from the tiny-little-coffins dept
I’ve ranted and raved enough about how RFK Jr. and his Health and Human Services department are completely fucking up the response to the current measles outbreak enough that I’m confident you all don’t need me to rehash the entire thing in this opening. We can leave it at this: we’re probably going to lose our measles elimination status under Kennedy’s watch, Kennedy is an anti-vaxxer no matter how much he attempts to state otherwise, his advice for alternative therapies and/or that everyone should just get measles are bullshit, and he has a habit of victim-blaming those who get measles to boot.
It’s that last bit that’s most important here. The post I linked to is one in which Kennedy claims that malnutrition is to blame for serious outcomes from measles infections. But he’s said so much more on the topic, including in a March interview on Fox News.
“It’s very, very difficult for measles to kill a healthy person,” Kennedy falsely said during a March Fox Nation interview. “We see a correlation between people who get hurt by measles and people who don’t have good nutrition or who don’t have a good exercise regime.” Coupled with his disturbing statements on autism and long-standing belief that vaccinations cause the condition, Kennedy is circling a dark idea: that the value of one’s life can be tabulated in accordance with diagnoses and preexisting conditions. Since his appointment as secretary of health and human services (HHS), he has pursued a brutal vision of American health that several experts liken to a sort of eugenics. Kennedy has made it clear that certain deaths are acceptable or even preferable to a world where every child is vaccinated.
“There’s a sort of Darwin-esque notion that only the fittest survive,” says Paul Offit, a vaccine scientist, virologist, and professor of pediatrics at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. “But these viruses can kill anybody, so that’s just wrong.” In the recent deaths, the first from measles in a decade, no underlying medication conditions have been reported. Both of the Texas children were reportedly healthy before they contracted measles. They could have stayed that way.
Now, here’s where I have to be very careful about stating that this is an opinion piece in which I will draw conclusions based on Kennedy’s words and actions, along with the analysis in that post from The Verge. Why? Because of this following statement.
Alluding to survival of the fittest on its own is already a problematic stance to take when we’re talking about a disease that has already resulted in two tiny little coffins made to fit for children. It’s already problematic because it’s also just fucking wrong; otherwise fit people have gotten severely sick and died from this outbreak. But if you couple the “survival of the fittest” stance with the “everyone should just get infected to gain immunity stance,” what you have is a combined policy that is tolerant of many unnecessary deaths and major illness in people whom Kennedy says are deficient in some way, and that is damned close to a policy of eugenics.
The underlying message of Kennedy’s campaign is that measles deaths are expected and admissible, because the people who don’t survive the disease were flawed anyway, says Laura Appleman, a professor of law at Willamette University in Oregon. Kennedy has talked up the “measles parties” of past decades — discounting that sometimes those parties proved deadly. “I think there’s a real subtext here saying that, ‘no, that’s ok, because in the old days the ones who survived were the strong ones,’” she adds.
Appleman has studied and written about the history of eugenics in the U.S., in the context of the criminal justice system, as well as that of public health and the covid-19 pandemic. The current rhetoric coming from Kennedy is an amplification of what’s long persisted in American culture and politics, she says. “I talk a lot about the long tail of eugenics [in the US]. And I think certainly, lately, the tail is not so hidden anymore.”
“He’s pretty much coming out and saying these things,” Appleman says. “Who deserves to live and who is it okay to not mourn? And this is from someone who runs the HHS. This is profoundly disturbing.”
And if you think that is a bridge too far, couple it further with Kennedy’s absolutely ignorant comments on autism, which he has falsely linked historically to vaccinations, particularly the MMR vaccine.
During the press conference, Kennedy asserted that autism “destroys” families and children. He said that children with autism, “will never pay taxes. They’ll never hold a job. They’ll never play baseball. They’ll never write a poem. They’ll never go out on a date. Many of them will never use a toilet unassisted.”
“It doesn’t get much closer, that I can imagine, to ‘useless eaters’ than that,” says David Gorski, a surgeon and oncologist at Wayne State University and prolific health blogger, who cofounded the website Science-Based Medicine. “Useless eaters” was a phrase coined by German eugenicists Karl Binding and Alfred Hoche in a 1920 book that advocated for culling people with disabilities — which the Nazi regime would later use to justify mass murder.
This isn’t to suggest that Kennedy himself is a Nazi or is sympathetic to Nazi ideology, to be clear. But he’s adopting a position that is at least similar to the one the Nazis used to eliminate all kinds of people they claimed were poisoning the gene pool. And when you package all of this in with the current administration’s work to defund or otherwise deprioritize all kinds of research, help, and government programs for certain classes of people, well, the comparison begins to get unavoidable.
Additionally proposed and already enacted cuts within HHS include eliminating the national suicide hotline’s program for LGBTQ youth, ending programs focused on preventing childhood lead poisoning, eliminating domestic HIV prevention efforts and research, and scrapping multiple measures for treating drug addiction and opioid overdoses, including grants for supplying emergency responders with Narcan.
Altogether, the changes fit cleanly with the idea that certain lives aren’t worth investing in or protecting, Fox says. “All of these things could be explained through that lens,” she notes — the lens of acceptable death. Refracted through the looking glass, “a lot of things come into focus,” and the road to an America made “healthy again” looks treacherous.
A healthcare policy in which death is an acceptable outcome. Might as well make that HHS’s motto.
