The problem is that where politics bleeds into fact, you don't want even-handedness. A debate about vaccine requirements may be political, but when people start supporting their position with factual claims, I absolutely do not want equal weight to be given to "vaccines help people" and "vaccines hurt people".
I just asked Claude Sonnet 4.5 about vaccines and what both parties think of them. It dared claim that "the issue doesn't fit neatly along a right vs left divide". This is insane. POTUS and his cabinet are clearly and loudly anti-vaccines, century-old diseases are making a come-back but let's not get political. This sanewashing of the right's positions is extremely dangerous and damaging of society.
I'm sure you don't but the debate is a lot more complex than the polarised version you present. People are not split up into two neat little camps on this matter despite attempts to do so. It is possible for someone to support one vaccine and oppose another due to issues arising from it. The other problem is that the term vaccine has been consciously redefined in recent years to encompass things it never used to. That's shifting the goal posts.
