In Cincinnati, Loryn Competti was left in tears as she absorbed the implications of a new federal policy regarding COVID vaccinations, particularly for pregnant women.
Competti, who is five months pregnant, expressed a deep sense of fear and confusion about why she might be excluded from receiving the vaccine.
“I started crying,” she noted. “I was like, ‘Am I really not going to be able to get this vaccine? Why? Why?’ That’s absolutely terrifying.”
Pregnant women, like Competti, are considered high risk for serious complications from COVID-19. However, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has recently rescinded its recommendation for healthy pregnant women to routinely obtain the vaccine.
This shift in guidance could lead to insurance companies no longer covering the costs of vaccines for this group, adding further anxiety to women like Competti who are concerned about their health and the well-being of their unborn children.
“I don’t want to get COVID while I’m pregnant,” she articulated. “I don’t want it to hurt my child. I just know that there are complications that come along with it.”
She understands that being vaccinated is crucial, not just for her own protection but also for passing on antibodies to her newborn, who will be too young to vaccinate.
Competti is not alone in her concerns, as many individuals are grappling with the recent changes implemented by the Trump administration that affect access to COVID vaccines for healthy pregnant women, children without existing health issues, and adults younger than 65 without risk factors.
The CDC’s recent guidance suggests that the recommendation for healthy children to receive vaccinations be modified to a more consultative approach with their healthcare providers.
Additionally, as new vaccine boosters are introduced this fall, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has stipulated that vaccines will now only receive approval for those at high risk of severe complications, specifically individuals aged 65 or older or those with particular health vulnerabilities.
Furthermore, the FDA is requiring vaccine companies to undertake extensive studies to demonstrate the ongoing necessity and safety of vaccines for other populations.
This shift has sparked debates amongst health officials and the public. Administration spokespeople defend the adjustments, asserting that an abundance of immunity exists among the populace, rendering vaccines less essential for those considered healthy.
Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and FDA Commissioner Martin Makary are among those questioning the vaccine’s safety, despite the overwhelming consensus in the public health community underscoring its safety and efficacy.
The changing landscape of COVID vaccination recommendations has left many feeling indifferent, particularly since a significant number of Americans have opted not to receive the shots in recent times.
Some social media responses indicated satisfaction with these changes, with individuals claiming to have experienced harm from the vaccines. This sentiment resonates with observers such as Judge Glock from the Manhattan Institute, who believes earlier recommendations were unnecessarily stringent.
“I think the pre-existing COVID recommendations, especially for anyone over 6 months of age, were pretty ridiculous and pretty extreme,” Glock asserted. “I think this aligns with what we do know about the current science about the vaccines and the current risks and rewards of vaccination.”
While the modified recommendations allow for a possibility that parents might still opt to vaccinate their children after discussions with healthcare providers, coverage by insurance remains uncertain.
In the words of Richard Hughes, a healthcare policy attorney, “Based on my collective observations of payer coverage of vaccines, the bottom line is to expect variability in coverage.”
For mothers like Competti, the option to obtain vaccinations through off-label prescriptions exists, with her potentially paying out of pocket for the vaccine costing approximately $200 each—demanding two doses for initial vaccinations.
Competti plans to manage this herself, yet she cannot shake the feeling of anxiety that comes with the fluidity of the rules and regulations surrounding vaccinations.
“If we’re losing access to COVID vaccines, I don’t know if other things are going to get taken away,” Competti said, voicing her fears about future restrictions.
Beyond the uncertainty lies a broader worry about potential confusion among healthcare professionals regarding the new recommendations.
Kelly Moore, president and CEO of Immunize.org, expressed concern that implemented changes without clear justification may perpetuate misinformation about COVID vaccines.
“Conflicting recommendations, with professional medical societies on one side and HHS leadership on the other, will generate tremendous confusion among healthcare professionals and the public,” Moore warned.
Families like that of Ashley Hoskins, who live in Nashville, Tennessee, are also grappling with the implications of the new vaccine guidelines.
Ashley’s husband, Bob, is on immunosuppressants due to a kidney transplant, elevating his susceptibility to infections.
“He’s at a heightened risk to catch everything,” she explained. “So not only do we have to worry about whether or not he can receive vaccines, we have always had to be vaccinated as well to provide another wall of protection around him.”
While Bob is still eligible to be vaccinated, Ashley and their young daughter are left questioning their own vaccination status under the new guidelines.
For Ashley, the universal nature of the new regulations ignores the unique health circumstances of individual families.
“How do we protect the people that we love?” she inquired. “People are going to get hurt. So, yeah, it’s frustrating. It’s scary.”
Further north in Cottage Grove, Minnesota, Rachel Sampler Zelaya voices her frustration as well.
With a 6-year-old daughter who has asthma, Zelaya wishes to ensure that her entire family, including her husband and two other children, remain vaccinated for their protection and her daughter’s safety.
However, under the new guidelines, only her youngest would qualify for vaccinations, leading Rachel to express her resentment at the restrictions.
“I’m angry,” she said. “It feels like I’ve had a choice taken away from me.”
Conversely, some officials advocate that vaccinating one individual may not directly protect those around them, claiming a lack of high-quality evidence for such a position.
Dr. Vinay Prasad, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, emphasized the necessity for solid evidence regarding the real-world impacts of individual vaccinations on community immunity.
While remaining open to exploring different viewpoints, experts like Dr. Jesse Goodman, a former FDA vaccine official, contend that common sense dictates that vaccination can contribute to reduced transmission rates and infections.
Goodman argues, “Basically it seems common sense that vaccination, to the extent it reduces infection frequency or severity, could help protect others you may come in contact with.”
For families such as the Hoskins, ensuring the health and safety of their loved ones is paramount.
“It’s not just a cold. It affects the vascular system, the neurological system, the immune system. And even mild cases have the potential to develop into long COVID,” Ashley emphasized.
She believes that vaccinations are crucial, especially considering that we routinely vaccinate against diseases deemed less severe than COVID.
Emotions are running high as uncertainty encroaches upon the family’s previous sense of security regarding health measures, evoking memories of the anxiety experienced in the early days of the pandemic.
image source from：https://www.npr.org/sections/shots-health-news/2025/06/03/nx-s1-5421292/covid-vaccine-cdc-pregnant-kids-recommendations
