N※N

Anti-science bills hit statehouses, stripping away public health protections built over a century - The Boston Globe

  //science-technology.news-articles.net/content/2 .. tions-built-over-a-century-the-boston-globe.html
  Published in Science and Technology on Tuesday, October 21st 2025 at 20:05 GMT by The Boston Globe
          ^{🞛 This publication is a summary or evaluation of another publication 🞛 This publication contains editorial commentary or bias from the source}

275x183/6813 Bytes

300x168/8150 Bytes

275x183/9252 Bytes

The Boston Globe’s October 21, 2025 feature on “Anti‑science bills hit statehouses, stripping away public health protections built over a century” chronicles a surge of legislation across the United States that systematically dismantles public‑health safeguards established since the 19th‑century public‑health act. The piece is framed as a stark warning that state governments are now rolling back measures that have protected millions from disease, environmental hazards, and health inequities.

A National Tide of Rollbacks

The article opens with a quick survey of the legislative calendars in the nation’s 50 statehouses, noting that, in the last two years, every state has introduced at least one bill that would weaken or eliminate a federal or state public‑health measure. The Globe highlights four emblematic examples:

• Texas – A bill that would prohibit the state Department of Health from mandating COVID‑19 vaccinations for schoolchildren and would remove the authority to require masks in public spaces during an outbreak.
• Florida – Legislation that seeks to repeal the state’s 2020 emergency orders on COVID‑19 and to remove the power of the Florida Department of Health to issue public‑health orders.
• Kansas – A proposed amendment to the state constitution that would allow school districts to opt out of state‑wide vaccine mandates for teachers and staff.
• Ohio – Bills that aim to eliminate the “circuit breaker” authority that allowed local health units to close schools and public venues during surges of respiratory disease.

The article points out that each of these bills references the federal “public‑health powers” granted by the 1944 National Health Service Act and the 1964 Health Maintenance Organization Act, but the lawmakers’ goal is to curtail or eliminate the administrative powers that have historically been used to enforce disease‑control measures.

A Century‑Long Legacy of Protective Legislation

Following the quick survey, the Globe turns to the historical context of public‑health law. It explains that the modern public‑health system began in the 1840s with the first public health acts in Massachusetts and New York, and that the federal Public Health Service Act of 1944 gave the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare the authority to coordinate disease‑control measures. The piece uses a diagram (linked to the Department of Health’s historical archive) that traces major public‑health milestones— the 1937 Public Health Service Act that added “public‑health” to the federal government’s mandate, the 1964 act that broadened the scope of public health to include environmental hazards, and the 1974 National Environmental Health Policy that established the first modern public‑health‑environment nexus.

The Health‑Community’s Counterpoint

The Globe goes on to interview leading public‑health experts who warn that the new bills would re‑introduce the “pseudoscientific” policies of the early 20th century. The featured doctor, Dr. Eleanor Kim, a professor of epidemiology at Boston University, explains that vaccine mandates are the most effective tool for preventing outbreaks of measles, pertussis, and other vaccine‑preventable diseases. She cites data from the CDC that, since the 2000s, measles cases in the U.S. have dropped by 99 % in states with vaccine mandates versus states that do not enforce them. The article also quotes a spokesperson for the American Medical Association, who states that the AMA has “long championed evidence‑based public‑health policies” and that the state bills “represent a step backward in the fight against preventable disease.”

The Economic and Social Cost

The piece explores the broader economic implications. The Globe reports that the World Bank’s 2023 Global Health Expenditure report notes that public‑health investment accounts for 12 % of total health spending worldwide, and that the rollback of these investments can lead to higher hospital costs during outbreaks. The article also draws attention to the disproportionate effect on low‑income communities, citing a New England‑based study that found that communities of color have higher rates of vaccine‑preventable illnesses when local governments roll back mandates.

Links to Federal Guidance and International Standards

In keeping with the Globe’s tradition of providing context, the article includes several links to federal guidance that the state bills would undermine:

1. CDC COVID‑19 Vaccine Guidance – The article quotes the CDC’s 2023 recommendation that all eligible children and adults receive at least one dose of a COVID‑19 vaccine.
2. WHO International Health Regulations (IHR) – The Globe explains that the IHR require states to develop national capacity for disease detection, which the proposed bills would impair.
3. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences – The article cites research from NIEHS that demonstrates a strong correlation between reduced public‑health interventions and increased incidence of climate‑related illnesses, such as heat‑stroke and vector‑borne diseases.

Conclusion: A Call for Vigilance

The final section of the article is a sober reminder that public‑health measures are not merely bureaucratic procedures but are the product of more than a century of scientific advancement and policy learning. It ends with a call to action for citizens and policymakers alike: “We must safeguard the scientific and administrative tools that have protected our communities for decades. The rollback of these protections is not a win for science— it is a loss.”

With more than 500 words, the Globe’s piece provides a comprehensive look at the emerging anti‑science legislative wave, situating it within the broader historical, scientific, and social context that underpins modern public health.