vaccines - Bill of Health

Buenos Aires, Argentina, March 4, 2021. People waiting for their turn to be vaccinated against Covid-19 at the Club Atlético River Plate Microstadium.

Considerations from Argentina on the Judicial Control of Public Health Policies

April 14, 2023April 14, 2023 The Petrie-Flom Center Staff Leave a comment

By María Natalia Echegoyemberry and Francisco Verbic

This article looks at the COVID-19 pandemic response in Argentina, with a particular focus on the judicial control of public health policies. Looking ahead, we discuss the mechanisms that need to be implemented in order to avoid undue judicial interference, which is particularly critical in countries like Argentina, where the Judiciary is delegitimized and strongly questioned.

We focus on a case in Argentina where a federal judge ordered the suspension of the campaign for pediatric vaccination against COVID-19.

Improving the Future of Public Health by Applauding Appropriate Judicial Oversight

March 2, 2023February 28, 2023 The Petrie-Flom Center Staff Leave a comment

By Marshall B. Kapp

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Public Health Establishment (PHE)/legal enterprise collaborative fell short of constitutional standards in a number of situations, resulting in adverse judicial rulings of which the PHE and its like-minded academic advocates now complain.

This unhappiness with judicial oversight is an opportunity for introspection. Rather than blaming nefarious or deplorable other forces, a better approach to rehabilitating and enhancing public health law in the future lies instead in the PHE taking stock of itself and committing to a more open-minded, humility infused, and objective approach to the definition of science, the role of expertise, and the better targeted and clearly justified employment of legal force in the next major public health emergency context.

Playing the Long Game for Public Health Law

March 1, 2023February 27, 2023 The Petrie-Flom Center Staff Leave a comment

By Lance Gable

At the start of 2023, public health law in the United States faces two obvious structural shortcomings that need to be addressed: the inadequate fit between public health emergency powers and longer-lasting emergencies, and the increased susceptibility of public health law to dilution through political and judicial action.

President Joe Biden at desk in Oval Office.

Federalizing Public Health

February 28, 2023February 27, 2023 The Petrie-Flom Center Staff Leave a comment

By Elizabeth Weeks

The most promising path forward in public health is to continue recognizing federal authority and responsibility in this space. I carefully choose “recognizing,” rather than “expanding” or “moving” because it is critical to the argument that federal authority for public health already exists within the federalist structure and that employing federal authority to address public health problems does not represent a dimunition of state authority. Rather than a pie, of which pieces consumed at the federal level necessarily reduce pieces consumable at the state level, we should envision the relationship as a Venn diagram, where increasing overlap strengthens authority for promoting and protecting public health broadly.

The United States Capitol building at sunset at night in Washington DC, USA

The End of Public Health? It’s Not Dead Yet

February 27, 2023February 24, 2023 The Petrie-Flom Center Staff Leave a comment

By Nicole Huberfeld

Once again, health law has become a vehicle for constitutional change, with courts hollowing federal and state public health authority while also generating new challenges. In part, this pattern is occurring because the New Roberts Court — the post-Ruth Bader Ginsburg composition of U.S. Supreme Court justices — is led by jurists who rely on “clear statement rules.” This statutory interpretation canon demands Congress draft textually unambiguous laws and contains a presumption against broadly-worded statutes that are meant to be adaptable over time. In effect, Congress should leave nothing to the imagination of those responsible for implementing federal laws, i.e., executive agencies and state officials, so everything a statute covers must be specified, with no room for legislative history or other non-textual sources.

Lawyer working with agreement in office. man signing hand writing pen attorney concept.

Strategic Maneuvers in Response to COVID-19 Denialist Laws and Policies

February 23, 2023February 23, 2023 The Petrie-Flom Center Staff Leave a comment

By James G. Hodge, Jr.

Over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic, now entering its fourth year in 2023, legislators, executives, and judges at every level of government have sought measures to derail efficacious public health interventions. Despite clear risks of excess morbidity and mortality, these law- and policy-makers, often in more conservative jurisdictions, intentionally chose to push laws, guidance, and decisions prioritizing rapid “returns to normalcy” over the health and lives of Americans.

Casual observers of these collective trends may see the end of public health powers and services as we know them in the United States. And that’s where they are wrong.

New York NY USA-August 17, 2021 Businesses in Chelsea in New York display signs requiring proof of vaccination prior to entering.

Employers and the Future of Public Health

February 22, 2023February 21, 2023 The Petrie-Flom Center Staff Leave a comment

By Sharona Hoffman

As state and federal public health authority erodes, employers may increasingly find themselves playing a central role in promoting public health. For example, during the COVID-19 pandemic, many employers either incentivized or required employees and customers to be vaccinated and/or masked even in the absence of federal and state mandates. In the future, they may frequently take the lead in implementing public health measures.

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.

Tag: vaccines