Arizona’s legislative leaders issued a statement of support for a federal action establishing a new level of parental rights to access their children’s medical records.
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced earlier this month further protections for parental rights in healthcare. HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., cited an incident in which a Midwestern school allegedly ignored a religious exemption and vaccinated a child without parental consent.
That school remains under investigation by the HHS Office for Civil Rights (OCR) for potential violation of the Vaccines for Children Program (VFC), which requires providers of vaccines received federally to comply with state laws on religious and other exemptions.
In addition to Kennedy’s announcement, the Health Resources and Service Administration (HRSA) issued an advisement to its health center grant recipients of their required compliance with federal and state laws on parental rights. OCR also issued a letter to healthcare providers advising of their duty to provide parental access to children’s medical records.
“If a provider is standing between you and your child, HHS is going to step in,” said Kennedy in an announcement video.
House Majority Whip Julie Willoughby (R-LD13) published a statement expressing gratitude for the HHS action to assist parents in Arizona and nationwide.
“Arizona parents know this problem because they’ve lived it. Families have been locked out of online medical portals and forced to fight for access to records needed to schedule appointments, refill prescriptions, and communicate with doctors,” said Willoughby. “Parents should not need a lawyer or a lawsuit to see their child’s medical records. This problem was identified years ago. It’s time for the state to stand with parents.”
Republican lawmakers attempted to offer a similar remedy last year (House Bill 2183) and this year (House Bill 2126), but Governor Katie Hobbs vetoed both.
Both bills would have required health care entities to provide parents with access to any electronic portal and delivery platform of their child’s medical records, even in cases where the medical treatment given didn’t require parental consent.
Hobbs cited health, safety, and privacy rights as reasons for vetoing the bills.
“The measure as written could put the health and safety of vulnerable Arizonans at risk,” said Hobbs in her House Bill 2183 denial letter.
“Patient privacy is a longstanding tenet of American healthcare and this bill would create legal ambiguity for healthcare providers who have existing obligations to patient privacy,” said Hobbs in her House Bill 2126 denial letter.
The only community member to speak on the latest vetoed bill during its House committee hearing was a representative of the ACLU of Arizona and Planned Parenthood Advocates of Arizona, Marilyn Rodriguez with Creosote Partners.
The two activist organizations argued the existence of a distinct class of children — “mature minors” — which should be exempt from parental oversight in their medical care. Rodriguez claimed the bill would be “impacting mature minors’ confidentiality when accessing critical care.”
There is no statutory language that distinguishes “mature minors.” Rodriguez further argued that medical providers should decide whether a minor qualifies as a “mature minor,” not the legislature.
On behalf of Planned Parenthood Advocates of Arizona specifically, Rodriguez argued that minors should have the ability to access abortions without their parents knowing or consenting.
Again, during the Senate committee hearing on the bill, only a representative of Planned Parenthood was present to speak against the bill. Aven Kelley, a policy analyst with Planned Parenthood Advocates of Arizona, argued that minors should have autonomy and privacy when it comes to obtaining abortions.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
A Republican state lawmaker is urging the Arizona Department of Health Services (ADHS) to follow the new federal guidance on hepatitis B shots for newborns.
State Representative Lisa Fink (R-LD27) published a press release directing ADHS to align its guidance on hepatitis B newborn vaccinations with the newly updated federal recommendation.
The new recommendation by the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practice (ACIP) suggests only newborns born to women who test positive for hepatitis B should receive the vaccination. Mothers who test negative are advised to consult their doctor otherwise.
“Arizona’s health department should not stand alone defending an outdated one-size-fits-all policy when the federal advisory panel and the President are urging a more cautious, evidence-based approach,” said Fink. “For healthy babies born to hepatitis B-negative mothers, the updated guidance returns the decision to parents and their doctors, who can determine what is best for that child without pressure to accept an automatic birth shot.”
The updated recommendation reflects a return to a risk-based approach for the vaccine.
ACIP favoring an updated recommendation emerged from the cited lack of trial data and serious tracking on adverse events to prove safety and efficacy beyond simple real-world observation. ACIP did discuss the smattering of adverse reactions that resulted from the few, limited trials that did occur back in the late 20th century.
ACIP first recommended hepatitis B vaccines for all newborns in 1991.
Per ACIP research, the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program has paid out $18 million for hepatitis B vaccine injuries in combination with other vaccines for children.
Joel Terriquez — ADHS medical director of the Bureau of Infectious Diseases Services as well as the Bureau of Immunization Services — told KTAR on Monday that the agency rejects the new federal guidance.
“We would like to make sure that parents understand the importance of this birth dose of hepatitis B vaccine based on the safety, efficacy as well as historic benefits associated with prevention of infection,” said Terriquez. “That will create a window period where we could potentially have transmission of infection without having the ability to protect these babies based on that knowledge of a positive test.”
Terriquez argued that some women may become infected during their pregnancy, and the nine weeks it would take for the disease to show up in a test result would result in a false negative for the mother.
Most Hepatitis B carriers are individuals who engage in sex with multiple partners — mainly males who have sexual intercourse with males — and intravenous drug users. Transmission from mother to child mainly occurs within countries with high rates of hepatitis B. America was not one of these countries prior to 1991 and didn’t become one after 1991. The disease is most common throughout Asia, Africa, and the Middle East.
Ahead of ACIP’s changes to the recommendation, ADHS issued a press release advocating for the continued practice of universal hepatitis B vaccinations.
Likewise, other health organizations and state health authorities are rejecting ACIP’s new recommendation.
The American Academy of Pediatrics described ACIP’s recommendation as “irresponsible,” and claimed delayed hepatitis B vaccine administration “has no clear benefits” but only makes children vulnerable to the disease.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
Governor Katie Hobbs has rejected the Federal Drug Administration’s restrictions on the new COVID-19 vaccine.
The FDA limited administration of the 2025-26 formula for the COVID-19 vaccine to individuals 65 and older. However, last week, Hobbs issued an executive order expanding access to anyone over the age of six months old.
The governor claimed she issued the executive order to ensure Arizonans’ health and safety.
In explanations of its August announcement to the media, the FDA explained it recommended limitations on the newest vaccine formula in order to address safety and efficacy concerns.
“The American people demanded science, safety, and common sense,” said Secretary Robert Kennedy. “This framework delivers all three.”
I promised 4 things:
1. to end covid vaccine mandates.
2. to keep vaccines available to people who want them, especially the vulnerable.
3. to demand placebo-controlled trials from companies.
In a May report, FDA Commissioner Marty Makary and FDA Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research Director Vinay Prasad recommended randomized clinical trials to prove the vaccines’ safety and efficacy.
The FDA did recommend allowing immunization to those as young as six months on the condition that they have “at least one underlying condition” rendering them “at high risk for severe outcomes from COVID-19.”
The CDC defines these underlying conditions to include: Asthma; cancers; cerebrovascular disease; chronic kidney disease; chronic lung diseases limited to bronchiectasis, COPD, interstitial lung disease, pulmonary embolism, pulmonary hypertension; chronic liver diseases limited to cirrhosis, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, alcoholic liver disease, autoimmune hepatitis; cystic fibrosis; diabetes; heart conditions such as heart failure, coronary artery disease, or cardiomyopathies; HIV; mental health conditions limited to mood disorders including depression and schizophrenia spectrum disorders; neurologic conditions limited to dementia and Parkinson’s disease; obesity; physical inactivity; pregnancy; primary immunodeficiencies; smoking, current and former; solid organ or blood stem cell transplantation; tuberculosis; use of corticosteroids or immunosuppressive medications; epilepsy; hemophilia; sickle cell disease; and substance use disorder.
Despite the conflict with FDA recommendations, the Arizona Department of Health Services (ADHS) teamed up with Hobbs to expand eligibility to those as young as six months in Arizona.
ADHS determined outside FDA recommendations that the the Moderna Spikevax is appropriate for children aged six months to 11 years, the Pfizer BioNTech (Comirnaty) is appropriate for children aged five to 11 years, and the Moderna (Spikevax), Novavax (Nuvaxovid), and Moderna (mNEXSPIKE) are appropriate for children 12 years and older.
Dr. Richard Carmona, ADHS Public Health Medical Advisor and former U.S. Surgeon General, indicated the 2025-26 formulation was as safe and effective as prior formulations.
“Vaccines are one of the most important tools we have to protect our communities,” said Carmona. “The COVID-19 vaccine has proven to be safe and effective at preventing severe illness, hospitalization, and death. Vaccines help us limit the spread of disease and reduce pressure on our healthcare system.”
ADHS interim director Sheila Sjolander called the updated FDA recommendations a “confusion” that the governor and ADHS clarified.
“We understand the federal changes have caused confusion about eligibility for vaccination,” said Sjolander. “We are committed to keeping the public updated on our recommendations throughout this respiratory season. ADHS has updated our website with the latest information on what the standing order means for Arizonans.”
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
At a recent Senate hearing, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said something I never thought I’d hear from a top federal health official: “I don’t think people should be taking medical advice from me.”
That wasn’t a dodge. That was honesty. And, frankly, it’s a breath of fresh air.
For too long, health bureaucrats in Washington have believed their job is to dictate Americans’ medical decisions. That mindset led to lockdowns, mandates, censorship, and the sidelining of safe, effective tools that were widely distributed earlier in the pandemic, such as monoclonal antibodies (mAbs). Secretary Kennedy’s testimony suggests a different view: the role of government is not to play doctor, but to protect the freedom of every American to decide what’s best for their own health.
That’s the right idea and the essence of true healthcare choice.
Contrast this with the last administration. Under President Joe Biden, Americans were forced to choose between a vaccine they didn’t want — with a plethora of boosters — and continued restrictions on their liberties.
Biden didn’t promote vaccine choice. He aggressively pushed vaccines and boosters as the primary defense from COVID. Meanwhile, monoclonal antibodies — preventive and therapeutic tools that cut the risk of hospitalization and death as high as 74% and 84% in high-risk patients — were pushed aside. The administration significantly scaled back their distribution even though mAbs successfully treated President Donald Trump and were backed by countless doctors who called for broader access.
Why? Because the Biden White House chose to prioritize vaccination above all else. It preferred to micromanage Americans’ care rather than empower families to make informed decisions.
That wasn’t science, it was politics. And Americans paid the price.
As my son Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, also a medical doctor, said countless times, some patients were even denied mAbs due to what he described as “partisan political games” — namely, the politically-charged FDA guidance that many hospitals felt pressured to follow throughout the pandemic. Five years later, the FDA still hasn’t fully approved a monoclonal antibody product.
That’s not “following the science” or respecting the people’s right and ability to make their own health care decisions. That’s the worst type of government overreach — micromanaging your medical decisions by erecting regulatory roadblocks designed to limit your options by and control what treatments and preventatives you can access. When Washington dictates what care you’re allowed to pursue, what opinions you’re allowed to hear, and what shots you’re required to take, you’re no longer living in a free country.
Now, under a new administration and with Secretary Kennedy at the helm of HHS, there’s an opportunity to chart a new course — one rooted in freedom, not fear.
Americans should have access to vaccines if they want them, but they should also have access to alternatives like mAbs. They should be allowed to hear all sides of a medical debate, not just the one approved by government “experts.” And they should be trusted to make informed choices for themselves and their families.
Secretary Kennedy’s comments may not have pleased the political class, but they honored the principle this country was founded on: government serves the people, not the other way around.
Real health policy doesn’t come from control. It comes from having confidence in the American people to make their own choices. At this early stage, I’m so glad that Secretary Kennedy seems to understand as much.
Arizona legislative Republicans are standing against a proposed accord from the World Health Organization.
Earlier this spring, an Arizona Senate Republican took aim at the WHO’s Pandemic Prevention Preparedness and Response Accord (PPPRA). In a statement for the Arizona Senate Republicans weekly newsletter, Senator Janae Shamp, who read the proclamation in her chamber, said that “The World Health Organization is creating a global pandemic agreement between its 194 member states, including the U.S, that would be detrimental to our health and freedoms. The Pandemic Prevention Preparedness and Response Accord would establish WHO as the governing authority on a wide range of healthcare issues, including vaccinations, abortion, and transgender therapy, all of which are rightly in the province of the American people and their representatives.”
Shamp added, “The PPPRA would also establish WHO as the ‘arbiter of truth’ on all pandemic-related information, thus silencing dissenting voices in direct violation of our First Amendment rights. These are just a couple examples of how the treaty would disturbingly infringe upon our constitutional rights. This week, I read a proclamation stating the Arizona Senate opposes the United States’ participation in this agreement and urges the Biden Administration to withdraw our nation from it.”
The proclamation, entitled “Arizona’s Sovereignty from Participation in the WHO’s Pandemic Prevention Preparedness and Response Accord,” noted that the WHO’s PPPRA would “become binding upon the United States unless the Biden Administration opposes or delays adoption, [and that] there is concern that the U.S.’s participation in the PPPRA will place America’s sovereignty in jeopardy by relinquishing national and state power to an international organization over which this country has little to no control.”
The proclamation was transmitted to President Joe Biden.
Recently, former President Donald J. Trump told attendees of the Libertarian Party National Convention that “drafts of the agreement show that they (the WHO) want to subjugate America to foreign nations, attack free speech, [and] empower the World Health Organization to redistribute American resources.” He promised to “rip them (this WHO agreement and other similar arrangements) up and throw them out on day one of the Trump administration.”
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
