Sometimes the government lets us down.

For those of us who have dedicated our professional lives to public health, this is difficult to acknowledge. Let’s face it, the very definition of public health – what we, as a society, do to assure the conditions in which people can be healthy – is reliant on a government that protects people, ecosystems and environments.

But here we are. By limiting access to safe, timely, affordable and respectful abortion care; prioritizing the rights of individuals to carry weapons over public safety; and restricting the federal government’s ability to regulate air quality, three recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions threaten the health of all people.

Worse, these decisions erode trust in our democratic institutions and further already longstanding inequality along age, gender, racial, ethnic, income and geographic lines.

While these decisions certainly impact individuals, the consequences reach far beyond – into our social fabric, our homes and communities, the economy and our country’s future direction. The decision to overturn Roe v. Wade takes away two fundamental rights from people who are pregnant – the right to privacy and the right to health care. Forcing full-term pregnancies when that is not what the person wants, or is safely able to do, strips their liberty and autonomy and strains community resources, including childcare, education, health care and social supports and services.

The decision to overturn Roe v. Wade represents the first time in history the Supreme Court has ended an individual constitutional right. It doesn’t take an interest in public health to be concerned about other rights now at risk of being overturned.

In its ruling on New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, the Supreme Court chose to prioritize the right of an individual over the safety of the community. This has broad implications, including for our collective ability to respond to threats to health and safety.

Gun violence harms public health. Data show that in areas where there are higher rates of community-level gun violence, there are also higher rates of domestic violence, child abuse, concentrated poverty and racial segregation. Making it easier to carry and conceal guns is the antithesis of public health.

Most of us would agree that breathing clean air is a basic right that should not be subject to political winds. Like many public health challenges, we see disparities in the burdens of poor air quality and respiratory health problems in rural, low-income and minority populations.

Given the deep pockets of polluting industries, federal regulation of air quality is a necessary tool for protecting the air we breathe across state lines, particularly for a state like Maine, where much of our air pollution originates in other states. Nevertheless, in its ruling on West Virginia vs. EPA, the Supreme Court restricted the government’s ability to curb emissions and limit air pollution that is harming human and environmental health.

Each of these decisions impacts determinants of our health that we cannot control, likely resulting in increased disease and premature death, with a disproportionate impact on people living in rural areas, racial and ethnic minorities, adolescents, people with behavioral and mental health conditions and those who are economically disadvantaged.

Maine Public Health Association stands in solidarity with members of the public health community in voicing our opposition to these Supreme Court decisions. We are committed to advancing and protecting public health policies that ensure equitable access to comprehensive reproductive health care, prevent and intervene to reduce gun violence and protect air quality.

These decisions remind us, again, that democracy is fragile; that our government and our rights require vigorous vigilance, and that elections have consequences for public health. Indeed, voting is a public health issue, and we remain committed to ensuring voting is accessible, secure and equitable for all eligible voters in Maine.

Copy the Story Link

« Previous

Commentary: Japan could send a message to North Korea, China by amending its constitution

Next »

Letter to the editor: Former Gov. LePage exhibits disconnect to reality