When Sen. Bill Cassidy on Thursday expressed his support for Erica Schwartz, President Trump’s pick for CDC director, he signaled that he may once again cast a critical vote for a candidate that poses a risk to US public health.
At her confirmation hearing earlier this month, Schwartz, who has a medical degree, sidestepped questions on whether she would resist pressure from Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to carry out policies that she believed contradicted scientific evidence.
After this, Cassidy, a physician and chair of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, withheld his support of Schwartz. But on Thursday, he pivoted, telling committee members: “I’m confident that she knows what she is doing and will stand against those who do not.” The Louisiana senator said he now trusts Schwartz after they spoke privately, and after federal officials made a “good faith” change to the CDC’s website that linked vaccines and autism. The webpage still cites the retracted study that makes this vaccine-autism link, and now includes an asterisk with a note that “Scientists have not identified the root causes of autism.”
The page also still states that “studies have not ruled out the possibility that infant vaccines cause autism.” This idea has been disproven by decades of scientific research.
In a Sunday interview with CNN’s Dana Bash, Cassidy admitted that this version of the website is not, in fact, a “good faith” attempt to stop spreading vaccine misinformation. But he added that parents probably don’t look at that CDC webpage anyway: “I’ve never met a parent who wasn’t a pediatrician who’s gone into the website to look for information about vaccines.”
In response, Bash noted that the CDC sets public health policy, which makes it likely parents do seek guidance from the agency.
Cassidy responded that he is continuing to discuss the CDC’s stance on vaccines with the health department, and that they have made additional concessions, but did not disclose what those were.
Cassidy’s pivot on Schwartz echoes his actions last year, when he cast the deciding vote in favor of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s nomination for health secretary. Cassidy had initially withheld support for RFK given the Trump ally’s statements that vaccines are unsafe. But Cassidy changed his mind after receiving assurances from Kennedy that he would work within existing vaccine approval and safety systems and would collaborate with Cassidy—promises that implied Kennedy would not undermine vaccine access.
Since then, Kennedy has done the opposite, turning fringe conspiracy theories about vaccine safety into health policy—including cutting nearly $500 million in research funding for mRNA vaccines, the vaccine technology used in many COVID vaccines.
Cassidy directed the Senate health committee to delay a vote on Thursday on whether to advance Schwartz’s nomination following Republican attendance issues. They are expected to vote next week.
Facts Only
* Senator Bill Cassidy expressed support for Erica Schwartz on Thursday.
* Schwartz holds a medical degree.
* Schwartz sidestepped questions about resisting pressure from Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. during her confirmation hearing.
* Cassidy initially withheld support for Schwartz.
* Cassidy pivoted to support Schwartz, stating confidence in her actions after private talks and changes on the CDC website regarding vaccines and autism.
* The CDC website still cites a retracted study linking vaccines and autism and notes that root causes of autism have not been identified by scientists.
* Cassidy admitted the website change was not necessarily a "good faith" attempt to stop misinformation.
* Cassidy discussed the CDC’s stance on vaccines with the health department, which made additional concessions that were not disclosed.
* Cassidy changed his vote previously regarding Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s nomination based on assurances from RFK about vaccine safety systems.
* The Senate health committee is expected to vote on Schwartz’s nomination next week.
Executive Summary
Full Take
Sentinel — Human
This text appears to be human-written journalism, focusing on the procedural pivots and back-and-forth between political figures regarding public health policy and vaccine information.
