The issue of vaccine hesitancy continues to be a significant challenge to public health, and experts discussed this complex topic at the 2024 Texas Vaccine Policy Symposium. Hosted by the Center for Health and Biosciences at Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy on November 15, the event brought together health, religion, and public policy experts to explore how vaccine hesitancy affects public health, and to discuss potential solutions. The symposium also looked ahead to the upcoming Texas legislative session, which could have a major impact on vaccine policy in the state.
Kirstin Matthews, a fellow in science and technology policy at the Baker Institute, opened the event by highlighting the importance of vaccines in saving lives. “Vaccines have saved an estimated 4 million lives each year around the world,” Matthews said. “The World Health Organization ranks vaccines as one of the top 10 greatest public health measures of the last century.” However, Matthews acknowledged that vaccine hesitancy has become one of the most pressing global health issues in recent years. She explained that misinformation about vaccines, which spread widely during the COVID-19 pandemic, has contributed to a rise in skepticism and hesitation among the public. Matthews also noted that vaccines have become a politicized issue, further complicating efforts to address the problem.
One of the key topics discussed at the symposium was the concept of individual choice, which has been a central argument for vaccine hesitancy in recent years. While some people argue that they should have the right to decide whether or not to get vaccinated, public health experts stress the importance of herd immunity. Herd immunity occurs when a large portion of the population is immunized, which helps protect those who cannot be vaccinated, such as infants, the elderly, and individuals with weakened immune systems. Terri Burke, executive director of The Immunization Partnership (TIP) in Houston, explained that while people have the right to make personal health decisions, public health policies, especially those related to vaccination, should prioritize protecting the broader community from preventable diseases. Burke emphasized that vaccine policy remains a highly debated and deeply polarized issue in the United States.
Texas State Representative Ann Johnson, who represents the 134th District and includes the Texas Medical Center in her jurisdiction, also spoke at the event. Johnson stressed the need for bipartisan cooperation when it comes to promoting vaccination. She acknowledged that her role as a representative is to serve all Texans, and emphasized that public health should not be driven by partisan politics. “I don’t think that benefits us in any way,” Johnson said. “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.” Johnson’s remarks reflect a growing concern that political divisions are preventing meaningful discussions about the importance of vaccination and public health.
Another important issue discussed at the symposium was the role of religion in vaccine resistance. Michael Emerson, the Harry and Hazel Chavanne Fellow in Religion and Public Policy at the Baker Institute, pointed to religious freedom as a major factor contributing to vaccine hesitancy, particularly among American evangelicals. Emerson noted that approximately 40% of white evangelicals are hesitant about vaccines, and many actively encourage friends and family members to share their concerns. He explained that some evangelical communities promote the idea of “faith over fear,” encouraging followers to resist vaccines and other public health measures like wearing masks, viewing them as acts of fear rather than faith. Emerson suggested that this mindset has contributed to a stronger group identity among evangelicals, which in turn influences their political and public health views.
Ahead of the symposium, Matthews and Rekha Lakshmanan, a nonresident scholar at the Baker Institute and chief strategic officer at TIP, published a report that reviewed the voting records of state legislators with health backgrounds in four states: Texas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Arkansas. The report revealed that even lawmakers with backgrounds in biology or health may not support public health and vaccine policies, often voting in favor of anti-vaccine bills or sponsoring measures that limit vaccine access. Matthews and Lakshmanan emphasized that political identity plays a significant role in shaping a legislator’s decisions, regardless of their professional background. “Public health issues are not an exception to this rule, even when legislators have a background in biology or health,” they wrote in the report.
