Summary of States Expected To See More ‘Anti-Science’ Bills This Year

Overview of States Expected To See More ‘Anti-Science’ Bills This Year (Science Friday)

This Science Friday episode (host: Ira Flatow) examines a growing wave of “anti‑science” state legislation—laws that target public‑health measures such as vaccination policy, milk pasteurization, and community water fluoridation. Reporters Laura Unger (Associated Press) and Elyse Plunk (Louisiana Illuminator) discuss the national scale of last year’s bill introductions, who’s behind them, examples of enacted laws, and a detailed Louisiana case study that limits the use of community‑collected pollution data for enforcement.

Key takeaways

• Last year more than 420 bills described as “anti‑science” were introduced nationwide; the large majority (~350+) targeted vaccines.
• By the fall reporting deadline about 30 such bills had been enacted or adopted across roughly a dozen states, including Texas, Florida, North Dakota, Alabama, Montana, and Arkansas.
• Several national advocacy groups—often associated with prominent vaccine‑critical figures such as Robert F. Kennedy Jr.—have promoted or backed many of these bills (groups named in reporting include MAHA Action, Stand for Health Freedom, the National Vaccine Information Center, and the Weston A. Price Foundation).
• Reported human impacts include outbreaks and at least one family’s loss of a child to a vaccine‑preventable disease; reporters emphasize weakened herd immunity in some areas.
• New legislative sessions are already producing bills continuing these themes (examples: Kentucky bill to make water fluoridation optional; Indiana bill to require a state vaccine adverse event reporting system).
• State-level restrictions on what monitoring equipment can be used for regulatory enforcement are spreading—illustrated most starkly by Louisiana’s 2024 “CAMERA” law (Community Air Monitoring Reliability Act).

Segment summaries

1) National overview — Laura Unger (AP)

• Scope and definition: The AP focused on three domains—vaccines, milk safety (pasteurization), and fluoride—because these are long‑established public‑health measures with strong scientific evidence.
• Types of vaccine bills: ranged from making exemptions easier, adding regulatory hurdles to vaccination programs, to bans or special regulation of specific vaccine technologies (e.g., bills singling out mRNA vaccines). Some proposals were extreme in rhetoric (e.g., labeling mRNA vaccines as “weapons of mass destruction” in at least one bill).
• Spread and sponsors: Introduced in both red and blue states, but Florida and Texas stood out for volume. Enacted measures tended to have backing from the four national groups noted above.
• What reporters will watch this year: continuation of vaccine, fluoride, and milk‑safety bills; specific examples already introduced in Kentucky and Indiana; reporters also noted shifts at the federal level reported by sources (a claim about changes to the number of universally recommended childhood vaccines was mentioned and should be independently verified).

2) Louisiana case study — Elyse Plunk (Louisiana Illuminator)

• Community monitoring: Coastal and industrial regions in Louisiana (e.g., Cameron Parish, Mississippi River industrial corridor) have active community science projects collecting air, water, and noise data because residents live very close to refineries, LNG facilities, and other polluting industries.
• The CAMERA law (2024): Requires EPA‑grade (federal certified) monitors for data to be admissible for regulatory enforcement. Community monitors—lower‑cost devices often used by grassroots groups—are therefore effectively barred from triggering enforcement actions.
• Practical impact: EPA‑grade monitors cost far more (often tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars) and are out of reach for many community groups, even though some lower‑cost monitors can produce reliable signals and have been funded by EPA grants. Plunk highlights a disconnect: federal grants have helped groups buy monitors, but state law then restricts the use of their data for enforcement.
• Trend: Similar equipment‑restriction language has appeared in other states (Kentucky passed a related restriction in 2025; bills with similar verbiage have been proposed in Ohio and West Virginia).

Notable quotes and insights

• “The vast majority actually were anti‑vaccine bills.” — Laura Unger (AP) summarizing the AP investigation.
• On community science in Louisiana: “These agencies aren’t doing anything to figure out what’s going on. What can we do?” — Alyssa Portaro, community organizer (quoted in Plunk’s reporting).
• On CAMERA’s practical effect: it “makes it almost impossible for these community science groups to gather data that could then be used to enforce the law.” — Elyse Plunk.

Actions, what to watch, and how to track bills

• Watch for continuing introductions during state legislative sessions on vaccine exemptions, fluoride, and milk‑safety rules. Specific bills already flagged: Kentucky (optional fluoridation), Indiana (state adverse‑event vaccine reporting).
• Follow local and national journalism (AP, Louisiana Illuminator) and environmental/health advocacy groups for updates and analyses.
• To monitor bills in your state: use your state legislature’s official website to search bill texts and track committee calendars and votes. Many states also offer email alerts for bill activity.
• For community groups doing monitoring: document methods and calibration details for any instruments used and seek partnerships with academic or nonprofit labs to strengthen data credibility.

Caveats and verification notes

• Some claims mentioned in the episode (for example, a cited federal change reducing the number of “universally recommended” childhood vaccines from 18 to 11) were reported by guests; listeners/readers should independently verify such policy changes with CDC or federal sources.
• The episode attributes organizational backing and connections; use care in ascribing direct control—reporting identified associations between several national groups and anti‑science bills.

Further reading / sources referenced in the episode

• Associated Press reporting by Laura Unger (on anti‑science bills)
• Louisiana Illuminator reporting by Elyse Plunk (on CAMERA law and community monitoring)
• State legislative websites (to search and follow individual bills)

This summary captures the episode’s main points and examples to help you decide which parts to follow more deeply or track in your own state.