Sabato’s Crystal Ball has been tracking how 2022 is different from previous midterm election years, when the party that holds the White House is often punished. The 2022 midterm elections feature an unpopular president, but there are indications that the unpopular president’s party won’t be strongly punished. In this episode, Kyle Kondik discusses how echoes of the 1978 and 1982 midterm elections may be reverberating in 2022.
There are echoes of mother-blaming in how President Donald Trump and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. are now talking about autism, pregnancy and vaccines.
JJ Hanley can still remember the pediatrician’s words.
It was the early ’90s, and the mother of two in suburban Chicago had begun to worry that her toddler-age son, Tim, was showing language delays and other behaviors that didn’t align with his older brother’s development. Hanley turned to her son’s doctor, who declared: “There’s nothing wrong with him. What’s wrong with him is you.”
The pediatrician, according to Hanley, said she was overthinking her observations.
“I’ll never forget it,” Hanley said. “It was point blank, ‘You’re overbearing and neurotic.’”
Hanley later got a second opinion, which led to her son’s autism diagnosis and related care. He is now 32, lives independently and works as a roofing contractor. He is also a musician who writes, records and performs his own Americana music.
But in those early years, Hanley’s research brought her to the “refrigerator mother” theory, popularized in the 1950s and 1960s, that posited parental coldness — particularly a lack of emotional warmth from a child’s mother — causes autism. It was eventually discredited as more evidence-based research became available, but Hanley saw parallels to the self-doubt she felt at times as a young mother.
“I questioned it. Was it the one glass of wine that I had when I didn’t know I was pregnant? Is that what caused it? Was I in labor with him for too long?” she said. “You feel enough guilt naturally about your children no matter what, and then you have a child whose behaviors you can’t explain.
”For some mothers of autistic children, including those who are now adults, there are echoes of mother-blaming in how President Donald Trump and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. are talking about autism, pregnancy and vaccines. Neither official has a medical or science background, but they’ve increasingly used their bully pulpits to target messaging to the parent most often in charge of their children’s health: mothers.
During a September 22 news conference, the president told pregnant mothers to “tough it out” and avoid using acetaminophen, the pain-relief drug sold under the brand name Tylenol, which the administration is trying to link to autism despite research showing no clear causal relationship. Trump also claimed inaccurately that vaccines cause autism, and advocated for changing the childhood vaccine schedule.
Kennedy, an anti-vaccine activist, says he wants to “Make America Healthy Again,” a catch-all phrase focused in part on childhood chronic illness. He has made public commitments to finding the causes of autism, though he has also eliminated efforts within his department to investigate the issue and cut some funding for ongoing autism research. His department has simultaneously announced an initiative to fund new autism research.
While some parents of autistic children support Kennedy’s moves to investigate the condition, the administration’s rhetoric — in April, Kennedy said autism “destroys families” — has added a layer of shame and confusion for other families. Tiffany Hammond, who is autistic and has sons with autism, expressed frustration that federal officials are pointing to acetaminophen instead of finding more ways to support autistic people here and now. Hammond’s older son, in particular, is non-speaking and requires significant support.
“You’re going to have so many parents, moms in particular, thinking, ‘Oh my God, I did this to my kids,’” she said. “How does that help them?”
There is no single cause of autism, a neurodevelopmental condition that can affect how a person communicates and interacts with others. Data from a 2022 study among children shows the prevalence of autism has risen, with 1 in 31 American children who were 8 years old at the time identified as having autism. This is partially due to the diagnostic criteria for autism expanding in recent years, more childhood screening and more awareness of potential symptoms.
But the search to better understand autism has also led to generations of mothers experiencing stigma about their parental choices.
In his landmark 1943 paper first identifying autism as a condition, psychiatrist Leo Kanner observed a “coldness” in parents of autistic children. He later attributed autism to a “maternal lack of genuine warmth,” saying that autistic children “were left neatly in refrigerators which did not defrost.” The theory later appeared in a 1948 Time Magazine article about Kanner and autism.
“All but five of the mothers had gone to college; all but one had been active, before or after marriage, as scientists, laboratory technicians, physicians, nurses, librarians, artists. Cold Perfectionists. But there was something wrong with all of them,” the article noted — nodding to mothers who chose to work instead of caring full time for their children.
Today, there is more research into the causes of autism, which have been linked to a number of genetic and environmental factors.
“We know that autism is strongly genetic,” said Alison Singer, president and cofounder of the Autism Science Foundation, which supports funding research into the causes of autism. “We know that autism begins during the prenatal period, and that certain genes may be affected by the prenatal environment.”
Singer has an adult daughter with autism, Jodie, who speaks in short phrases and requires full time care. Singer also has an older brother who was diagnosed with autism in the 1960s. Their mother was called a refrigerator mother.
“She was told that the reason my brother retreated into autism was because she was too cold to properly bond with him,” she said.
Singer’s brother was eventually institutionalized, in part because federal legal protections did not exist at the time to ensure his right to an education. Unable to watch their brother and son grow up, the experience altered the dynamics of Singer’s family. Today he lives in a group home.
“I think when RFK talks about how he’s never seen a person with profound autism in their 60s or 70s, it’s because they didn’t live at home,” she said. “We didn’t bring them into the community. They weren’t in school, they were locked away in institutions. But they absolutely exist.”
In the 1960s, Bruno Bettelheim, a psychologist at the University of Chicago, further popularized the idea that autism was caused by bad parenting. He was “the first celebrity ‘shrink’ in America — the psychoanalytic equivalent of Dr. Oz,” wrote the late writer Steve Silberman in his seminal history of autism and neurodiversity, “NeuroTribes.” The book was published in 2015, before Oz’s foray into politics. Unlike Oz, Bettelheim’s title had nothing to do with medicine — he had no formal medical or psychological training.
Bettelheim, who had a regular column in Ladies’ Home Journal and published articles in popular magazines throughout the 1960s, compared autistic children to concentration camp victims. The cure for autism was a “parent-ectomy” — placement at a residential school he operated.
Hanley read Bettelheim’s book “The Empty Fortress” during the early years of her son’s diagnosis, in part because there were few books about autism at her local library. The concentration camp comparison — which implied that parents are like Nazi camp guards — shocked her. The more she learned about refrigerator mothers, the more she felt compelled to find them
.In the late ‘90s, Hanley did a nationwide callout and worked with Chicago documentary film company Kartemquin Films to produce the 2002 documentary “Refrigerator Mothers” that featured several mothers and their autistic children. The stories centered on how the moms had maneuvered years of blame and guilt as they advocated for their children’s care. She’s working with Kartemquin to rerelease the film to mark its 25th anniversary, given how timely it feels right now.
“Their stories were beautiful and profound and poignant,” Hanley said. “Their voices are unforgettable to me and their messages are as powerful today as ever.”
Bettelheim’s theories on autism are now wholly discredited, but mother-blaming lives on in various alternative treatments, diets and other solutions. In the late 1990s, mothers like Hanley were bombarded with claims that vaccines cause autism, launching a new era of mom blaming. While this theory has since been widely debunked and disproven, rumors have persisted online.
Shannon Rosa’s son, Leo, was born in 2000 and received a formal autism diagnosis three years later. At the time, it was difficult for parents to find information about autism. She remembers relating to actor and anti-vaccine activist Jenny McCarthy, who debated pediatricians on “Larry King Live” about the causes of her son’s autism.
“Most pediatricians are not trained to handhold or help parents of newly diagnosed autistic kids,” Rosa said. She felt like mainstream medicine had betrayed her, and the only people offering something she could do to help her son, right then, were parent groups talking about ways to cure autism.
Rosa added: “Like most people who are not already in the disability community, my perception of disability was negative.”
In retrospect, Rosa is embarrassed by the way she responded, but continues to share her story. She now operates a website called Thinking Person’s Guide to Autism, which is dedicated to sharing evidence-based and neurodiversity-related news, research and advice.
While Rosa isn’t old enough to have been labeled a refrigerator mother, she felt echoes of that blame in the cure-oriented parenting communities she joined. The anti-vaccine and alternative medicine movements exonerated mothers for causing their children’s autism psychologically, but the focus was still on mothers’ behavior — the decision to vaccinate, the decision to take or give certain medications, the decision to eat or feed their children certain foods. Rosa felt like if she didn’t do something, she was failing her son.
“I am the one who had vaccinated him, right? So I caused [his autism] and if I didn’t do everything within my power and spend thousands of dollars on supplements and medications and injections and all these bogus things to cure him, then I’m not good enough. I’m not being a good mom and I’m failing my child,” she said. “All of these books about [autism and vaccination, autism and special diets etc.] mentioned the refrigerator moms theory under the guise of rejecting it as empowerment. Like, ‘OK, you didn’t do anything wrong, but there is something you can do, right? You can take action,’” Rosa said.
The conversation around Tylenol, to Rosa, is much the same.
Today, Leo is a happy, healthy 24-year-old. He speaks a few words and needs full-time support, but he also loves hiking, swimming and adaptive surfing. Rosa, her husband or an aide help him do what he enjoys and live a joyful life.
“I am so furious about how badly supported I had been and how that shaped the first years of my son’s life,” Rosa said, reflecting that she wishes she’d focused on support instead of trying to cure him. She now incorporates those resources into Thinking Person’s Guide to Autism to help other parents.
The genetic component of autism brings up complex feelings for Hammond, who wrote the bestselling children’s book “A Day With No Words” about her family’s experiences with autism. She has felt guilty, but not because of what a doctor or anyone else explicitly said to her.
“You never want your kids to struggle in the way that you do … I feel a lot of emotion and a lot of guilt for the struggles I know my kids will have, and have had. I feel like I haven’t done enough to prepare them for those struggles, but also that they live in this world that doesn’t make it easy for them,” she said.
Hammond sees the focus on Tylenol and vaccines not only as a way to blame moms, but as a way to distract from Trump’s cuts to the services and supports families like hers need.
“Look at what this administration is doing or not doing in support of disabled people. [Other moms] tell me, ‘Oh, nobody’s talking about high-support-needs autism. You know, the ones who are banging their heads. They appreciate RFK. But at the same time, [the Trump administration] keeps cutting the services that those families need. They keep cutting special education, they keep gutting Medicaid and they keep taking things away. They’re not offering any solutions on how to support these families. They’re just saying, ‘Here it’s Tylenol,’ and then there’s nothing else,” Hammond said.
Singer said there was “a lot of enthusiasm” that when Trump and RFK Jr. came into office, their focus on autism would be “gold standard science.” But that’s not what she heard during that last news conference.
“What we heard was what the president thinks and feels, and that is not science,” she said.
Hanley is concerned that the Trump administration is “selling and offering snake oil to families” at a time of rampant misinformation. She worries mothers are on the receiving end.
“In the end, it comes back to the mother,” she said. “Whether you tell her now, don’t take Tylenol … it comes back to putting such an enormous burden on the mother.”
This isn’t the first time moms have been blamed for their kids’ autism was first published on The 19th and republished with permission.
Sara Luterman is he 19th's disability and aging reporter.
Barbara Rodriguez is The 19th's interim health and caregiving reporter.
Protest, person holds sign Silene = Violence
Welcome to the Fulcrum Roundtable.
The program offers insights and discussions about some of the most talked-about topics from the previous month, featuring Fulcrum’s collaborators.
Consistent with the Fulcrum's mission, the Fulcrum Roundtable strives to share many perspectives to widen our audience’s viewpoints.
The latest discussion centers on the rising threat of political violence in the United States following the assassination of Charlie Kirk. Fulcrum collaborators examine how inflammatory rhetoric, online radicalization, and hyper-partisan media ecosystems have fueled a climate where violence is no longer a fringe concern—it’s an increasingly present danger.
This moment demands honest reflection on how our public discourse, digital platforms, and political leadership either confront or enable this volatility.
I spoke with...
Kurt Gray, professor of Psychology and Neuroscience at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and author of Outraged: Why We Fight about Morality and Politics.
Lura Forcum, president of the Independent Center, and a consumer psychologist.
Mac Chamberlain, a fourth-year English and Spanish major at Lipscomb University.
- YouTube youtu.be
Kurt and Lura penned Taking Outrage Seriously: Understanding the Moral Signals Behind Political Anger.
They wrote in part: When conservatives express outrage, liberals dismiss them as bigots and racists. When liberals protest, conservatives roll their eyes at the alleged virtue signaling. We celebrate when our adversaries get upset because their anger means our side is winning.
"When someone mocks us for getting outraged, that's really a dismissal of the feelings of threat," he said. "We don't feel heard. We don't feel seen. And we feel even more threatened."
Lura added that dismissing the other side’s outrage is a dangerous mistake and that we must first take outrage seriously. "Being outraged means that you feel something really deeply. I think we would all do better to hear the message behind that emotion and try to understand what exactly people from across the political aisle are trying to convey to us," she said.
In "An Empathetic Approach to Political Violence, Mac wrote: The ability to condemn political violence correlates with privilege, a perspective which implicitly trusts the power of our voices.
We must consider what shapes the imagination of communities whose voices have been ferociously limited. For communities whose networks are saturated in such language of violence, we must accept a posture of humility in understanding how they feel they can gain access.
"We have this opportunity to be here and to talk, and we have time and opportunity to write and engage with these ideas. People who have been systemically disenfranchised don't necessarily have those opportunities," he said.
To prevent political violence, we must lower the volume of polarizing arguments that drown out opportunities for productive discourse—an effort The Fulcrum supports by offering a platform for thoughtful, thought-provoking debate and civic dialogue.
Hugo Balta is the executive editor of the Fulcrum and the publisher of the Latino News Network.
The indictment of former FBI Director James Comey in September 2025 was a stark reminder of how fragile our institutions have become under Trump 2.0. An inexperienced prosecutor, Lindsey Halligan, chosen more for loyalty than expertise, pushed through felony charges at the president’s urging. The move broke with the Justice Department’s tradition of independence and highlighted the risks that arise when political power bends justice toward retribution.
This is not just a story about one man. It is a warning that America’s democracy is like a bridge under heavy strain. Crises expose cracks but can also reveal hidden strength. For ordinary citizens, this means a justice system more susceptible to political pressure, a government less accountable, and daily life shaped by leaders willing to bend the rules for personal gain.
No bridge stands on a single pillar. Durable reform requires four supports working together, each carrying a weight that the others cannot. Think of these as the blueprint of ideas, the load bearers of citizen action, the cultural foundation beneath it, and the institutional girders that give it form. Only when all four reinforce one another can the structure endure.
History shows the danger of partial repair. Reconstruction’s amendments stood on paper, but without cultural acceptance or enforcement, they collapsed. A voting law without civic trust falters. A speech without backing is symbolic, not durable. Renewal works only when all supports reinforce each other. Quick fixes won’t hold; sooner or later, the structure will fail.
Ideas chart democracy’s direction. But a design on paper is useless without leaders to bring it to life. The best leaders remind citizens they belong to something larger. They hold up a mirror that reflects not only division but a common identity worth defending. Others rip up the blueprint, feed grievance, cast neighbors as enemies, and make violence seem like the only language left.
Democracy is always a contest of conflicting blueprints. One sketch imagines inclusion and resilience. Another aims to narrow belonging and hoard power. Pretend it doesn’t matter which wins, and you’ve already chosen collapse. That choice isn’t abstract. It decides whether the bridge holds when you and your children step onto it.
A structure fails when weight is not spread evenly across its supports. Ideas mean little unless citizens act on them: casting ballots, attending meetings, organizing in communities. Suffragists marched and endured arrests until the 19th Amendment became real. Civil rights activists held sit-ins, registered voters, and faced down intimidation to force change. Many paid dearly, but their persistence kept the span from collapsing.
Behavior spreads by example. Leaders demonstrate this when they line up to vote, attend local forums, or collaborate with grassroots groups. Ordinary citizens matter just as much: the neighbor running for school board, the retiree helping register voters. These small, visible acts ripple outward, reinforcing the norm that democracy is everyone’s work.
Barriers and intimidation shrink participation. Voting restrictions, disinformation, and political violence all weaken the pillars of democracy. Renewal requires lowering those barriers and widening engagement so the bridge has enough strength to carry the nation’s weight. Ignore it, and the span breaks.
No span stands without a solid foundation beneath it. Culture is the ground that determines whether reforms endure. The women’s movement reshaped workplaces and schools. The environmental movement shifted public consciousness long before federal law caught up. Each demonstrated how cultural change can alter the foundations of society. Cultural change is slow and often driven from below. Ordinary people normalize new ways of living together: neighbors accepting interracial marriage, coworkers welcoming LGBTQ colleagues, students rejecting bullying. Leaders can signal, as Eisenhower did at Little Rock or as Obama did by lighting the White House in rainbow colors, but the foundation is built by daily choices.
Today’s disinformation crisis reveals how easily foundations can be compromised. Lies corrode trust like water undermining soil. Renewal requires civic education that teaches democratic habits, media literacy to resist manipulation, and a fresh commitment to pluralism. Without that foundation, reforms sit on shaky ground. With it, the span can withstand even heavy strain. Think culture doesn’t matter? It’s the ground you’re standing on. Ignore it, and the bridge will sink beneath your feet.
Institutions give reforms durability. They embed change into lasting practice and keep the structure intact. The EPA and Clean Air Act turned environmental awareness into enforceable protections. Campaign finance laws checked machine politics. Each was a girder locking reforms into place. But weak girders let progress collapse. Prohibition cracked because it lacked cultural support. The Citizens United decision overturned key campaign finance laws, unleashing a flood of money that weakened democratic accountability. Institutions are where reform either solidifies or fails.
Today’s girders are stressed. Emergency powers are stretched, courts politicized, and Congress sidelined. Renewal means reinforcing them: ranked-choice voting to reduce polarization, independent redistricting, limits on unilateral executive powers, and increased transparency in the judiciary. Without strong girders, even the best blueprint and foundation won’t hold the span. Shrug at institutional decay if you want, but don’t be surprised when the structure gives way while you cross.
Democracy doesn’t endure by habit. It survives only through constant upkeep of ideas, participation, culture, and institutions. January 6 showed how quickly cracks spread when leaders inflame and institutions falter. Comey’s indictment revealed the same danger: when justice bends to retribution, democracy buckles. America must repair its structure or risk weakening it. Renewal is possible, but only if citizens act now. Democracy doesn’t maintain itself.
Robert Cropf is the Professor of Political Science at Saint Louis University
Every week, thousands of Americans - who live in the 30 states that register voters by party - go to the post office, DMV, or download a voter registration form, and change their registration status from “Democrat” or “Republican” to “Independent.”
This trend is accelerating. Nationally, 43% of Americans identify as independent. In a handful of states, registered independents outnumber Democrats and Republicans combined. But the response to this trend from the politics industry has been “nothing to see here, people…the two-party system is alive and well.”
The New Republic declared that independent voters are a myth. Gallup insists that 90% of independent voters are in fact “Democrat Leaners” or “Republican Leaners,” a clever way to make a trend disappear. And to be fair to Gallup, they are simply utilizing language and concepts that have been put forth by political science and adopted by Washington.
The assertion that independent voters are, in fact, partisans in disguise has endured for years. Like phrenology—the pseudoscience of studying skull bumps to determine personality traits—intellectual scams have a way of persisting.
But there are cracks in the facade. A few brave journalists like John Halpin insist that independents should not be ignored. Organizations like the Independent Center, Unite America, and the ASU Center for an Independent and Sustainable Democracy have begun studying independent voters. My organization, Open Primaries, has been fighting for full voting rights for independents since 2009. And a growing number of mainstream candidates—like Rob Sand of Iowa, Dan Osborn of Nebraska, Rick Bennett of Maine, and Mike Duggan of Michigan, to name just a few—have embraced the growing independent disillusionment with the “rip-the-opposition-to-shreds" status quo and are offering voters a new direction.
Something is happening in America. It’s not coordinated. It’s not a new party. It’s more accurately a rejection of partyism. But old ways of seeing the world do not die easily.
Enter CNN. With great fanfare, they released a “new and improved” taxonomic understanding of independents this past week, which, on the surface, seems to take independent voters seriously. According to the authors, the poll results identify five distinct types of independents, with big implications for American politics. As party loyalty fades and the definition of that elusive swing voter shifts, elections are increasingly decided by who among these groups shows up to vote.
CNN divides independents into five categories: Democratic lookalikes, Republican Lookalikes, Checked Out Voters, the Disappointed Middle, and the Upbeat Outsiders. But when you dig into the numbers, the authors assert that 63% of independents are either partisan clones or don’t care about politics at all. Presto! While CNN gives lip service to the “big implications” of independents, they simultaneously atomize and diminish their existence. Harry Houdini would call that misdirection.
Are independents monolithic? No. They do not share a common ideology. Independents mix and match positions and policy and have no problem endorsing ideas from Bernie Sanders and Rand Paul or voting for Barack Obama and Donald Trump. They are as diverse as America. And by slicing and dicing them into silly, made-up categories, CNN perpetuates the myth that independents are not real simply because they are diverse. They miss the forest for the trees.
We live in a two-party system. And yet the largest group of voters is those who choose to separate themselves from both parties. They do so for many reasons, and the ramifications are real. Independents cannot vote in taxpayer-funded primaries in many states. And have no representation on the boards of elections and the FEC. Every aspect of politics — campaign finance, debates, and election administration — was created by Democrats and Republicans for the benefit of Democrats and Republicans. 10,000 Americans change their voter registration to independent every week, and they find themselves strangers in a strange land.
Don’t be fooled by the categories generated by the smartypants at CNN. They perpetuate the self-serving myth that independents are not truly independent. The real work is not to invent catchy categories that create the illusion of understanding. It is to recreate and reform our political process to fully include independents, the largest group of voters in the country.
John Opdycke is the president of Open Primaries, a national election reform organization.
