As the nation continues to grapple with the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, the Network has joined with public health law partners to produce a report that includes critical analyses and recommendations from 50 national experts convened to assess the U.S. policy response to the crisis to date.
Since the Biden Administration released its plan to advance racial equity in the United States, there has been significant pushback against the idea that systemic racism even exists. This questioning is not new, but it has taken on a renewed fervor as state and local governments, professional associations, hospitals and health systems, and corporations have made public commitments to addressing systemic racism and treating racism as a public health crisis.
The rise in anti-Asian sentiment is closely intertwined with the COVID-19 pandemic, and the xenophobic language used by some government leaders has further fueled discrimination and hate crimes against Asian communities in America. The violent, physical attacks on people of Asian descent around the country, and the horrific shootings in Atlanta — which the Asian American and Pacific Islander community and many other communities believe was racially motivated — are glaring examples of why racism is a public health crisis.
As of February 20, 2021, President Biden had issued 34 Executive Orders (EOs), several of which are intended to protect the public’s health. While the majority of the EOs use the power of the federal government to protect Americans from the COVID-19 pandemic, there are also measures designed to strengthen our public health infrastructure more broadly, and specifically relate to the impact of climate change.
As efforts are made to examine and evaluate the response to COVID-19 both generally and within public health specifically, states are taking a variety of approaches. Legislators in some states are seeking to clarify and bolster emergency powers and public health authority, while legislators in other states are seeking to curtail them sharply. The process unfolding in state legislatures has the potential to affect substantive developments in emergency powers and public health authority for years to come and should therefore be done only after careful consideration and discussion.
On January 28, President Biden issued the Memorandum on Protecting Women’s Health at Home and Abroad to address the previous administration’s “global” and “domestic” rules preventing U.S.- funded entities from consulting on, referring for, or providing abortion services, which presented clear obstacles to healthcare access for low-income women in the U.S. and globally. The memorandum is an important step toward increasing access to reproductive care.
Some of the public health law and policy issues in the headlines in recent weeks include the Biden administration’s efforts to implement a national COVID-19 testing strategy; the city of Sante Fe’s innovative approach to addressing homelessness; a House bill that would significantly expand voting rights; a Colorado bill providing added protections for public health workers; vaccine mandates for health care workers; a new law in California that expands access to mental health and addiction treatments; and COVID-19 vaccination registration and information websites that violate disability laws.
The Network for Public Health Law is pleased to announce this call for applications from those seeking legal and policy support for efforts to mitigate or adapt to public health impacts of climate change.
The COVID-19 pandemic has brought the tension between individual rights and the public good to the forefront of the national discourse. Many pandemic response measures—such as stay-at-home orders, mandatory business closures or restrictions, and mask mandates—have evoked vocal opposition by individuals who feel these measures infringe on their freedom. Despite the authority of public health to implement these measures, noncompliance has been a significant issue.
The COVID-19 pandemic has brought the tension between individual rights and the public good to the forefront of the national discourse. Many pandemic response measures—such as stay-at-home orders, mandatory business closures or restrictions, and mask mandates—have evoked vocal opposition by individuals who feel these measures infringe on their freedom. Despite the authority of public health to implement these measures, noncompliance has been a significant issue.
Data are essential for public health surveillance, epidemiological investigation, research, program development, implementation and evaluation. A complex legal landscape, and lack of knowledge and training in law, result in actual or perceived barriers to data collection, use and sharing. As a result, opportunities are missed to use and share electronic data to improve the health of communities, promote wellness, address social determinants of health and increase health equity.
Organizations across the country reached out to the Network for our leadership and expertise, and we played a vital role in the nationwide response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
