In the unfolding debate surrounding vaccination recommendations during pregnancy, a pivotal policy shift has recently altered the landscape of public health guidance in the United States. In May 2025, three leading federal health officials—HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya, and FDA Director Marty Makary—jointly announced that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) would cease endorsing COVID-19 vaccination for healthy pregnant women and children in its official immunization schedule. This abrupt withdrawal of recommendation has sent ripples through the medical community and the general public alike, raising significant questions about vaccine safety communication and public trust.
Historically, the CDC’s immunization schedule has recommended COVID-19 vaccines during pregnancy based on extensive epidemiological data demonstrating that pregnant individuals infected with SARS-CoV-2 face elevated risks of severe illness and mortality compared to their non-pregnant counterparts. Moreover, evidence has consistently indicated that vaccination during pregnancy not only protects the mother but confers passive immunity to the newborn, reducing neonatal infection risks and associated complications. These findings have been integral to public health strategies aiming to mitigate the pandemic’s impact on vulnerable populations.
The recent policy reversal starkly contrasts with the prior scientific consensus. The CDC’s communications now state “No guidance/not applicable” regarding COVID-19 vaccines for pregnant women, essentially removing formal endorsement despite the persistence of scientific data supporting vaccine safety and efficacy in this demographic. This has sparked widespread controversy and prompted professional organizations, notably the American Academy of Pediatrics and other major medical groups, to file litigation challenging the policy and advocating for evidence-based decision-making.
At the crux of this debate is the public’s perception and understanding of vaccination during pregnancy. A recent comprehensive health survey conducted by the Annenberg Public Policy Center (APPC) in August 2025 highlights a notable reluctance among the U.S. adult population to recommend COVID-19 vaccines to pregnant individuals. Only 38% expressed willingness to recommend vaccination during pregnancy. This skepticism extends to safety perceptions; just 42% of survey respondents affirmed that mRNA COVID-19 vaccines are safe for pregnant women. Significantly, women of childbearing age (18-49 years) displayed higher levels of doubt, with only 36% affirming safety and 28% disbelieving the vaccine’s safety during pregnancy—figures that have worsened compared to earlier surveys in 2024.
These shifting attitudes may be partially attributed to conflicting messages from health authorities and the amplified discourse surrounding vaccine mandates and autonomy. The divergence between administrative stances and the prevailing body of peer-reviewed scientific literature has engendered confusion and hesitancy. This is particularly concerning given that pregnant women’s risk profiles for COVID-19 complications, including preterm birth, stillbirth, and severe respiratory illness, remain elevated without immunization. Systematic reviews of global data underscore the immunological benefits and safety profile of mRNA vaccines during all trimesters, a nuance that simplified policy directives may obscure.
Further dissection of the survey data reveals disparities in understanding specific vaccine benefits. While just over half (52%) recognize that vaccination reduces the risk of hospitalization due to COVID-19, among women aged 18-49 this awareness dips to 43%, reflecting a knowledge gap that could have adverse public health consequences. Similarly, only 51% acknowledged that vaccination mitigates complications affecting pregnancy outcomes, a figure that has notably regressed since April 2024. These trends underscore the critical need for targeted education emphasizing vaccine efficacy and safety grounded in robust clinical evidence.
Parallel to COVID-19 vaccine perceptions, attitudes toward other routine vaccines during pregnancy such as influenza, Tdap (tetanus, diphtheria, pertussis), and RSV (respiratory syncytial virus) remain subdued. Despite ongoing CDC recommendations endorsing these vaccines to protect maternal and neonatal health, less than half of survey participants would recommend flu or Tdap vaccines to pregnant persons, with only 31% open to endorsing the RSV vaccine during the prescribed gestational window of 32 to 36 weeks. Given the established morbidity associated with these infections during pregnancy, the disinclination to recommend pertinent immunizations elucidates a broader skepticism toward prenatal vaccination regimes.
The underpinning research for these observations stems from the 25th wave of the Annenberg Science and Public Health (ASAPH) survey panel, comprising 1,699 U.S. adults representing a statistically robust sample. Conducted in August 2025, the survey employed rigorous probability sampling to capture evolving public sentiments on critical health topics. The panel’s longitudinal methodology allows for tracking attitudinal shifts over time, revealing nuanced shifts in vaccine confidence that are instrumental for public health communication strategies.
This case exemplifies the complexity of public health policy when scientific data interfaces with political and social dynamics. The discordance between the CDC’s revised COVID-19 vaccine guidance and the prevailing scientific literature has precipitated legal challenges and criticism from the medical establishment, which continues to advocate for vaccination during pregnancy based on evidence demonstrating reduced maternal morbidity and neonatal protection. The discord highlights the potential repercussions of policy deviations on vaccine uptake and public trust.
It is imperative to consider the broader implications of this policy upheaval on maternal and infant health outcomes, especially as new viral variants continue to circulate and challenge existing immunity. The current trend of growing vaccine hesitancy among childbearing-age women could exacerbate vulnerabilities to COVID-19 and other infectious diseases, underlining the importance of clear, consistent, and science-driven messaging from health authorities.
In conclusion, the withdrawal of CDC support for COVID-19 vaccination in pregnant women marks a significant departure from prior policy grounded in comprehensive clinical research. The ensuing public hesitancy, as captured by APPC’s survey data, reflects the critical need for transparent communication that reconciles administrative directives with scientific evidence. As the medical community navigates these challenges, reinforcing vaccine confidence through education and engagement remains paramount to safeguarding maternal and child health in the evolving pandemic landscape.
Subject of Research: People
Article Title: [Not provided]
News Publication Date: [Not provided]
Web References:
- CDC COVID-19 Pregnancy Vaccination Guidelines: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines-pregnancy/hcp/vaccination-guidelines/index.html
- Annenberg Public Policy Center ASAPH Survey Topline: https://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/wp-content/uploads/APPC_ASAPH_W25_vax_preg_topline_Sept_2025.pdf
- Annenberg Public Policy Research Methods: https://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/wp-content/uploads/X1102-APPC-National-Survey-Wave-24_Methods-Report_050525_Confidential.pdf
- CDC RSV Vaccine Guidance for Pregnant Women: https://www.cdc.gov/rsv/hcp/vaccine-clinical-guidance/pregnant-people.html
References:
- CDC Studies on COVID-19 Outcomes in Pregnant Women
- American Academy of Pediatrics lawsuit and public statements
Image Credits: Annenberg Public Policy Center
Keywords: Vaccination, COVID-19 vaccines, mRNA vaccines, Flu vaccines, Attenuated vaccines, Science policy, Biomedical policy, Public policy, Pregnancy, Public health, Human health, Obstetrics
