Creighton University research shows fast-growing political divide over childhood vaccine policies

Estep, an assistant professor in the Department of Cultural Sociology, and his team base their research on nearly 1,500 state bills and 230 legislative votes across the country over 25 years.

This project analyzed legislative developments from 1995 to 2020. However, the authors extended their research beyond published articles to see if trends continued during the most recent legislative session held during the COVID-19 pandemic.

They found that COVID-19 “added fuel to the fire,” Estep said. “Probably more fragmented than ever.”

public health is at stake

Among the team’s findings was that, ten years ago, labeling Democrats and Republicans meant that state legislators could influence vaccination-related policies, such as whether parents should have more or less ability to choose their children. There was something about how I decided that I had relatively little influence. Out of vaccine.

“Ten years ago, we had little ability to predict how a member of parliament would take a position based on their affiliation,” said Estep. “Not today.”

Researchers found lawmakers were more likely to align with people of their preferred party on the 2019-2020 vaccine bill than they were more likely to align with their party on the 2011-2012 abortion-related bill. The last two years were the peak of the polarizing conflict between the Tea Party and then-Barack Obama administration.

During their study, immunization was less likely to divide parliamentarians than abortion, Estep said. he said.

The split is disheartening because public health is at risk, said Estep, who teaches classes on public health, health policy and medical administration.

“I want to be very clear: What does history tell us about what the facts are, what can help in this particular situation? Each time, those facts become harder to see and can obscure good policy decisions that serve the public interest.

The California measles epidemic was a turning point

Assisting with the analysis were Clayton students Annika Muse and Shannon Sweeney, as well as Drexel University epidemiologist and public health expert Neil Goldstein.

The team wrote:

Estep said the study’s findings, called “Partisan Polarization of Childhood Vaccination Policy 1995-2020,” contradict the popular belief that political polarization about vaccines began with COVID-19. said it does.

He said that in the late 1990s and early 2000s, safety concerns outweighed the debate about immunizing children.When scientists provided more evidence, he said, the objection to safety Losing momentum, critics shifted their focus to civil liberties and parental rights.

The 2015 Disneyland-related measles epidemic was a turning point that fueled political division, Estep said. It provoked cries of excess by the government, which was regarded as

“The 2019 measles epidemic put vaccines back in the limelight, and state legislatures will consider calls from public health officials to limit waivers to the demands of those who viewed it as a violation of parental rights. Our findings suggest that this second round of “take off” terms further cemented party lines. “

In the following year, more states proposed laws limiting or expanding opportunities for parents to opt out of exemptions.

“Historically, (legislators) did not have to base their decisions on ideological commitments to state or individual rights, but now they are framed in terms of those terms, so they are based on ideological commitments. I feel the pressure to form my position on the ground,” said Estep.

“Silver Lining”

The researchers said some proposed vaccine policies were less contentious than others. For example, bills related to HPV have become more partisan than bills related to chickenpox, measles, mumps, and rubella.

Estep said the split between Republicans and Democrats is evident in the response to public emergencies, such as whether to allow mercury-containing vaccines in an outbreak and to ban unvaccinated children from schools. Said there was.

“The difference is that more and more issues are being drawn into that partisan divide,” Estep said. “Previously non-political issues are steeped in partisan thought and politics, and the opinions and attitudes of the public and elected officials tend to align with the party.”

If there’s a “silver lining,” Estep says, it’s that state-level legislation heavily influenced by either Republicans or Democrats is unlikely to actually pass.

“Quite deliberately,” the article said, “American legislation requires compromise and coalition-building that may protect public health from the worst effects of polarization.” says.

And when it comes to early childhood vaccines, Estep said the “conservative-progressive” conflict isn’t all that old.

“For most of our investigation, this was not a particularly divisive issue,” he said.