On the heels of a contentious national debate over vaccines and pregnancy health, two recent developments have cast new light on how American families—and especially mothers—navigate the labyrinth of medical advice, workplace demands, and evolving scientific research. As former President Donald Trump’s latest social media pronouncements on childhood vaccines and pregnancy medications stir controversy, a groundbreaking UCLA study is reframing morning sickness as a sign of healthy pregnancy, not merely a nuisance. The collision of politics and science is once again shaping the reality for millions of American women.
On Friday, September 26, 2025, President Trump took to Truth Social to share a series of recommendations about childhood vaccines that experts say are not only misleading, but could place an undue burden on working mothers. Trump suggested that parents should spread out the combination vaccines for measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella—normally administered as a single shot—into multiple separate shots. He also urged parents to wait until their children are 12 or older to receive the hepatitis B vaccine, which is currently given at birth to protect against liver disease. Trump, who lacks any formal medical training, did not explain how such delays would benefit children’s health.
The potential consequences of these recommendations are far from trivial. According to the 19th News, combination vaccines like the MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) have been in use since the early 1970s, and the MMRV (which adds varicella, or chickenpox) has been on the market for about 20 years. Separate vaccines for these diseases are not currently available. Charlotte Moser, co-director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, explained, “More visits caused by separating vaccines will mean more appointments for parents to coordinate (possibly with extra appointment fees), more needles and healthcare visits for young children, and a longer period during which children remain susceptible to these pathogens—all of this with no proven benefit.”
For many American families, the logistics of additional doctor’s appointments are daunting. The United States remains one of the few developed countries that does not guarantee paid time off for workers dealing with childbirth, illness, or caregiving. Liana Cassar, interim executive director of Family Values @ Work, emphasized, “We know already that there are challenges with scheduling appointments. We know already that there are challenges with accessing health care. So adding any complexity to what is already challenging—especially for low-income workers, especially for caregivers, especially for women who are caregivers—we know that that is just going to make it harder to access the care that’s needed.”
The burden falls disproportionately on women, who still shoulder the lion’s share of family health management. Jessica Calarco, a sociology professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, studies how women often act as “family health managers,” handling everything from routine checkups to sick days and vaccine appointments. She noted that Trump’s suggestions, intentional or not, risk “adding weight to this burden that women are already carrying.”
Vasu Reddy, director of state policy for workplace justice at the National Women’s Law Center, highlighted the stakes: “If you are working paycheck to paycheck, even just taking one day off without pay could be enough to cut into your grocery budget, affect your ability to pay rent and affect your ability to pay your electricity bill. This is a big deal that we’re talking about for working families, and because such a high share of caregiving responsibilities falls upon working moms, it is especially harmful to women’s ability to take care of themselves and their families.”
Trump’s controversial advice on vaccines was echoed in his comments about acetaminophen (commonly known by the brand name Tylenol), a medication widely used to manage pain and fever during pregnancy. At a recent news conference, Trump told pregnant people to “tough it out” rather than use acetaminophen, despite the fact that leading medical groups and the Food and Drug Administration have found no significant association between acetaminophen use in pregnancy and risks such as autism or ADHD. The FDA, in a letter to physicians, stated that “a causal relationship has not been established” and described acetaminophen as “the safest over-the-counter alternative in pregnancy” for fever and pain relief. Left untreated, fever during pregnancy can increase the risk of birth defects and premature delivery, underscoring the importance of safe symptom management.
These policy pronouncements recall a long history of political narratives placing the onus of children’s health and safety squarely on mothers—often without scientific backing. Calarco, whose book “Holding It Together: How Women Became America’s Safety Net” explores the “supermom myth,” observed, “Trumped up fears around vaccines and trumped up fears around Tylenol are being used in very similar ways to tell women that your children are under threat, and you are the one who can keep them safe. And thereby, it is your responsibility to do everything possible—whether it’s quit a job and stay home or spend six hours a day on the internet researching what is and what isn’t safe for your children—it’s your responsibility as a mother to keep your kids safe no matter what.”
While the political storm over vaccines and medications rages, new research from UCLA offers a refreshing scientific perspective on a common pregnancy experience: morning sickness. Published September 30, 2025, in Evolution, Medicine and Public Health, the study followed 58 Latina women in Southern California and found that symptoms like nausea, vomiting, and food aversions are linked to the body’s immune system inflammatory response during early pregnancy. Far from being a negative side effect, morning sickness may be a healthy, protective process.
Professor Molly Fox, the study’s lead author, explained, “These unpleasant symptoms are likely the body’s way of keeping the pregnancy safe.” The research found that women with stronger pro-inflammatory immune responses reported higher levels of morning sickness symptoms, particularly aversions to foods like meat or tobacco smoke that could harbor pathogens. Co-author Professor Daniel Fessler added, “Think of it as nature’s built-in warning label. Just like packaging today tells pregnant women to avoid certain foods, morning sickness may have been evolution’s original safeguard.”
The findings suggest that morning sickness evolved as a biological defense mechanism to steer mothers away from risky foods and substances during the baby’s most vulnerable early stages. This perspective could help reduce stigma for pregnant women in the workplace and encourage better accommodations, as morning sickness is increasingly recognized as a normal, even beneficial, aspect of pregnancy. The UCLA team’s work points to the need for further research into the interaction between immune and behavioral responses in pregnancy, with the hope of developing better, less invasive ways to monitor pregnancy health in the future.
Together, these stories highlight the complex interplay between political rhetoric, scientific research, and the lived realities of American families. As politicians and policymakers debate the future of public health, it is mothers—often juggling jobs, family responsibilities, and medical advice—who continue to bear the brunt of these decisions. Science, at least, offers a small measure of reassurance: sometimes, what feels like a hardship is actually the body’s way of protecting what matters most.
