Wyoming governor signs ‘fetal heartbeat’ abortion ban into law

(NEW YORK) — Earlier this week, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention abruptly changed the childhood immunization schedule, reducing the number of recommended shots for all children from 18 down to only 11.

According to the new schedule, shots will now be categorized in three groups: those recommended for all children, those recommended for only certain high-risk children and others left up to shared clinical decision making, meaning only given if recommended by an individual’s doctor or based on parental preference.

Some pediatricians told ABC News that this decision will only cause more confusion and fuel a growing trend of vaccine skepticism and refusal amid a rise in some vaccine-preventable illnesses around the U.S. 

Dr. Anita Henderson, a pediatrician at the Pediatric Clinic in Hattiesburg, Mississippi, told ABC News that removing seven shots from the schedule recommended for all kids is “reckless” and confusing.

This isn’t the first change to vaccine recommendations that has been made in the past year by the Department of Health and Human Services under Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

In 2025, guidance for vaccinating healthy children against COVID-19 was reversed and the universal birth dose of the hepatitis B vaccine was eliminated. Kennedy also fired all 17 members of the CDC’s vaccine advisory panel and handpicked their replacements, and has been criticized.

“Pediatricians are already facing families who are confused about vaccine recommendations. This confusion is intentional and meant to weaken vaccination rates in the US and sow seeds of doubt and division,” Henderson said. 

Under the updated schedule, only seven vaccines are recommended based on shared clinical decision making between a doctor and parent and are no longer universally recommended for all children.

These include shots that protect against influenza, COVID-19, rotavirus and some types of bacterial meningitis and viral hepatitis. All of these vaccine-preventable illnesses can lead to severe infections or death and have limited to no treatment options.

“These latest changes will undoubtedly shake confidence in vaccines even further, to the detriment of the children we care for,” Dr. Molly O’Shea, a practicing pediatrician and spokesperson for the American Academy of Pediatrics, told ABC News. 

O’Shea said that, in her practice, she’s had to navigate more vaccine skepticism and refusal over the past year, but wants parents to know that the science on effectiveness and safety hasn’t shifted “even though the recommended vaccine schedule has shifted.”

She continued, “The reason for that shift has nothing to do with whether or not vaccines are safe and effective and all children benefit from avoiding illness and being healthy, to attend school and be a part of the community.”

To address growing concerns about vaccines, O’Shea said the pediatric offices she works in have had to change their workflow to allow more time for discussions about vaccines and to address vaccine misinformation.

While happy to have these conversations with families, O’Shea said reserving time for these additional visits for vaccine counseling becomes more difficult during flu season, when more kids need to be seen due to illnesses.

She added that the offices have already had to scale back ordering some vaccines in bulk because uptake has decreased for some shots. 

Henderson and O’Shea both reaffirmed that vaccines are safe — far safer than the dangerous illnesses they prevent.

“Over the last 30 years, I have hospitalized hundreds of children with complications from influenza, RSV, rotavirus and other vaccine-preventable diseases that have now been removed from the CDC schedule,” Henderson said. “I have never hospitalized a child from a vaccine reaction. Vaccines are safe and effective and protect our most vulnerable patients … our babies and children.”

“Vaccines are the safest way for a child’s immune system to become familiar with any of these illnesses, way safer than the disease itself,” O’Shea added. 

Doctors are also concerned that the vaccination schedule updates may have secondary impacts, including how often children and families see their pediatrician.

Pediatric wellness checks include recommended vaccines, particularly in young childhood, but pediatricians say that there’s more to those visits than shots alone. Skipping visits could miss critical windows of a child’s growth, development, and recommended screenings.   

“Absent vaccine, kids are really going to miss out on important other screening aspects of the wellness visits if their parents are opting out,” O’Shea said.

Pediatricians continue to urge parents to talk to their own child’s doctor and to trust their medical guidance.

“Your pediatrician really is your trusted source of information, and we have nothing to gain in the way things are going here,” O’Shea said.

“Vaccines are certainly not a way in which we make any money,” she went on. “But [a] pediatrician’s goal is to partner with parents to make the right decision for your child, and so, bringing your concerns and questions to your pediatrician is the best way to get quality information.”

Amid the shrinking childhood vaccine schedule, many vaccine-preventable illnesses remain common in the U.S. and other diseases, such as measles and whooping cough, are increasing.

Last year, the U.S. saw more measles cases than at any other time in the last 30 years and three people died from the disease. Two children died from whooping cough during an outbreak in Louisiana and more kids died from influenza than in any other year on record since it became a reportable illness in 2004. 

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — On the last day to enroll in Affordable Care Act (ACA) health insurance plans in most states, President Donald Trump presented his own ideas for a health care plan that left some health policy experts that spoke to ABC News with unanswered questions.

Trump has long been asked for a health care plan amid sustained criticism of the ACA, which was signed into law by President Barack Obama. “The Great Healthcare Plan” presents a proposal to shift government insurance subsidies directly to consumers through health savings accounts and take advantage of his “most favored nation” drug price initiative.

“My plan would reduce your insurance premiums by stopping government payoffs to big insurance companies and sending that money directly to the people,” Trump said in a video announcing the plan.

However, the video and one-page fact sheet posted on the White House website were light on specifics about how much would actually go to Americans or how much funding the plan would require or how the funds would be distributed.

Dr. Sachin Jain, a former official in the Department of Health and Human Services during the Obama administration, acknowledged that it’s a “pretty big step” for Trump to articulate health care as a major priority during his second term.

Jain, who is now the president and CEO of SCAN Group and SCAN Health Plan, a not-for-profit Medicare Advantage provider, told ABC News “health care is one of these areas where the devil is always in the details” in terms of what changes could be implemented.

Aside from lowering drug prices through most-favored nation deals and cutting back on insurance subsidies, the plan proposes a cost-sharing provision that the Congressional Budget Office estimates would reduce most Obamacare premiums by 10%.

The plan also proposes to hold insurance companies accountable with a “Plain English” standard and institute pricing requirements for providers who accept Medicare and Medicaid to “prominently post their pricing and fees.”

Trump urged Congress to “pass this framework into law without delay.”

Some provisions will have ‘virtually no effect’

Some health policy experts believe with just a one-page fact sheet that there’s no way to tell how impactful these ideas could be and if they will expand on the plans already in existence through the ACA.

“Several of these provisions would have virtually no effect because they’re already in the ACA, or they look very similar to ones that are already in the ACA,” KFF Senior Vice President Cynthia Cox told ABC News.

Cox, the director of the Program on the ACA at the independent health policy research organization, stressed that Trump’s plan, in many respects, already exists, including price transparency and holding big insurance companies accountable.

Speaking about his plan, the president said Thursday that “nobody’s ever heard of” this idea to give money directly to the consumer, but Jain noted that what’s known as “consumerism” has been around for a long time.

“One of the big challenges with consumerism is health care is a complex industry to navigate, and people don’t often understand what it is that they’re buying or not buying,” Jain told ABC News.

Patients might also have a “degree of anxiety” because they don’t always know what bill they’re going to get, according to Jain.

“When it comes to true consumerism, shopping for health care isn’t like shopping for other goods and services, mostly because people don’t actually want to consume more health care,” he said.

Cox stressed that not only is giving money directly to Americans not a new proposal, it was already in multiple Republican proposals that failed to advance through the Senate in December.

Senate Health Committee Chairman Bill Cassidy argued at the time of the bill’s consideration that his legislative package would have put “thousands in patients’ pockets” to help pay for their out-of-pocket expenses. But the measure failed by a 51-48 vote just days before the expiration of the enhanced ACA tax credits.

White House officials on Thursday said Congress’ legislative plans haven’t been able to “effectuate” Trump’s desire to pay people directly for their health care costs. Without referencing any lawmakers and their existing packages specifically, the administration officials told reporters on Thursday that the White House has engaged with many Hill “allies” on the details of the president’s new plan.

Cox said she believes the president’s new strategy could also create problems for vulnerable Americans, leaving them with no option for health insurance if they don’t get it through their employer.

“One possible interpretation of this [plan] is that, you know, if you give cash to people without any requirement that they use that cash to purchase ACA marketplace coverage — or coverage that has protections for people with pre-existing conditions — then you might see that healthy people use taxpayer dollars to purchase coverage that’s not compliant with the Affordable Care Act,” Cox told ABC News.

“What that would mean is that the ACA or Obamacare markets become destabilized, possibly to the point of collapsing, which would leave people who have pre-existing conditions and who would otherwise rely on that coverage without any options,” she said.

“It could effectively do away with the pre-existing condition protection provisions of the Affordable Care Act, and at least for people who are buying their own health insurance, which is over 20 million people,” Cox added.

What’s next?

Experts suggest it’s too early to tell how soon the new proposal could impact people’s health care, especially with Congress virtually gone through Tuesday.

White House officials said the president wants Congress to codify his plan, but didn’t specify how much input congressional leaders had on the new proposal.

The House last week passed a Democratic-led bill that would see the enhanced premium tax credits extended by three years.

But a path forward that sends the legislation through the Senate to the Resolute Desk for Trump’s signature remains in question.

GOP Senate Majority Leader John Thune has said that there’s “no appetite” for an extension in the upper chamber but pointed to ongoing bipartisan talks on the extensions between senators and House members.

Since Trump’s video announcement, House Speaker Mike Johnson has vowed to continue deliberative discussions with the White House to lower health care costs for Americans.

In reference to the president’s healthcare plan, Cassidy said his Senate committee will “take action” on Trump’s affordability agenda. Republican Sen. Roger Marshall also lobbied to work with the president on a comprehensive package that includes his bill to make health care more affordable.

Still, Democratic Sen. Patty Murray blasted the plan in a post on X, writing that it took the president over a decade to come up with a health care plan that is “one entire page.”

“It will do absolutely NOTHING to stop your premiums from more than doubling,” she said.

Meanwhile, the president’s plan came on the last day to enroll in ACA health insurance plans in most states, with a few exceptions. According to government data, about 1.4 million fewer people have signed up so far this year, as premiums skyrocketed after ACA tax credits expired at the end of 2025.

Cox, at KFF, emphasized that many people could face dire consequences with the health care coverage currently available to them.

“People are really, in some cases, facing life or death decisions because they can’t afford to pay another $10,000 to keep their insurance coverage, which might mean they go uninsured,” she said.

ABC News’ Allison Pecorin and Mary Kekatos contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(NEW YORK) — Last week, the Trump administration announced it was banning the use of human fetal tissue from some abortions in federally funded medical research. 

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) said the policy would go into effect immediately and advance “science by investing in breakthrough technologies more capable of modeling human health and disease,” NIH director Dr. Jay Bhattacharya said in a statement.

Scientists told ABC News that research using human fetal tissue has contributed to understanding diseases better, such as HIV and Ebola, and helped in the development of some vaccines and drugs.

Some scientists worry the ban could prevent groundbreaking discoveries about the behaviors of certain diseases and stop the development of life-saving therapies.

“It’s not a scientific decision,” Dr. Lawrence Goldstein, a professor emeritus of cellular and molecular medicine at the University of California, San Diego, told ABC News. “It’s a moral decision that places the rights of fetal tissue that would be discarded above the rights of sick people who will benefit from that research.”

How human fetal tissue has been used

Human fetal tissue has been used to study serious diseases and disorders, including AIDS, cancer, Parkinson’s disease, dengue, Ebola, hepatitis C, diabetes and spinal cord injuries.

Cell lines have been created from human fetal tissue that have led to the development of vaccines for rubella, rabies, chickenpox, shingles and hepatitis A. Research has also led to the development of drugs to treat HIV, hemophilia and sepsis.

President Donald Trump himself benefited from the research: the experimental antibody treatment he took to treat COVID-19 was developed using cells derived from human fetal tissue. At the time, Trump praised the treatment as a “cure.”

The tissue has been also used in reproductive medicine research to study fertility issues, pregnancy issues, and pregnancy conditions such as pre-eclampsia.

Goldstein said that human fetal tissue research also helps create humanized mouse models to study human immune systems.

“Using fetal tissue, you can make mice that have human blood-forming and immune systems,” Goldstein said. “And that’s valuable because a lot of the viruses that trouble human health don’t grow properly in mice. But if you can make mice with human blood and immune systems, those viruses will frequently grow, and you can learn how to make therapies to block them.”

There are very strict guidelines that researchers have to follow when using human fetal tissue, ensuring they are in compliance with federal and sometimes state requirements.

Additionally, the research must be reviewed and approved by the NIH’s Institutional Review Board (IRB), which specifically assesses federally funded research that uses human subjects.

The IRB assures that donation and reception of human fetal tissue were done with consent and not coercion and that there were no enticements provided to the participant, the clinic or the research team.

A researcher with knowledge of the matter, who asked that their name not be used due to fears of retribution, told ABC News that federal law states that donation cannot be even brought up to a pregnant individual deciding to terminate their pregnancy before the decision to terminate.

“These are extremely important guardrails that are in place to ensure that everything is handled properly,” the researcher with knowledge of the matter said.

Impacts of ending NIH funding

The Trump administration first instituted a ban ending all human fetal tissue research at NIH in 2019, but it was reversed by the Biden administration in 2021.

The current ban stops NIH funds from supporting all “grants, cooperative agreements, other transaction awards and research and development contracts,” the agency said in a statement.

Some groups praised the Trump administration’s new policy, including the Independent Medical Alliance, a group that promoted unproven treatments during the COVID-19 pandemic.

“There is no ethical justification for performing experiments on tissue derived from aborted human beings,” Dr. Joseph Varon, president and chief medical officer of the Independent Medical Alliance, said in a statement. “The fact this practice continued for years within federally funded research institutions shows just how far removed parts of HHS had become from foundational medical ethics. This correction is long overdue.”

However, some scientists say the ban will affect ongoing and future work.

Dr. Anita Bhattacharyya, an associate professor of cell and regenerative biology in the school of medicine and public health at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, said she was hoping to apply for a future NIH grant to study human fetal tissue research and will now not be able to do so.

Bhattacharyya explained she currently uses human-induced pluripotent stem cells, which are reprogrammed cells that are similar to embryonic stem cells, in her work. However, the loss of NIH funding for human fetal tissue research could affect future work.

“My reaction was, ‘How are we going to do some of our research if we can no longer use human fetal tissue?'” she recalled to ABC News. “In particular, my lab studies Down syndrome and so we know that in Down syndrome, the brain develops differently to lead to the intellectual disability that people with Down syndrome have.”

Bhattacharyya said human fetal tissue is valuable when studying Down syndrome or neuropsychiatric disorders because it can recapitulate what’s happening in brain development.

“And so that’s where the human fetal tissue really provides us with a benchmark or the ground truth so that we can validate our models,” she said.

Finding alternative methods of funding is another issue, scientists told ABC News. The NIH was the largest funder of research involving human fetal tissue, and no longer financially supporting such research may leave scientists scrambling to find other donors.

Goldstein said there are private disease foundations that will sometimes fund human fetal tissue research, such as the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, which funds stem-cell-related research in California.

However, experts say the hole left behind by the lack of NIH funding cannot be made up through private donations.

“There’s really nothing adequate to substitute for the federal effort,” Goldstein said. “It is the largest funder of medical research in the United States. It has systems in place to regulate quality and ensure that ethics and scientific principles are being adhered to. We really can’t move ahead as efficiently as we would like with the absence of the NIH.”

Although the NIH said tissue from spontaneous abortions will still be available, the researcher with knowledge of the matter said this tissue is very often not suitable for research purposes.

“The reason is because, most often, spontaneous abortion happens as a result of some sort of genetic abnormality or some injury, infection, some kind of damage to the fetus itself, that renders that tissue completely unusable for scientific research,” they said.

“Additionally, because spontaneous abortions are just that, they’re spontaneous and therefore completely unpredictable,” the researcher continued. “We have to be very careful in the way that we handle that tissue. It makes those studies intractable. And so, for that reason, spontaneous abortions are not a suitable replacement for fetal tissue research that we would normally obtain.”

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.