A general view of a vial containing the monkeypox vaccine. (Hollie Adams/Getty Images)
Elections have consequences. So do Senate confirmations. Never has that been clearer than a recent warning from the government about pregnancy, another indication that science apparently no longer counts in regards to public health.
More on that below. First, some recent news in which Nebraska’s two U.S. senators — principals in the aforementioned confirmation process — were prominent: one with her take on free speech, the other to announce his intention to keep his job. Both were stories of some import but paled when we consider that at about the same time the republic was lurching further alist in an unruly, fact- and science-free sea.
U.S. Sen. Deb Fischer, R-Neb., told Nebraska Public Media in an interview earlier this month that she’s on board with the First Amendment in the aftermath of activist Charlie Kirk’s murder. She said, “Oh, I’m a strong supporter of free speech, but reactions like we’ve seen in some cases, where they are celebrating an assassination, celebrating a murder, that is not free speech, and those people need to be held responsible for the disgusting, horrible things that they are saying. It’s not free speech to celebrate the death of someone or to encourage attacks on other people. That’s not free speech. There, there is no issue that that kind of talk should be supported in any way whatsoever.”
The senator’s notion that such “talk” should go unsupported surely has plenty of support. That said, “disgusting, horrible” discourse, speech you and I might abhor, is nonetheless protected speech according to a long line of legal precedent such as Skokie v. National Socialist Party of America. Any speaker is open to the consequences of such speech, but unless it falls within the narrow confines of defamation, obscenity, threats or fighting words, incitement or fraud, the speaker has the Constitutional right to utter even the most heinous words without the government (Looking at you, FCC.) preclusion, censorship or punishment.
For his part, U.S. Sen Pete Ricketts, R-Neb., announced his intention to run as an incumbent in 2026. He touted his work in the Senate, his support of the current administration’s economic and immigration policies and his belief that his opponent, Dan Osborn, was a “fake” independent. Osborn responded by calling Ricketts a “fake senator.”
Discussions about free speech can be enlightening. Plus, we could raise the civics conversation bar if more of our informed interactions centered on constitutional rights.
I suppose back-and-forths over who’s real and who isn’t can temporarily entertain us — maybe even provide some comic relief from the drudgery of a political campaign — but one hopes the candidates raise the level of debate going forward.
Speaking of raising the level of discussion, we’ve watched a verbose scolding of world leaders, an inexplicable summoning of our top military brass and, as of this writing, the readying for a government shutdown (followed surely by a blame game). Meanwhile, the president and his confirmed Secretary of Health and Human Services, without qualifying evidence, officially told pregnant women they should avoid an over-the-counter medication that has kept mothers-to-be and their children safe for years. They insist, without offering proof, that the medication increases the chances of a child being born on the autism spectrum.
They are objecting to acetaminophen, which most of us know as Tylenol. While the president and secretary offered no studies that would underscore the importance of avoiding Tylenol during pregnancy, the FDA responded the next day. It said “a causal relationship has not been established, and there are contrary studies in the scientific literature. It is also noted that acetaminophen is the only over-the-counter drug approved for use to treat fevers during pregnancy, and high fevers in pregnant women can pose a risk to their children. Additionally, aspirin and ibuprofen have well-documented adverse impacts on the fetus.”
The secretary has his job in part because of our aforementioned senators’ votes. If you’re keeping score at home, the final tally in the Senate was 52-48 for Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s confirmation. His hearing was not without contention, although his history as a vaccine skeptic was front and center, not acetaminophen. His promise at those hearings to keep vaccines accessible has dimmed, too, with HHS’s recent policy changes pitting its recommendations against those of medical provider associations.
I’d be curious if either of our senators, supporters enough of the current HHS secretary to give him the department’s corner office, feel any responsibility toward their constituents to explain why a potentially dangerous public health policy is being created without the proper science to support it?
Surely Nebraskans would want an explanation of those consequences.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX