| Published April 26, 2025
The Zero Hedge article titled “The RFK Autism ‘Controversy’ Is Manufactured Outrage… Plain And Simple” argues that the backlash against Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s recent comments on autism is exaggerated and politically motivated. Kennedy’s remarks, which described severe autism as a condition that “destroys families” and leads to individuals who “will never pay taxes,” have been widely criticized by autism advocates and the media. However, the article contends that these criticisms misrepresent Kennedy’s intent and overlook the challenges faced by families dealing with severe autism.
Key Points
-
Kennedy’s Intent: The article asserts that Kennedy was specifically addressing severe, nonverbal autism, not the broader autism spectrum. It suggests that his comments were meant to highlight the struggles of families with profoundly disabled children, rather than to stigmatize all individuals on the spectrum.
Here’s what he said:
“Autism destroys family. And more importantly, it destroys our greatest resource, our children. And these are kids who 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. We have to recognize we are doing this to our children and we need to put an end to it.”
It doesn’t take a genius—or even a full listen—to understand that he was referring to severe, nonverbal, profoundly disabling autism. Not quirky software engineers or brilliant kids who need a little extra support in school. And yet, the outrage machine went into overdrive. Moms on X and Instagram rushed to share glowing tributes to their high-functioning children on the spectrum, explaining how autism is their family’s greatest blessing. And you know what? That’s beautiful. But that’s also not what RFK was talking about.
-
Media Response: The article criticizes the media and social media users for amplifying the controversy, claiming that the outrage is disproportionate and serves to distract from the real issues surrounding autism.
This wasn’t a sweeping statement about every autistic person.
It was a serious moment about a serious public health issue. But as usual, nuance doesn’t fit into a TikTok soundbite.
The backlash wasn’t just misplaced—it was manipulative.
-
Political Agenda: It posits that the backlash is part of a broader political agenda to discredit Kennedy and his public health initiatives, particularly those that challenge the status quo.
Implications from a Conservative Perspective
🏛️ 1. Political Backlash and Free Speech Concerns
From a conservative viewpoint, the intense backlash against Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s remarks could be seen as an example of “cancel culture” or the suppression of free speech. Many conservatives argue that public figures should be able to express their opinions, even if controversial, without being subjected to widespread outrage or media condemnation. The attempt to discredit Kennedy’s comments may be viewed as an effort to stifle alternative viewpoints on issues like vaccines and public health policies. Conservatives might frame the controversy as an overreaction, with the media and certain advocacy groups amplifying outrage to push a specific narrative.
💉 2. Vaccine Debate Intensifies
Kennedy’s statements about autism and vaccines, though widely criticized by the medical establishment, resonate with many conservatives who are skeptical of government-imposed health measures. His stance on vaccine safety has drawn support from those who believe in medical freedom and oppose mandates. For conservatives, this controversy underscores a broader concern about government overreach in healthcare. They may see Kennedy as a voice of opposition to the growing influence of health authorities and pharmaceutical companies, advocating for more personal choice and less coercion in public health decisions.
🚨 3. Distracting from the Real Issues
From a conservative perspective, the uproar over Kennedy’s comments could be viewed as a manufactured distraction from more pressing policy issues. Conservatives might argue that the focus on this controversy diverts attention away from larger, more impactful concerns such as economic policy, national security, or healthcare reform. In this sense, the debate over autism and vaccines could be seen as a political weapon used to discredit Kennedy or deflect attention from his other views, particularly those that challenge the establishment’s narrative on public health.
📊 4. Promoting Accountability and Transparency in Public Health
For conservatives, Kennedy’s critique of the scientific establishment’s handling of autism and vaccines might highlight the need for greater transparency and accountability in the medical and governmental sectors. Many conservatives argue that medical professionals and government officials should be held accountable for their decisions, especially when they influence public health policy. Kennedy’s stance, even if controversial, could serve as a rallying point for those calling for more openness in discussions about vaccine safety and public health practices.
💥 5. Opportunity for Conservative Advocacy on Autism and Disability
While Kennedy’s comments have been controversial, they also present an opportunity for conservatives to promote a more inclusive approach to autism. Conservatives may use the backlash to advocate for policies that provide more resources and support for families dealing with autism, without stigmatizing individuals on the spectrum. They may call for reforms that empower families to choose the best care options for their children while respecting their right to privacy and autonomy. This issue could become part of a broader conservative agenda to ensure that all individuals, regardless of their condition, are treated with dignity and respect.
🧠 6. Increased Polarization on Healthcare and Disability Policy
Lastly, the controversy could further polarize discussions about healthcare and disability policy. Conservatives might argue that the left’s response to Kennedy’s comments reflects a broader trend of imposing one-size-fits-all solutions for medical and social issues, which may not be suitable for every individual or family. This polarization could lead to a deeper divide in how autism and public health policies are approached, with conservatives advocating for more individualized, choice-based solutions while progressives push for broader, more inclusive policies.
SOURCES: ZEROHEDGE – The RFK Autism “Controversy” Is Manufactured Outrage… Plain And Simple
RELATED: Kohberger Defense Team Handed Massive Defeat: Judge Rules Autism Won’t Save Him from Potential Death Penalty
Bryan Kohberger, accused of fatally stabbing four University of Idaho students, is escorted into court for a hearing in Latah County District Court, Sept. 13, 2023, in Moscow, Idaho. (AP Photo/Ted S. Warren, File)
| Published April 25, 2025
The man accused of murdering four university students in 2022 could still be facing death himself.
Attorneys for Bryan Kohberger, on trial for the savage stabbings in a rental home near the University of Idaho campus, cited a clinical neuropsychologist’s finding that their client is on the autism spectrum in asking District Judge Steven Hippler to rule out the possibility of capital punishment if Kohberg is convicted, according to the Associated Press.
And after a slew of earlier attempts to exclude the death penalty, according to the Idaho Statesman, it might have been their last chance.
According to the AP, Kohberger has been diagnosed as having “Autism Spectrum Disorder, level 1, without accompanying intellectual or language impairment.”
Kohberger’s attorneys argued that should make him ineligible for execution under the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of “cruel and unusual punishment.”
Prosecutors maintained that even with the autism diagnosis, Supreme Court precedents indicated that only mental disabilities that involve intellectual ability could put the death penalty off the table.
At the time of the Nov. 13, 2022, killings, Kohberger was a graduate student in criminal justice at Washington State University in Pullman, Washington, just across the state line from the University of Idaho’s campus in Moscow, Idaho.
He was arrested — after being under surveillance for several days — in northeast Pennsylvania after traveling to his parents’ home for a holiday trip. Charged with four counts of first-degree murder and burglary, he’s pleaded innocent in the case.
Hippler’s ruling kept capital punishment in play in the case, but said it should be a matter to be decided after the question of guilt or innocence is resolved in court.
“Not only has Defendant failed to show that ASD is equivalent to an intellectual disability for death penalty exemption purposes, he has not shown there is national consensus against subjecting individuals with ASD to capital punishment,” Hippler wrote in the order.
“ASD may be mitigating factor to be weighed against the aggravating factors in determining if defendant should receive the death penalty, but it is not a death-penalty disqualifier.”
Hippler’s order also dismissed a defense argument that extensive media coverage that referred to Kohberger traits that could be linked to autism — such as his “deadpan look,” “robot-like walk,” “cold iciness, “rigid posture” — made it impossible that any decision on punishment would be fair to the defendant.
“He argues the media is demonizing him for his disability while at the same time emphasizing the brutality of the crime,” Hippler wrote. “This, he warns, will overpower any mitigating arguments based on ASD and poses risk that he will be sentenced based on his disability.”
However, Hippler noted, the effect of media coverage could be dealt with during jury selection, during Kohberger’s trial, and during any penalty phase.
According to the Idaho Statesman, the autism disability argument was one of several the defense team has offered to try to get a potential death penalty removed from the case.
Their efforts have “included arguments that capital punishment is unconstitutional, breaks with evolving standards of decency, violates international law and is arbitrarily applied,” but Hippler has denied each one, the newspaper reported.
It noted that the latest effort was “likely” the last.
This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.
Be the first to comment