Critics, including some distinguished doctors and scientists who have consistently challenged Kennedy’s anti-vaccine stance, argue that Senator Tillis might have misunderstood the seeming silence from opposition. Such critics think that the reticence to voice disagreement stems more from apprehension around the potential repercussions of dissent, rather than a lack of opposition.
Kennedy’s proposed appointment has met with resistance from various quarters. An anti-abortion interest group is among those voicing dissent. Moreover, in the health sector, the American Public Health Association, a leading advocate for public health specialists and policy, has categorically objected Kennedy’s appointment. The National Nurses United, a representative body for nurses, has also formally resisted this nomination.
Certain entities have diplomatically expressed concerns about some of Kennedy’s viewpoints, while tactfully refraining from outright commentary on his nomination. Highlighting the significance of childhood inoculation in a recently orchestrated campaign, the American Academy of Pediatrics implicitly alluded to some of the challenges that could accompany Kennedy’s appointment. However, they refrained from taking an explicit stance on his confirmation. This resembles the approach taken by the Infectious Disease Society of America and the American Association of Immunologists, both subtly expressing their concerns without direct confrontation.
Interestingly, some groups referred to by Senator Tillis voiced their satisfaction with the process. For instance, the Susan B. Anthony List, one of the foremost anti-abortion groups, expressed optimism about Kennedy’s pledge to senators to uphold anti-abortion policies in the capacity of Secretary, albeit his historical support for abortion rights.
But certain groups that have opposed Kennedy’s nomination have asserted their resolution to make their voices heard. Advancing American Freedom, a group headed by Former Vice President Pence, reiterated its dissent towards Kennedy, even while other anti-abortion factions remain silent.
Georges C. Benjamin, a frontline health professional and leader of the American Public Health Association, argued that the association’s dissent towards Kennedy is rooted in several reasons. These include his anti-vaccine position and skepticism towards scientific consensus, his inexperience in healthcare or management, and inconsistencies in his statements about certain HHS programs during his hearing.
When approached for comment, several vaccination specialists who have previously voiced opposition to Kennedy’s views declined to make a statement. The dependence of hospitals and research organizations on funding that comes from federal government channels, including HHS-controlled Medicaid reimbursement and research grants, can be significant.
Theoretically, such programs should be immune to political biases. However, there is a growing worry that the administration may exercise retaliatory measures, which could adversely affect these programs and institutions relying on them for financial sustenance.
Some argue that high-profile organizations might find it tough to oppose a nominee, even one as polarizing as Kennedy, for reasons extending beyond fear. These organizations embody diverse member voices and operate on a consensus basis. As Kennedy’s confirmation becomes more probable, these organizations may have to consider their future relationship with him as Secretary.
The confirmation vote for Kennedy is anticipated to take place within the week. Currently, there’s no signal that a sufficient number of Republicans will oppose him, potentially putting his appointment at risk.
Nevertheless, there is lingering hope among some that more groups might step forward to amplify the dissent. The amplified voices could potentially impact the upcoming confirmation vote, adding another dimension to the contentious nomination.