There is something particularly infuriating about watching the federal government make protecting children more complicated while the people studying the consequences have to explain, again, why the protections existed. A new hepatitis B study puts numbers on what could happen when we retreat from vaccinating newborns. Climate scientists, meanwhile, are continuing work after the administration dismissed them, because apparently the atmosphere has failed to understand that its research department was reorganized. And in Michigan, a supposedly ordinary town hall confrontation has acquired a rather interesting family tree.

My daughter went back to school this morning and was greeted by people who were excited to see her. She was a little embarrassed by all the attention, but clearly happy and flattered, which was a lovely way to begin the day for someone whose mother was operating on partial consciousness.

I was awake until nearly two again, partly because of Ezra and partly because of pastels. I have developed an addiction, and my husband may have to hide them, although please don’t tell him I said that because I would cry. I recognize that staying up drawing is not helping my exhaustion, but there are so many colors, and I apparently can’t be trusted with access to all of them after dark.

Ezra remains my poor, cute, somehow happy, snotty, goopy, coughy little ray of sunshine. I’m not sure how he does it. He feels awful and still manages to send this lovely energy out into the house, and we’re all very lucky to get to live in it.

My daughter also has her well-child check today, which is unfortunate only in the sense that I would prefer to attend it next week, after acquiring a little more consciousness. Of course she needs her checkup, and because we live in a rural community, “Could we do next week?” is the opening line in a conversation that ends with “We have something in December.” So I will brave the doctor’s office with dark circles under my eyes and whatever portion of my brain agrees to come along.

She finally gets to go back to ballet tomorrow, too, which means leaving my house for an extended period three whole days in a row. I know I sound like a tremendous whiner, and it will absolutely be worth it to see her smile and dance. I will almost immediately forget the trouble of driving thirty miles three days running on limited sleep and too much caffeine. Currently, however, there is a small, persistent twinge of dread, because what I want is to sit in my room, try to clear the congestion out of my chest, and draw with my amazing pastels.

Unfortunately, the real world keeps smacking us in the face to remind us that before we may rest, we must first bury a bag of dirt and suspicious herbs at a crossroads, recite something in a language we don’t speak, and sell our souls to whoever appears, just to secure a doctor’s appointment. Then we spend the rest of our waking lives earning enough money to afford the privilege, while also trying to make sure our children remain protected from preventable diseases. And after all that, the people in power would like to make the planet less habitable. Apparently the crossroads transaction didn’t include a maintenance agreement.

Come on, Donald. Can’t you see what everyday people are dealing with? Sick season, bills, emotions, water shortages, and children who deserve to grow up somewhere we have bothered to keep alive. Open your eyes, sir, and give me back my soul. None of us agreed to this.

A new modeling study in Annals of Internal Medicine examined a single year’s worth of American births, about 3.6 million infants, and compared universal hepatitis B vaccination at birth with two alternatives for babies whose mothers do not have the infection: starting at two months, or making vaccination at two months subject to shared decision-making.

Compared with universal vaccination at birth, the delayed approach produced a projected 19 percent increase in chronic infections acquired by age 20. Under the shared decision-making scenario, that increase reached 83 percent. These are modeled outcomes, not infections researchers have already counted following the changes, but they serve as a stark warning about where those decisions could lead.

The researchers, from Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, concluded that universal vaccination at birth remained the strongest of the strategies they compared for preventing childhood infections and reducing future susceptibility.

“Shared decision-making” sounds reassuring, and parents should absolutely have their questions answered. But changing a public health recommendation also changes the decision being presented. A family trying to understand whether a newborn needs protection deserves a clear explanation of the evidence, rather than another opportunity to discover that a political project has arrived in the examination room ahead of them.

Parents already have enough decisions to make while operating on four disconnected minutes of sleep. The government’s contribution should be making reliable protection easier to obtain. I would happily accept fewer opportunities to personally supervise the continued existence of disease prevention.

Over in climate science, some of the researchers dismissed from the National Climate Assessment effort have decided to keep doing the work outside the government. Today’s Washington Post coverage follows that continuing effort, which has a home in the U.S. Climate Collection, a collaboration between the American Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Union.

The collection’s first paper was published September 22 and brought together 175 authors to identify priorities for future climate assessments. This is not a replacement National Climate Assessment. It is a way to keep the research that informs those assessments moving and available.

That matters because understanding a changing climate requires more than discovering that somewhere is getting hotter. Communities need useful information about how hazards interact, how infrastructure holds up, and what responses might actually help. The authors specifically highlight compound extremes and cascading risks, the situations in which one emergency helps create another. You can dismiss the people studying those risks, but the risks don’t leave with their office plants. A community still has to decide what to build, where to put it, and how to protect the people living there.

There is something deeply encouraging about scientists continuing to collaborate when the official machinery abandons them. There is also something maddening about needing that particular form of encouragement. Public knowledge shouldn’t depend on whether experts can assemble a backup civilization in their spare time. Still, they’re doing it, and the rest of us benefit from their refusal to confuse a dismissal with the end of their responsibility.

Which brings us to Michigan, where an interesting coincidence has wandered into a town hall and introduced itself as Tommy.

Marisa Kabas at The Handbasket identified the man who challenged Democratic Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed about the Muslim Brotherhood as Thomas “Tommy” Teepell, a former staffer for Republican Senator Josh Hawley. His father, Timmy Teepell, is a longtime Republican strategist. El-Sayed responded by questioning the premise and discussing constitutional religious freedom.

The Guardian identifies Breakthrough LLC as the elder Teepell’s firm. An October 1 Federal Election Commission filing records a $250,000 payment from America Next to Breakthrough, dated September 29, for “CANVASSING AND INFLUENCER MARKETING” opposing El-Sayed.

That filing documents money paid to the firm. It does not establish that Tommy was paid or instructed to attend the town hall. Family connections and a financial filing don’t, by themselves, prove how a particular appearance came about.

But what an interesting coincidence to encounter during a midterm election, when Republicans are so very eager to make Democrats look frightening. A concerned citizen stands up, and a little reporting later, we discover that the concern has access to an unusually experienced family advisory board. Hmmmmm.

I’m sure plenty of people arrive at town halls with questions they developed entirely on their own. It’s simply helpful to know when the fellow presenting his question also comes with a résumé in Republican politics and a father whose firm is being paid to oppose the candidate. It adds a certain richness to the civic experience.

And if you hoped to produce a devastating moment for the Muslim candidate but instead prompted a discussion of religious freedom, that is an unfortunate outcome for the outrage department. Perhaps next time someone could read the Constitution during rehearsals.

Subscribe now

If this report gave you something useful, please share it or restack it so someone else can find us. Paid subscriptions support both mom’s work and mine, including the time it takes to follow the research, check the filings, and determine whether today’s concerned citizen has arrived with a consulting dynasty.

Being an independent reporter means relying on readers who believe this work is worth doing. I’m also a mother of three with a project list roughly the length of our unfortunately green reflecting pool, including the heat pump, the garden, and the ongoing effort to turn this house into the home we imagine. There is always something that needs fixing, planting, or an increasingly personal conversation with a piece of equipment.

If you’d like to support our family’s projects and adventures, you can chip in here.

Support our Adventures

Your kindness helps with those projects, but it also gives me the time to research, write, and put care into these pieces while still being there for my children. That balance is much harder to sustain without reader support, and I’m deeply grateful that you help make room for both the work I believe in and the people I love.

Give a gift subscription

The Homefront Report: Donald, Give Me Back My…