History - Bill of Health

How the Supreme Court’s Judicial Activism Compromises Public Health

February 21, 2023February 17, 2023 The Petrie-Flom Center Staff Leave a comment

By John Culhane

The United States Supreme Court poses a serious threat to public health, but not because the majority of the justices are necessarily opposed to laws and policies designed to protect and further public health and safety. The problem, rather, is the justices’ commitment to other projects that they deem more central to their anti-administration and pro-religion ideology. Nowhere has this commitment been more apparent than during the ongoing COVID pandemic, but the court’s activism isn’t limited to that serious public health problem.

Atlanta, Georgia - January 28, 2022: US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Unmasking Public Health

February 17, 2023February 16, 2023 The Petrie-Flom Center Staff Leave a comment

By Jane Moriarty

One of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s stated “essential public health services” is to “create, champion, and implement policies, plans, and laws that impact health.”

Yet, as the U.S. slogs through its third COVID winter, one thing is clear: personal responsibility and autonomy are at the heart of public health messaging. As CDC director Dr. Rochelle Walensky famously said, “your health is in your hands.”

In other words, CDC and other public health bodies now highlight personal responsibility and autonomy, and minimize the institutional ability to champion policies and laws that would improve the health and safety of the citizenry.

Given the comparatively poor results that the U.S. has had compared to other similarly-situated countries that focus more on the common good, it is time for our public health entities to reinvigorate their role as a force of legal and moral suasion to protect the public’s health.

The moral value of protecting the health of the public should be at the forefront of their messaging. Personal responsibility and autonomy are no match for the reality of commodified and unavailable health care, internet disinformation, health vulnerabilities, age-related vulnerabilities, the lack of paid sick leave, poverty, and the plight of the institutionalized.

Overhauling our Federal Courts to Preserve and Advance Public Health

February 16, 2023February 16, 2023 The Petrie-Flom Center Staff Leave a comment

By Sarah Wetter and Lawrence O. Gostin

In the Federalist No. 78, Alexander Hamilton called judicial independence “the best expedient which can be devised in any government to secure a steady, upright, and impartial administration of the laws.” Judicial independence is also critical for public health. Over the last century, courts have affirmed broad public health powers and established modern health-related rights. Yet in a significant departure from history, today’s federal courts have been far from impartial, issuing ideology-driven decisions that will resound for decades to come, with harmful public health consequences.

Multiethnic women in colorful casual clothes discussing in the group meeting.

Rebuilding Trust in Public Health and Public Health Law

February 15, 2023February 13, 2023 The Petrie-Flom Center Staff Leave a comment

By Leslie E. Wolf

With our recent (and continuing) experience of the devastating COVID-19 global pandemic, one might think that our collective appreciation for public health efforts and the people advancing those efforts would be high. Instead, public health officials have been vilified and attacked, and public health laws have been weakened, leaving us vulnerable to the next public health emergency.

So, how do we move forward? An essential first step is to refocus on the “public” in public health. Public health efforts and public health law depend on community support.

person walking away from a surgical mask lying on the ground.

Personal Crusades for Public Health

February 14, 2023February 13, 2023 Katherine Macfarlane Leave a comment

By Katherine Macfarlane

Public health in the U.S. has collapsed. In its place, we are left with an insufficient, impoverished alternative: personal crusades. This essay describes the cost of casting aside what is best for the public’s health in favor of individual choice, especially to those who are high-risk for serious illness or death from COVID-19. It explores how they must negotiate public health measures on their own.

Rome - statue of Cicero from facade of Palazzo di Giustizia.

Reclaiming Salus Populi

February 13, 2023February 10, 2023 wparmet Leave a comment

By Wendy E. Parmet and Elaine Marshall

I. Introduction: The Threat to Public Health

As we reach the COVID-19 pandemic’s third anniversary, the warning signs for the future of public health law are everywhere. In the past three years, courts, led by the Supreme Court, have endangered reproductive health and handcuffed governments’ capacity to meet a wide array of public health challenges. Along the way, courts have displayed an alarming disinterest in science or the impact of their decisions on the public’s health.

At the same time, many state legislatures have rushed to introduce bills to limit health officials’ ability to act to protect the community’s health. Between January 1, 2021, and May 20, 2022, at least 185 of such laws have been enacted.

In this climate, public health law needs introspection, imagination, and regrouping.

simple black childish hand drawing lines lightbulbs on yellow background.

Failures of Imagination in Public Health Policy

February 10, 2023February 10, 2023 The Petrie-Flom Center Staff Leave a comment

By Daniel Swartzman

If public health is to prosper, we will need to overcome the after-effects of several failures of imagination.

Failing to recognize the threat to liberal democracy from the last 50 years of coordinated conservative political and policy actions.
Failing to use litigation against inadequate public health actions, as did the early civil rights and environmental movements.
Failing to anticipate litigation that challenges our efforts, such as with the ACA or the upcoming attempt to “codify Roe v. Wade.”
Failing to demand moral leadership of governmental actors.
Failing to make political action and advocacy an integral part of professional education in public health.

Hospital beds in a room filled with smoke.

The End of Public Health? An Introduction to the Symposium

February 9, 2023February 9, 2023 Jennifer S. Bard Leave a comment

By Jennifer S. Bard

Teaching public health law over these past three years has meant contending with a series of federal and state court rulings that in different ways have called into question many of what seemed to be the most established principles of public health law. The double whammy of the pandemic and a new, and very different Supreme Court have already resulted in more dramatic changes to public health law in the past few years than in the preceding one hundred plus years.

South Carolina’s Abortion Debates: A Game of Ping Pong

January 31, 2023January 31, 2023 Katie Gu Leave a comment

By Katie Gu

On January 5, the South Carolina Supreme Court permanently struck down Senate Bill 1 (S.B. 1), also known as the Fetal Heartbeat and Protection from Abortion Act, which banned most abortions after the sixth week of pregnancy. The decision was issued just five days before the state’s General Assembly returned for 2023, setting into motion a game of ping pong between the state branches of government in South Carolina’s abortion debates.

What the Supreme Court’s Expected Ruling on Affirmative Action Might Mean for US Health Care

January 26, 2023January 26, 2023 The Petrie-Flom Center Staff Leave a comment

By Gregory Curfman

Affirmative action in higher education may soon be abolished by the Supreme Court, resulting from its review of Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard and Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina.

The consequences for the physician workforce may be dire. Diversity among physicians is a compelling interest in our increasingly diverse society. Without affirmative action in higher education, our physician workforce may become less diverse, and the quality of health care may suffer.

This article explains the history of affirmative action in the U.S., past Supreme Court decisions, and the key arguments being considered in the two cases currently under review.

Category: History