This is not a surprise, as prevention policy has skewed toward progressives since the time of Ralph Nader, if not before.
Most prevention policies trade either freedom or money for human lives. Sometimes it is to protect people from themselves.
The importance of prevention policy increases as population density increases, which is consistent with the blue/red divide in the country.

I still know conservatives who believe seat belt usage would have happened even without government intervention.
I know conservatives who believe having Naloxone readily available is bad policy as it reduces the perception of harm for opiates, which increases first time use.
Of course gun policy and teen pregnancy prevention are other examples.

While the benefits of prevention are very difficult to measure (how do you know if you prevented something?), most studies show a payback of around $10 for every $1 spent on prevention.
I think for these reasons most prevention policy needs to remain local rather than federal, but we need to continue with federal funding for local prevention programs.
Alan