In December of 2025, under the direction of HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention made the decision to end universal recommendations for the Hepatitis B vaccination for newborns whose mothers test negative for HBV.
Since HBV is considered a sexually transmitted disease and spreads through needles or through mother-to-baby contact, the CDC is no longer recommending vaccinations for those who have a negative test. They are now only recommending the vaccine if a mother tests positive.
However, the vaccination is a federal recommendation only, not legally binding in each state as before, which gives parents more freedom to choose whether they want their children vaccinated. Parents can weigh the risks with their healthcare providers before deciding, allowing them more control over their child’s well-being.
On the contrary, in a move that diverges from the CDC, the New Mexico Department of Health has said that it will be aligning instead with the American Academy of Pediatrics, which is a private organization. The NMDOH said, “New Mexico Department of Health recommendations align with the American Academy of Pediatrics and many other professional health organizations.”
Since the NMDOH is elevating the AAP over the CDC’s recommendation, without any legislative debate, this decision is considered a policy choice rather than an established scientific one. With science and medicine consistently evolving, this policy choice is causing concern among parents, leaving them asking why.
So, why is this important? The American Academy of Pediatrics has been pushing for the removal of all philosophical, moral, and religious exemptions regarding vaccines.
In a recent article, the American Academy of Pediatrics Publications said, “Among the major world religious traditions, none include scriptural or doctrinal guidelines that preclude adherents from being vaccinated….religious belief is one area where we see the richness of human diversity being expressed, perspectives on vaccines might be drawn from religious traditions that developed independently of the major world religions as well as from the diverse denominational perspectives that exists within major religions.”
Of course, it is worth asking, “Who exactly gets to decide which religion qualifies and which religion does not?” And most importantly, “What is the standard being used to determine what each religion says about moral issues in the first place?”
It is worth mentioning that the AAP has also been known for its gender-affirming care among our most vulnerable youth, as well as being heavily funded by multiple pharmaceutical corporations, including Abbott, Pfizer, Moderna, and more. Ironically, Susan J. Kressly, MD, FAAP, President, says about transgender care, “Patients, their families, and their physicians – not politicians or government officials – should be the ones to make decisions together about what care is best for them.”
When Susan J. Kressly said that patients and their families should be the ones to make decisions on transgender care for youth, one must wonder why the NMDOH and AAP are making it so difficult when it comes to families deciding on vaccinations for their children?
Some may argue that transgender care for youth only affects a singular family, whereas vaccines affect societies at large, but the same argument can be said for “transgender care” for the youth. According to an Oxford study, there is an increased amount of mental health issues post-surgery in transgender youth, which continues to affect societies at large.
Additionally, America has been known for its religious freedom. In recent years, the term “separation of church and state” has been used loosely without a full understanding of its context or of how it fits into the First Amendment. The history of the term “separation of church and state” began with a letter written by the Danbury Baptists in 1802 to Thomas Jefferson, in which they voiced their concerns about their religious freedoms being limited by the state.
In response to their letter, Jefferson emphasized that the government should not interfere in any way with religious practices. Meaning, the First Amendment was created to protect the church from the state, not the other way around.
While this letter is not in the Constitution, the First Amendment is. According to the America First Policy Institute, “religious exemptions to vaccine mandates are rooted in the First Amendment’s prohibition against state interference with the free exercise of religion.
Any interference that is not the product of neutral, generally applicable law – including preferential treatment for non-religious beliefs and practices – demands that the state provide a narrowly tailored justification for its interference with religious exercise. That means the state cannot act to pursue its objectives beyond what is totally necessary to achieve them.”
Regardless of one’s stance on vaccinations, this shift by the NMDOH highlights the importance of understanding and establishing where informed parental choice fits within opposing public health recommendations.
