Health, religion and public policy experts discussed the challenges of vaccine hesitancy as well as the upcoming Texas legislative session at the 2024 Texas Vaccine Policy Symposium, hosted by the Center for Health and Biosciences at Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy Nov. 15.
“Vaccines have saved an estimated 4 million lives each year around the world,” said Kirstin Matthews, fellow in science and technology policy at the Baker Institute, in her opening remarks. “The World Health Organization ranks vaccines really as one of the top 10 greatest public health measures of the last century. However, vaccine hesitancy is now one of the major global health challenges as well. In this century, and especially during the COVID pandemic, we observed a large surge of misinformation about what vaccines do, how they work, what they contain, which has led to even higher levels of skepticism as well as hesitation amongst the public. Unfortunately, now we live in a world where vaccines have actually become politicized as well.”
Individual choice has been cited as a reason for vaccine hesitancy in the past few years, but health experts tend to stress the need for herd immunity — the idea that a large percentage of a community becomes immunized in order to protect those who cannot receive vaccines, like infants, the elderly and immunocompromised people.
“People can decide whether to be vaccinated,” said Terri Burke, executive director of The Immunization Partnership (TIP) in Houston, a co-host of the event. “However, everyone has the right to live free from preventable disease. What’s clear is that public health, particularly vaccine policy, remains a hotly debated and deeply polarized issue.”
Texas State Rep. Ann Johnson also spoke at the event and stressed the importance of bipartisan collaboration to promote vaccination. She represents the 134th District, which encompasses the Texas Medical Center — the world’s largest medical complex.
“It is my responsibility to represent all Texans, to represent all individuals of House District 134, and I believe very strongly I am not to be hyperpartisan,” Johnson said. “I don’t think that benefits us in any way. Unfortunately, there are many folks that will take advantage of hyperpartisanship for political gain, and I am worried that we are getting to a point in politics where party is superseding the interest of public health and our medical community.”
Michael Emerson, the Harry and Hazel Chavanne Fellow in Religion and Public Policy at the Baker Institute, emphasized the role of religious freedom in vaccine resistance among American Christians, noting that 40% of white evangelicals are hesitant and most are motivated to impress that hesitancy on friends and family.
“‘Faith over fear.’ Can’t emphasize how important that phrase is,” Emerson said. “If you are an evangelical yourself, you’ve heard it. If not, you need to know about it. In churches across the country, sermons on ‘faith over fear,’ outside of the churches with the signs ‘faith over fear.’ What does it mean? It means oppose the vaccine, don’t wear a mask, because that’s showing that you’re fearful and not trusting God.”
Emerson explained that American evangelicals tend to see themselves as under attack from outside groups, and sociologically that creates a stronger group identity and group commitment to a cause. Strong group commitment can also affect legislators.
Matthews and Rekha Lakshmanan, nonresident scholar at the Baker Institute and chief strategic officer at TIP, published a report ahead of the conference that reviews the voting records on vaccine-related bills of state legislators with health backgrounds in four states: Texas, Louisiana, Oklahoma and Arkansas.
“The relationship between the Baker Institute and TIP is unique and important,” said Burke. “The research that Baker folks conduct provides the fuel for TIP to educate lawmakers and the general public about the importance of vaccines.”
The data found that elected legislators with biology and health backgrounds in Texas cannot be counted on to support public health and vaccine policies. Not only did many of these legislators vote for anti-vaccine bills, but several sponsored bills that limited vaccine access, Matthews and Lakshmanan say. They explain that the public should not assume lawmakers with health backgrounds will vote to support vaccines or positive public health measures thanks to party politics.
“Political identity plays a significant role in shaping a legislator’s vote and decisions,” they wrote in the report. “Public health issues are not an exception to this rule, even when legislators have a background in biology or health.”
View the recorded livestream here, and read more about the Center for Health and Biosciences here.