News & Insights

August is Civic Health Month, a time dedicated to ensuring that every voter has the information they need to participate in elections and understand how that participation can improve their health and the health of their communities. The relationship between voting and health has been visualized in the Health & Democracy Index, and since its launch, the Network has worked with Dr. Scot Schraufnagel, Chair of the Department of Political Science at Northern Illinois University, to further explore the data behind the Index. In this Q&A, Dr. Schraufnagel discusses this current research and its implications.

The end of the COVID-19 public health emergency (PHE) will create additional risks for people with disabilities. During the pandemic, under the authority granted by the declaration of the PHE, federal agencies took several steps to allow state Medicaid agencies to maintain health care coverage and Medicaid-funded home and community-based services for people with disabilities.  Federal agencies also granted state Medicaid agencies a range of flexibilities, including changes to Medicaid enrollment and assessments, intended to facilitate enrollment in Medicaid and the maintenance of coverage while reducing COVID-19 exposure risks.  

Our health and the health of our democracy are deeply connected. When people vote, they exercise their voice on decisions that have a big impact on their health and the health of their family and neighbors.  Analysis from the Health & Democracy Index shows a clear relationship between inclusive voting policies and better health outcomes: States with more inclusive voting policies and greater levels of civic participation are healthier; states with exclusionary voting laws and lower levels of civic participation are less healthy.

The Network is seeking a Public Health Senior Attorney to lead and coordinate work in our Act for Public Health (A4PH) initiative, which helps public health departments preserve their authority and powers to protect the health of communities. This position will track and analyze legislation, provide legal technical assistance, conduct training, develop tools and educational materials, and facilitate opportunities for networking and peer assistance. This position will also be the main point of contact and coordinate with A4PH partner organizations. As a team member, the Senior Attorney will help identify funding opportunities, write grant proposals, manage contracts and project deliverables, and perform other duties as assigned.

Litigation by and against the government and by and against product manufacturers can impact public health as significantly as legislation and funding. A recent ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit agreed with environmentalists, farmworkers, and food safety advocates in their joint lawsuit against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for failing to adequately consider whether glyphosate (a herbicide that kills grass and weeds) poses unreasonable risks to humans, endangered species, and the environment. Although the court did not issue an order prohibiting or limiting the use of glyphosate, the three-judge panel sent the issue back to the EPA for reconsideration.

On June 24, 2022, the Supreme Court made a decision that disproportionately affects the lives of Black and minority women in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization: specifically, access to abortion is not a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution. As a result of this decision, 26 states have already, or will soon, ban abortion with little or no exceptions, leaving approximately 33 million U.S. women lacking abortion access in their home states. Twenty-two states whose laws impose strict abortion restrictions collectively are home to 45 percent of Black women under the age of 55.

In Plata v. Newsom, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar’s order requiring the COVID-19 vaccination of all California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) staff that access CDCR facilities. The Circuit Court found that the CDCR's current partial vaccination policy, which only requires the vaccination of prison staff working in healthcare settings, does not constitute deliberate indifference to the health and safety of incarcerated persons in violation of the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. This article presents the facts of Plata v. Newsom and the deliberate indifference standard, describes why the Ninth Circuit’s decision incorrectly interprets this standard, and outlines the health equity concerns and public health implications resulting from the decision.

Some of the public health law and policy issues in the headlines in recent weeks include state and federal responses to the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade including President Biden’s executive order expanding access to "medication abortion" and ensuring women’s access to emergency medical care, family planning services, and contraception; the first major gun safety legislation passed by Congress in nearly 30 years; the Supreme Court ruling that limits the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority to regulate carbon emissions; and Oregon's ban on synthetic cannabis products.

On January 21, 2021, the Biden Administration issued a National Strategy for the COVID-19 Response and Pandemic Preparedness. One of the action items in the plan was to establish the COVID-19 Health Equity Task Force to make recommendations on strategies to mitigate health and social inequities due to COVID-19. The Task Force concluded its work in October 2021, issuing a Final Report and Recommendations. The report includes 36 recommendations involving law and policy that provide a framework for improving health outcomes.

Across the country, states and localities are using a variety of strategies to assess the health, equity, and racial impacts of legislative and administrative policies. Recognizing the need for a health equity assessment tool, the Health Equity Network of Ohio recently launched an analytic tool to support implementation of a Health and Equity in All Policies approach in Ohio. In this Q & A, two of the tools’ drafters discuss the opportunities the tools presents to advance health equity in their state.

Cannabis law and policy is evolving at a blistering pace driven largely by state legalization of medical and adult-use cannabis. While cannabis remains illegal under federal law, there are stirrings of change. In this churn of changing state laws public health is faced with myriad complex issues. How do we address social justice in the shadow of the war on drugs?  What policies are effective in preventing youth access? How can the tax revenue generated by cannabis legalization be used to reinvest in communities disproportionately harmed by the war on drugs? What role can local government play in this dynamic environment?  To help public health stakeholders better navigate critical issues like these, the Network is hosting a Summit on September 13th and 14th in Baltimore City, Maryland to explore pressing issues in cannabis law and policy.

The Network for Public Health Law (Network) is searching for a new National Director to provide strategic direction, lead organizational development, and oversee the work of its National Office and five Region Offices. The ideal candidate is an energetic hands-on leader with unquestionable integrity and high ethical standards, who is able to lead and inspire with an entrepreneurial mindset. The National Director must have exceptional ability to proactively engage and facilitate discussions with a broad range of stakeholders to champion the Network and its mission to provide visionary leadership in the use of law to protect, promote, and improve health and health equity. As the position is integral to ensuring organizational stability and growth, the National Director must have a strong track record in identifying and securing diverse sources of revenue, including philanthropic and government funding, as well as earned-income.