Fixing The Fertility Rate Starts With Getting Boys And Girls To Talk To Each Other
The relationship between men and women in the United States is strained in ways data cannot fully capture.The relationship between men and women in the United States is strained in ways data cannot fully capture.US birth rate plummets to record low in 2025 amid estimated 1,126,000 abortions
Vice President JD Vance, who with second lady Usha Vance is expecting the delivery of their fourth child in July, told pro-life advocates gathered for the 52nd annual March of Life last year, "I want more babies in the United States of America; I want more happy children in our country; and I want beautiful young men and young women who are eager to welcome them into the world and eager to raise them."
While an American baby boom might be in the cards, it certainly did not take place last year.
'This is the choice that Americans now face, and the stakes could not be higher.'
New data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reveal that U.S. fertility rates dropped to an all-time low in 2025.
There were an estimated 3,606,400 births last year — a 1% decline from 2024. A plurality of babies — just over 1.11 million — were born to mothers in the 30-34 age group, which conforms to the years-long trend of women increasingly delaying family generation until older ages or putting it off altogether.
The general fertility rate, which references the average number of children born to a woman in her lifetime if she were to experience the age-specific fertility rates of a given year, was 53.1 births per 1,000 women ages 15-44. The rate has decreased by 23% since 2007, the year of the Great Recession.
Whereas the year-over-year decline in births per woman in the 15-44 cohort was 1%, the fertility rate for females ages 15-19 declined by 7% last year, dropping to 11.7 births per 1,000 females — another record low. The CDC notes that the fertility rate for teenagers has decreased by 72% since 2007 and 81% since 1991.
RELATED: 5 steps to reset your body's clock to God's natural design
The total fertility rate averaged 3.7 births per woman in 1960; 2.12 births in 2007; 1.64 in 2020; and 1.6 in 2024. It fell again last year to 1.57, according to a Wall Street Journal calculation using the new CDC data.
This is particularly bad news for those keen to bequeath the nation to heritage Americans since the total fertility rate necessary for a population to maintain stability and replenish itself without requiring replacement by foreign nationals — what is referred to as replacement level fertility — is 2.1.
Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said last year that a rate below replacement "is a national security threat to our country."
Total fertility rates have plummeted across the first world. In the European Union, for example, the rate reportedly dropped from 2.62 in 1964 to 1.34 in 2024. The same year, the rate in Scotland dropped to 1.25 and to 1.41 in England and Wales.
Canada became one of the developed nations suffering "ultra-low fertility" in 2024, with a total fertility rate of 1.25 kids per woman. The Canadian government credited "increased educational levels, greater participation in the labor market, changing social norms, and the widespread use of contraception" for helping drive down the number.
The U.S. Congressional Budget Office projected in a report earlier this year that the fertility rate for foreign-born women in America this year will be substantially higher than the rate for native-born women, leading the home team 1.79 to 1.53.
The report noted further that:
on the basis of recent laws, policies, and demographic trends, CBO projects that the rate of population growth will generally slow over the next 30 years, from an average of 0.3% a year in the next decade to an average of 0.1% a year from 2037 to 2056. The total population is projected to stop growing in 2056 and remain roughly the same size as in the previous year.
The CBO added that net immigration is expected "to become an increasingly important source of population growth, especially if the annual number of deaths begin to exceed the annual number of births as expected in 2030."
Some analysts have attempted to put a positive spin on America's dwindling fertility rate.
"Women now have better control over their reproductive lives, so there’s not as much unintended pregnancy as there used to be," Alison Gemmill, an associate professor of epidemiology at the UCLA School of Public Health, told CNN. "Our timelines have shifted."
According to data released last month by the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute, there were an estimated 1,126,000 clinician-provided abortions last year — nearly one-third the number of the reported live births.
In addition to exerting "better control" over their God-given procreative ability, Gemmill suggested that some would-be parents are rethinking having kids in light of concerns about so-called climate change, the economy, and raising a child in a supposedly "inequitable world."
Karen Benjamin Guzzo, a demographer at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, recently told the New York Times, "There’s been a lot of doom and gloom about the birth rate, but the decline is also a success story."
The Heritage Foundation has, alternatively, acknowledged this bleak trend as a crisis, noting in a January report, "American family life is truly at a crossroads. One path is marked by unwed childbearing, low rates of marriage, low fertility, low commitment, and easy divorce. This path is associated with the view that family formation (or its avoidance) is primarily about fulfilling adult desires and adult needs."
"The other path elevates the family unit as an inherent good based on the commitment and sacrifice of husbands and wives for each other’s sake and for the sake of children that their union would welcome into the world. This path is associated with the view that all life is sacred and that sees the family as a source of fulfillment for adults because they direct their energies to the good of the family unit instead of to themselves alone," continued the report. "Underlying this view is a deep sense of gratitude in knowing that human beings are here by God’s grace and that children are divine gifts."
"This is the choice that Americans now face, and the stakes could not be higher," the report added.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
'Truly a fool's errand': Top CDC adviser, RFK Jr. ally resigns from vaccine panel
As many top figures in the Department of Homeland Security are being replaced, another department has lost a key adviser in the health sector amid a lengthy legal fight.
The New York Times reported that Dr. Robert Malone, who served as the vice chair of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, has resigned from his position amid a complicated legal fight and recent setbacks.
'If offered the opportunity to participate in a relaunched ACIP, I will respectfully decline.'
Dr. Malone, an ally of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and a strong critic of the COVID pandemic response, resigned shortly after the panel's existence was thrown into jeopardy by a federal judge in Massachusetts.
The ruling, the New York Times previously reported, struck down several decisions on vaccines made by the panel.
RELATED: 'Rogue' Biden judge blocks critical pieces of RFK Jr.'s vaccine reform
In his decision to halt the panel's overhaul of the vaccine regulations, Judge Brian Murphy of the District of Massachusetts noted that the panel is supposed to review scientific evidence with "a method scientific in nature and codified into law through procedural requirements," according to NYT.
However, the judge wrote, "Unfortunately, the government has disregarded those methods and thereby undermined the integrity of its actions."
In a series of text messages obtained by Roll Call, Malone said he would not consider rejoining the panel if it were revived after this legal setback: "If offered the opportunity to participate in a relaunched ACIP, I will respectfully decline."
"Hundreds of hours of uncompensated labor, incredible hate from many quarters, hostile press, internal bickering, weaponized leaking, sabotage," Malone wrote in another text message, according to Roll Call. "I have better things to do."
However, there is evidence to suggest that Malone gave much thought to this decision, including another text message that reportedly said, "This was not an impulsive decision."
Malone also echoed these sentiments publicly on Monday in a social media post, which included the final publication of research he had prepared for the panel. He wrote: "That concludes publication of materials I had prepared for the ACIP COVID and Influenza work groups. I hope y'all find them useful. Please keep in mind that both the American Academy of Pediatrics and a Boston Federal Judge have determined that I am unqualified to serve on the CDC ACIP and contribute to advising the CDC Director on vaccine policy matters."
"So much for providing hundreds of hours of free labor to serve my country. Truly a fool's errand," Malone added.
Dr. Kirk Milhoan serves as chair of the panel. Milhoan and Malone were joined by 13 other voting members on the panel, a handful of ex officio members from different government health agencies, and a number of liaison representatives from other medical institutions.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Biden’s COVID censorship machine takes a hit: Missouri wins landmark ban on federal threats to Big Tech
A landmark settlement delivered a blow to the censorship industrial complex that silenced Americans during the COVID era.
Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-Mo.) announced Tuesday that Missouri had reached a settlement agreement with the U.S. government in its Missouri v. Biden lawsuit, which accused the Biden administration of violating Americans' First Amendment rights by directing social media companies to censor speech challenging the government's COVID messaging.
'For every working Missouri family tired of being silenced by their own government: this victory is yours.'
Schmitt filed the lawsuit against the Biden administration while serving as Missouri attorney general, before securing his Senate seat.
The agreement included a 10-year Consent Decree that enforces a narrow permanent injunction on the surgeon general, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency. The injunction prevents them from threatening social media companies with any form of punishment if those companies fail to remove or suppress content that contains protected speech.
However, this ban applies only to posts made on Facebook, Instagram, X, LinkedIn, and YouTube by the specific plaintiffs in the case, including Missouri and Louisiana government officials and agencies acting in their official capacity. It does not extend to other social media networks or content posted by the general public.
"The Parties also agree that government, politicians, media, academics, or anyone else applying labels such as 'misinformation,' 'disinformation,' or 'malinformation' to speech does not render it constitutionally unprotected," the agreement reads.
The court must first approve this settlement agreement.
"We just won Missouri v. Biden," Schmitt wrote in a post on X. "As Missouri's Attorney General, I sued the Biden regime for brazenly colluding with Big Tech to silence Missouri families — censoring the truth about COVID, the Hunter Biden laptop, the open border, and the 2020 election. They tried to turn Facebook, X, YouTube, and the rest into their private speech police, labeling dissent 'misinformation' while they pushed their narrative on the American people."
Schmitt called the Consent Decree the "first real, operational restraint on the federal censorship machine."
He explained that it "directly binds the Surgeon General, the CDC, and CISA: no more threats of legal, regulatory, or economic punishment. No more coercion. No more unilateral direction or veto of platform decisions to remove, suppress, deplatform, or algorithmically bury protected speech."
"For every working Missouri family tired of being silenced by their own government: this victory is yours. The heartland fought back, and the heartland delivered," Schmitt concluded.
RELATED: 'Karma is a b***h': Trump taps epidemiologist targeted by Biden admin and censored online to run NIH
Benjamin Weingarten, a senior contributor at the Federalist, addressed the victory's narrow application.
"This decree is limited to the plaintiffs, but as precedent, and practically, its impact may prove orders of magnitude more powerful in protecting disfavored speech," Weingarten wrote, calling it "a momentous blow for the First Amendment."
National Institutes of Health Director Jay Bhattacharya, who had to withdraw as a plaintiff in the case after being appointed by the Trump administration, called the settlement "a huge win for all Americans."
"Huzzah! The consent decree in Missouri v. Biden is a historic victory for free speech in the US. Though I had to switch to the government side in the case after I became NIH director, I've never been more pleased by 'losing' in my life," he wrote.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
We’re losing children to diseases we already defeated
Over the past year, the Food and Drug Administration has done important work drawing attention to how food choices affect health. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. deserves credit for shining a light on food additives and America’s dependence on processed foods.
I’m a registered nurse and a mother. I applaud that work. But I also need to ask a hard question: Why aren’t childhood vaccines getting the same attention and urgency?
We don’t force anyone to vaccinate. We shouldn’t. But we do owe families accurate information about the real risks of preventable diseases and the real protection vaccines provide.
I’ve spent years in intensive care watching people of all ages fight respiratory illness. Even with experience, it’s brutal to see a patient cling to life through ventilators, intubation, or ECMO machines.
Last year, I watched in horror as a measles outbreak took the lives of two unvaccinated children in Texas. Whooping cough killed two infants in Louisiana. Closer to home, my own child caught whooping cough. It was frightening and exhausting to see how coughing fits made it almost impossible for him to catch his breath.
He was old enough to have received his vaccines. I believe that reduced the severity of his illness and likely kept him out of the hospital. That experience leaves me with one request to RFK: Give childhood vaccines the same serious focus you’ve given food safety.
Kennedy says he cares about children. I believe him. That’s why I’m urging him to speak clearly about routine childhood immunizations — because I’ve seen what happens when preventable diseases return.
Hospitals are treating illnesses that routine vaccines usually prevent or blunt. Last year, the CDC reported an increase in meningococcal disease, a dangerous illness that immunization can prevent. South Carolina is dealing with a record-breaking measles outbreak. These diseases can bring devastating outcomes: brain swelling from measles; brain damage, limb loss, or deafness from meningococcal infection.
Gaps in routine immunization also open the door to pathogens we once had under control. A paralytic polio case in an unvaccinated person in New York in 2022 underscored what’s at stake: Irreversible paralysis still remains possible when vaccination rates fall.
Childhood vaccines rank among public health’s most effective tools. They prevent outbreaks and protect children from serious infections and lifelong complications. They also fit comfortably inside a conservative framework. They’re voluntary. They’re widely available. They’ve been used for decades. Parents make informed choices for their families.
RELATED: MAHA is sick: RFK’s FDA is drifting the wrong way
High vaccination rates also protect the most vulnerable. They reduce transmission, which helps safeguard infants too young to be vaccinated and children with medical conditions that keep them from receiving certain shots. That means fewer hospitalizations, less strain on health care systems, and healthier schools and communities.
That’s why recent messaging from Washington worries me. Telling Americans to “talk to your doctor” sounds reasonable, until you face the reality on the ground. Roughly one-third of Americans lack access to primary care, and many children don’t have a regular provider. For millions of families, “talk to your doctor” translates to “you’re on your own.”
Parents in small towns and working-class neighborhoods don’t always have easy access to specialists who can walk them through immunization questions. They want to do the right thing. They need clear, trustworthy guidance from national health leaders — not signals that create doubt about vaccines that protect kids.
Vaccine conversations can get sensitive fast. Parents have questions, and they deserve honest answers. But they also deserve clear, consistent leadership that says what decades of evidence has shown: Routine childhood immunization works, and it protects children.
We don’t force anyone to vaccinate. We shouldn’t. But we do owe families accurate information about the real risks of preventable diseases and the real protection vaccines provide.
As a nurse, I work to prevent harm. As a mother, I refuse to accept a return to diseases we already know how to stop. As a conservative, I don’t want to break systems that save lives.
We can make America healthy again by tackling chronic disease and by protecting kids from preventable infections. These goals don’t compete. They reinforce each other.
Leftist Medical Orgs Try To Shut Down Debate On Vaccines
The American Academy of Pediatrics is wasting time fighting small-scale discussions while large-scale accountability looms.Washington printed promises. Gold called the bluff.
The latest partial government shutdown has ended, and two facts stand out: Washington will keep spending like a drunken sailor, and Republicans squandered their cleanest leverage point to rein it in.
Start with the number that matters: The House approved $1.25 trillion in additional discretionary appropriations. That decision pushes the annual deficit toward $1.75 trillion. Republicans voted for it, complained about it, and then acted surprised that the spending binge continued.
If Republicans keep missing moments like this one, investors will keep moving into gold and silver, not out of ideology, but out of self-preservation.
The shutdown fight should have forced a trade. Democrats focused on cutting Department of Homeland Security funding. Republicans had options beyond folding. They could have demanded real cuts elsewhere, then used Democrats’ own political pain points to make the deal stick.
One obvious target sat in plain sight. The Trump administration proposed a 50% cut to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. That should thrill the MAHA crowd. Democrats hate what they call ICE “overreach.” Republicans despise what they view as CDC mission creep and pandemic-era abuses.
Congress could have paired both cuts and sold it as a reset: trim enforcement and trim the public health bureaucracy, then avoid another shutdown. Democrats could claim restraint at the Department of Homeland Security. Republicans could claim restraint at the CDC. Taxpayers would finally get something besides another blank check.
Instead, Republicans let the moment pass, and voters got another spending package.
Don’t expect the next round to improve. Markets already read Washington’s behavior as a warning label. Gold and silver prices sit at record highs because investors smell what Congress refuses to admit: Deficits at this scale produce either inflation, higher taxes, or both.
Central banks have acted on that judgment for years. They have moved away from dollars and Treasuries and into gold. Poland’s central bank led global gold purchases in October and November last year. That shift isn’t a protest from adversaries alone. It reflects a broader conclusion, from allies and rivals alike, that Washington keeps making promises it cannot afford to keep.
RELATED: Congress needs to go big or go home
The trend looks set to continue. Goldman Sachs expects central banks to buy roughly 60 metric tons of gold per month in the year ahead. Retail demand is rising too. Gold-backed exchange-traded funds reportedly absorbed about 800 metric tons in 2025 as investors searched for an asset that doesn’t depend on congressional self-control.
Frederic Panizzutti of Numismatica Genevensis explains the appeal plainly: Gold’s simplicity attracts buyers “as geopolitics and geoeconomics have become more complicated.”
Americans across the political spectrum want to abolish wasteful agencies. Congress won’t do it. Fine. Then at least cut budgets hard enough to prove lawmakers can say no to constituencies, lobbyists, and the permanent bureaucracies that treat every crisis as a looting opportunity.
Washington’s real problem isn’t a lack of authority. It’s a lack of restraint. Entitlement growth, debt service, and a bipartisan appetite for militarized foreign policy push the country toward instability at home and abroad. Politicians focus on the next election and leave the bill to the next generation.
If Republicans keep missing moments like this one, the dollar’s erosion will accelerate. Investors will keep moving into gold and silver, not out of ideology, but out of self-preservation.
Finally: Vaccine guidelines that make sense for parents
Filmmaker and mother Jessica Solce was frustrated by the difficulty of finding healthy, all-natural products for herself and her family. To make it easier, she created the Solarium, which curates trusted, third-party-tested foods, clothing, beauty products, and more — all free of seed oils, endocrine disruptors, carcinogens, and other harmful additives.
In this occasional column, she shares recommendations and research she has picked up during her ongoing education in health and wellness.
On Wednesday, the CDC moved six childhood vaccines out of the “recommended for all” schedule.
For those of us advocating for the right to oversee our own children's health, it was a day we thought would never come. It is a moment of triumph, but also a reminder of the fear and pressure we have had to overcome.
When my child was just three days old, I was yelled at and expelled from a pediatrician’s office for simply asking about delayed vaccination.
I joined the fight in 2009, not long after becoming pregnant with my first child. My parents brought me up to question and test everything; as I prepared to become a parent myself, this tendency quickly found a new target: childhood vaccinations.
While many mothers-to-be were already signing their future babies up for preschools, summer camps, and Mandarin lessons, I was staying up at night immersed in research that challenged conventional wisdom about children’s health. In 2009, that kind of information was far harder to track down than it is today.
Mother lode
But track it down I did. That’s how I found the work of the Weston A. Price Foundation, as well as the writings of Dr. Lawrence Palevsky. I began reading with the intention of writing a kind of thesis paper — something rigorous enough to convince myself and honest enough to defend to my family.
At the time I encountered his work, Dr. Palevsky was not what most people would call “anti-vaccine.” He recommended delaying vaccination until age two, avoiding live-virus vaccines except for smallpox, spacing doses by six months, and administering only one vaccine at a time.
This seemed reasonable to me.
Brain drain
Why? [Checks 2009 notes.] Based on Dr. Palevsky’s work, I believed that vaccines could activate microglia — the brain’s specialized immune cells — and that closely spaced vaccinations might overstimulate this system during early brain development.
The most rapid period of brain development begins in the third trimester and continues through the first two years of life. Vaccinating children under two, according to this line of thinking, could increase the risk of neurological issues, asthma, allergies, autoimmune conditions, and chronic inflammation. By age two, the brain is roughly 80% developed, and the view then was that certain vaccines could be introduced very slowly after that point.
So I weighed risk and reward. With a healthy baby in my care, why would I take what I believed to be a neurological risk?
That was enough to harden my resolve. I armed myself for what became a 10-year battle in New York City.
Dr. Doomer
When my child was just three days old, I was yelled at and expelled from a pediatrician’s office for simply asking about delayed vaccination. I had printed multiple copies of my small “thesis paper,” like a diligent student, and in a moment of panic and adrenaline shoved them into office drawers as I held my newborn and was escorted out.
But the doctor’s tirade — invoking her intelligence, her own vaccinated children, and her authority as a physician, all while calling me an idiot — only strengthened my resolve. To me, it suggested someone constrained by her own choices, guilt, and lack of curiosity.
Even my father, a physician himself, was initially stunned when I began laying out my reasoning. But through heated debate, shared papers, and real discussion — the healthy kind — he eventually reflected on his own training and acknowledged that he had been taught to comply, not to question.
RELATED: Trump administration overhauls childhood vax schedule. Here's the downsized version.
Hold the formaldehyde
For anyone ready to do some research of their own, I recommend starting with the CDC's Vaccine Excipient Summary, which lists the inactive ingredients contained in licensed vaccines. Perhaps you'll ask yourself, as I did, whether you want substances like formaldehyde, aluminum phosphate, polysorbate 80, β-propiolactone, neomycin, and polymyxin B injected into your child’s developing body.
Once I began asking that question, it was impossible not to look at how vaccine policy had evolved. A major inflection point, in my view, came in 1986 with the passage of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, which shielded vaccine manufacturers from direct liability and moved injury claims into a federal compensation system. After that, vaccine development accelerated.
Today I'm in a celebratory mood, despite how long it has taken to get here. I don’t regret the fight for a second; I only wish I had had more courage and stamina at times. Still, I rejoice in every freedom of choice returned to parents in the United States.
Let’s go, MAHA. Now do the EPA.
Left melts down over childhood vaccine schedule change — but Sara Gonzales says, 'It’s not enough'
While most MAHA-minded Americans are cheering in light of the CDC’s latest alteration to the U.S. childhood immunization schedule — which dropped from 17 to 11 diseases — BlazeTV host Sara Gonzales believes it’s “not enough.”
“I don’t want that to distract you from applauding what is happening now, because it’s all good changes. He can’t just like totally just bust up the entire system immediately. He’s got to get there,” she explains.
The new schedule also doesn’t recommend against getting your children vaccinated for certain diseases but instead breaks a longer list of diseases down into three categories.
In the category that’s recommended for all children, there are 11 diseases: diphtheria, tetanus, acellular pertussis, haemophilus influenzae type B, pneumococcal conjugate, polio, measles, mumps, rubella, HPV, and varicella.
RSV, hepatitis A, hepatitis B, and meningococcal are now in the group that’s “recommended for certain high-risk groups or populations,” and rotavirus, COVID-19, influenza, hep A, hep B, and meningococcal are in a third group titled “recommended based on shared clinical decision-making.”
“I don’t agree with any of these,” Gonzales says.
“So there is still work to be done. However, if they want to stair-step this, the way that they have stair-stepped everything else, they would do it in this way,” she adds.
And while Gonzales doesn’t believe the Trump administration has gone far enough, the left of course is claiming it's gone too far.
“There’s always the fearmongering. ‘Oh my God, RFK is taking away our right to vaccines. How many children, how many beautiful children are going to be killed because RFK didn’t give them their precious chickenpox shots?’ Well, actually, spoiler alert, zero probably,” Gonzales says.
“But let’s just be clear ... no vaccine has been eliminated. OK. The CDC is still requiring insurance companies to cover the vaccines if people want them,” Gonzales says, before playing a clip of Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) claiming otherwise.
“You promised that you would not take away vaccines from anyone who wanted them,” Warren yelled at RFK Jr.
“I know you’ve taken $855,000 from pharmaceutical companies, senator,” he responds.
“I’m not taking them away,” he added, while she continued to argue.
“Elizabeth Warren,” Gonzales comments, annoyed, “has to be the most insufferable on the Senate side.”
“Just the shrill, just like the Karen energy of like her voice makes me want to jump off a building,” she adds.
Want more from Sara Gonzales?
To enjoy more of Sara's no-holds-barred takes on news and culture, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.
Trump administration overhauls childhood vax schedule. Here's the downsized version.
The United States has long been an outlier among first-world nations in terms of how many vaccines it pushes on its children, recommending that kids receive more than twice as many doses as generally given their European counterparts.
In a decision that has some medical establishmentarians fuming, the Trump administration has greatly reduced the number of vaccines recommended for American children, leaving the decision on the remainder up to families and their doctors.
'We are aligning the US childhood vaccine schedule with international consensus.'
Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. noted that "after an exhaustive review of the evidence, we are aligning the U.S. childhood vaccine schedule with international consensus while strengthening transparency and informed consent. This decision protects children, respects families, and rebuilds trust in public health."
The agency has reduced its list of vaccination recommendations for all children to jabs for the following 11 diseases: diphtheria, tetanus, acellular pertussis (whooping cough), Haemophilus influenzae type B, pneumococcal conjugate, polio, measles, mumps, rubella, human papillomavirus, and chickenpox.
Here is the new childhood immunization schedule for all children:
The agency now recommends on an individual basis: RSV, hepatitis A, hepatitis B, meningococcal B, meningococcal ACWY, and dengue vaccines for "high-risk groups" and rotavirus, meningococcal disease, influenza, and COVID-19 vaccines.
The CDC's child and adolescent immunization schedule previously recommended all American children receive one or more vaccine doses for the following diseases:
- Respiratory syncytial virus;
- Influenza;
- Hepatitis A;
- Hepatitis B;
- Rotavirus;
- Measles;
- Mumps;
- Rubella;
- Diphtheria;
- Tetanus;
- Pertussis (whooping cough);
- Polio;
- Haemophilius influenzae type B;
- Pneumococcal disease;
- Human papillomavirus;
- Varicella (chickenpox); and
- Meningococcal disease.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Today's top stories
www.theblaze.com
thefederalist.com