as possible. … It ignores a robust body of science showing that vaccinated children are more susceptible to many conditions and illnesses.”
In an email to The Defender, Rhode Island Attorney General Peter Neronha defended the lawsuit. “For decades, vaccinations have prevented hundreds of millions of cases of illness in this country and have saved Americans trillions of dollars in related expenses.”
The Defender asked for citations to back up Neronha’s statement, but he did not respond by the deadline.
Related articles in The Defender
California, Connecticut ‘Scrambling’ to Sue HHS Over Vaccine Schedule
Breaking: Children’s Health Defense Seeks to Intervene in High-Stakes Vaccine Lawsuit
Breaking: Children’s Health Defense Hits AAP With RICO Suit Over Fraudulent Vaccine Safety Claims
RFK Jr. Revamps Commission That Advises on Vaccine Injury Program
Breaking: HHS Makes Sweeping Changes to Childhood Vaccine Schedule