by Laura Ainsworth
Several weeks back, at a time when we were being deluged with revelations about email correspondence that had circled through the ranks of Dr. (“Dr.”) Anthony Fauci and his bio-researcher colleagues, I wrote in the newsletter about seeing an attention-grabbing TV ad (or PSA: Public Service Announcement) happily encouraging all pregnant women to get vaccinated for COVID. As I recall, it came on late at night, during some syndicated sitcom.
Those of us who watch conservative news outlets more often than those occasional late-night broadcasts of “Friends” had JUST BEEN SEEING the Fauci emails from early 2020 that mentioned a serious potential problem: the possible increased likelihood of miscarriage when the COVID vaccine --- particularly the second shot --- was given during the first trimester. And we had learned to our horror that the public was never made aware of such concerns, because that might cause what has come to be called “vaccine hesitancy.”
Perhaps someone saw how ill-advised the timing was for running that ad, because I saw it only that one time.
That is, until last night, in prime time, during FOX News’ “The Ingraham Angle.” The ad hit during the first commercial break, just past six minutes in. If you happened to record the show off your TV, you could see it there now. (Most likely, different ads will be running if you play the show back online.)
The ad features a quick-cut montage of cheerful, casual, active pregnant women --- although the word “women” is never spoken in the ad and the only pronoun used is the genderless “YOU.” Here’s a transcript of the announcer copy, in which a female voice says:
“You do amazing things every day.
And we’re not just talking about your pregnancy.
You do it all.
So why risk letting COVID-19 stop you?
COVID-19 vaccines are especially important during pregnancy.
Take control of your health, so you can keep showing up for the ones you love.
Get the COVID-19 vaccine to protect yourself, AND your pregnancy.
It’s safe…
proven…
effective.
You could say it’s pretty amazing.
Just like you.”
As for visuals, if you didn’t happen to record the show, ** here’s the video posted to Facebook**.
But the most interesting part of all is the final screen. A website address --- acog.org/covidvaccine --- and logo for ACOG, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists come onscreen at the end, along with this startling fine print at the bottom:
“This content was funded in part by a cooperative agreement with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (grant number 6 NU38OT000287-04-01) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The contents of this resource do not necessarily represent the policy of, nor an endorsement, by CDC/HHS, or the U.S. Government.”
So, let me get this straight. The ad was funded in part by the CDC/HHS, but the funding does not necessarily constitute an endorsement by the CDC/HHS? How does that happen? And the ad is continuing to run despite the controversy that emerged --- and for many has not been fully resolved --- over COVID and potential first-trimester miscarriage?
In our previous Fauci coverage, we noted that the CDC had changed its recommendations regarding COVID shots during pregnancy, no longer saying that just everyone should get them. They did this in May 2025, and we find today that the rift between the CDC and ACOG has grown wider. In a strongly worded press release dated May 27 of that year, ** ACOG made their opposition clear**, expressing deep concern for unvaccinated mothers and their babies who came into the world unvaccinated.
So that would explain the odd disclaimer in this ad’s fine print. At the same time, though, they’re still able to run the ad with HHS funds. It’s true that the funding had already been granted to ACOG, but can HHS not do anything about that at this point? Seems like a miscarriage of...funds.
Some individual doctors whom one would assume are members of ACOG have even posted their own Instagrams to say the CDC, under the current HHS, is “politically compromised” and so should be ignored on the question of COVID vaccinations. So, are they actually saying it was NOT politically compromised until Trump appointed RFK Jr? Who are they trying to kid? After seeing some of the correspondence from Fauci and cohorts, we should all know better.
A check with Google AI for some background information turned up this:
“Yes, there is significant ongoing controversy and a public policy rift regarding the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) continuing to recommend and promote COVID-19 vaccination for pregnant women.”
(** Check this out**, from June of this year.)
(Amusing side note: if you read the above story that AI linked to, published on University of Minnesota masthead, you’ll notice that it uses the term “pregnant people” instead of “pregnant women.” How amusing that they go on to say, “We are all about the science.” Pardon the digression; now back to AI, talking in the three bullet points below about “the core conflict”…
• Disagreement with Federal Guidance: The controversy stems from a prominent break between ACOG and federal health guidelines. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and Health and Human Services (HHS) shifted their approach and ** removed universal recommendations** for pregnant individuals to receive updated COVID-19 boosters, diverging from past policy.
• Independent Schedules: In response, ACOG took the rare step of releasing its own independent immunization schedule, explicitly reaffirming that pregnant, lactating, and planning-to-conceive individuals should receive seasonally updated COVID-19 shots.
• Diverging Medical Opinions: Major professional groups like ACOG and the American Academy of Pediatrics maintain that COVID-19 infection poses severe risks during pregnancy and that the vaccine remains safe and vital for passing antibodies to newborns. Conversely, critics and some federal health officials have questioned the necessity or target approach of widespread maternal COVID-19 vaccination, fueling public debate over advertising, promotional campaigns, and institutional trust.
So that’s what Google AI had to say. (We would never consult AI without letting you know it WAS AI.) It seems we at the Huckabee Post are now helping fuel that public debate over advertising and promotion, particularly in making the point that this is being done with federal funds after a change in Health and Human Services recommendations. Would HHS fund an ad like this today? Doubtful.
Sure enough, the HHS and ACOG have been in court over this, with the learned medical experts on the court (sarcasm alert)** upholding ACOG’s across-the-board recommendations** over HHS’s decision to withdraw them.
And ** here’s the latest from just two days ago**, with another legal challenge to the CDC being able to relax vaccine recommendations, this time for children. Looks as though more learned medical experts in black robes will be deciding this as well.
Muddying the waters a bit is an online information sheet from the CDC, from February of this year, that says, “Completion of a 2-dose mRNA COVID-19 vaccination series during pregnancy was associated with a reduced risk of hospitalization for COVID-19, including for critical illness, in infants under 6 months of age.”
So there appears to be a benefit. Still, Health and Human Services is no longer offering a blanket recommendation, either for or against COVID vaccination for pregnant women, or for that matter anyone over the age of 6 months, which is the youngest age the vaccine can be given. Rather, HHS leaves it up to “individual decision-making, which emphasizes considering the benefits and risks of vaccination.” As it always should have been.
