Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Take the Shot: The Country’s Future Hangs on Public Health Support

Opinion

Take the Shot: The Country’s Future Hangs on Public Health Support
black and gray stethoscope

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices met this week at a meeting of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. It linked 25 unverified reports of child deaths to COVID-19 vaccines as they consider further limiting access to this and other immunizations, like those for hepatitis B and MMRV. But they aren’t just playing politics. They are gambling with a quiet system that keeps Americans alive.

This latest attempt to undermine public health comes on top of the termination of thousands of federal health workers and more than $11 billion in grants that fund lifesaving research and community programs.


Public health isn’t just about pandemics, and cutting funding hurts everyone.

The U.S. already invests far more in treatment than in prevention. Less than 3% of health spending is allocated to public health prevention efforts, while the rest is spent on costly medical care after people are already sick.

Cutting public health prevention is like skipping routine maintenance on a bridge: you save money in the short term, but eventually the bridge collapses under the stress.

People in the U.S. are living longer than they did a century ago. In the early 1900s, you were lucky to make it to your 50th birthday. Cemeteries across the country are dotted with headstones of children who died in infancy or early childhood from infectious diseases rarely reported today.

In 2025, the average life expectancy is 78 years, and most children grow up to become parents themselves. This was no happy accident. This was public health.

Other nations have taken this lesson further. Countries like Japan, Denmark, and Australia, which invest more heavily in public health prevention, not just medical care, experience longer life expectancies at a fraction of the cost of the U.S.

The U.S. spends more on healthcare than any other nation, yet it ranks behind its peers in terms of infant mortality and life expectancy. The difference is public health.

Clean air and water, food that’s safe to eat, seatbelts, and airbags? Public health. From modern sanitation practices to reduced smoking rates, from fluoridated drinking water that prevents tooth decay to the worldwide eradication of smallpox—it’s all public health.

The notion that this country no longer needs public health because people are living longer, healthier lives is exactly backward. Those longer, healthier lives are evidence that public health initiatives are effective. When public health is working, “nothing” happens: disease and death are prevented, and people go about their lives without thinking about what might have been.

That invisibility is part of what made this country’s public health system a fragile and susceptible target. When administrations cut back on public health, the consequences only become visible after the damage is done.

But these recent attacks on public health aren’t abstract. They will translate directly into illness, death, and the loss of hard-won progress. It is already visible: the U.S. is currently experiencing the largest outbreak of measles in more than 30 years, the result of fewer children being vaccinated against the disease.

Public health hasn’t always gotten it right. But the solution to imperfection is not destruction. It is a stronger investment, better accountability, and broader reach.

The dismantling of public health that is unravelling in real time may feel like political theater, but the stakes are measured in lives. When you roll back vaccination programs, children die of preventable diseases. When you slash research funding, cures and treatments never materialize. When you gut local health departments, outbreaks spread unchecked.

Public health is everywhere and everything. It’s in every clean glass of water, every road trip made safer by seatbelts and airbags, every child who grows up without fear of polio. Weakening it doesn’t just roll back “government spending.” It rolls back decades of progress and exposes us all to risks we thought we had left behind.

The lesson of history is simple: investing in public health saves lives. The question now is whether policymakers will remember that lesson in time or only after citizens have paid the price.

Each individual can take action now: vaccinate your family, support your local health departments, and speak out against disinformation. Public health is our shared safety net, and protecting it is the responsibility of us all. Contact your representatives and urge them to protect funding for public health. Our lives depend on it.

Rachel Hoopsick, PhD, MS, MPH, MCHES, is an Assistant Professor of Epidemiology and a Public Voices Fellow of The OpEd Project and the University of Illinois.


Read More

NRF Moves to Defend Utah’s Fair Map Against Gerrymandering Lawsuit

USA Election Collage With The State Map Of Utah.

Getty Images

NRF Moves to Defend Utah’s Fair Map Against Gerrymandering Lawsuit

On Wednesday, February 11, the National Redistricting Foundation (NRF) asked a federal court to join a newly filed lawsuit to protect Utah’s new, fair congressional map and defend our system of checks and balances.

The NRF is a non‑profit foundation whose mission is to dismantle unfair electoral maps and create a redistricting system grounded in democratic values. By helping to create more just and representative electoral districts across the country, the organization aims to restore the public’s faith in a true representative democracy.

Keep ReadingShow less
A Constitutional Provision We Ignored for 150 Years

Voter registration in Wisconsin

Michael Newman

A Constitutional Provision We Ignored for 150 Years

Imagine there was a way to discourage states from passing photo voter ID laws, restricting early voting, purging voter registration rolls, or otherwise suppressing voter turnout. What if any state that did so risked losing seats in the House of Representatives?

Surprisingly, this is not merely an idle fantasy of voting rights activists, but an actual plan envisioned in Section 2 of the 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868 – but never enforced.

Keep ReadingShow less
People wearing vests with "ICE" and "Police" on the back.

The latest shutdown deal kept government open while exposing Congress’s reliance on procedural oversight rather than structural limits on ICE.

Getty Images, Douglas Rissing

A Shutdown Averted, and a Narrow Window Into Congress’s ICE Dilemma

Congress’s latest shutdown scare ended the way these episodes usually do: with a stopgap deal, a sigh of relief, and little sense that the underlying conflict had been resolved. But buried inside the agreement was a revealing maneuver. While most of the federal government received longer-term funding, the Department of Homeland Security, and especially Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), was given only a short-term extension. That asymmetry was deliberate. It preserved leverage over one of the most controversial federal agencies without triggering a prolonged shutdown, while also exposing the narrow terrain on which Congress is still willing to confront executive power. As with so many recent budget deals, the decision emerged less from open debate than from late-stage negotiations compressed into the final hours before the deadline.

How the Deal Was Framed

Democrats used the funding deadline to force a conversation about ICE’s enforcement practices, but they were careful about how that conversation was structured. Rather than reopening the far more combustible debate over immigration levels, deportation priorities, or statutory authority, they framed the dispute as one about law-enforcement standards, specifically transparency, accountability, and oversight.

Keep ReadingShow less
Pier C Park waterfront walkway and in the background the One World Trade Center on the left and the Erie-Lackawanna Railroad and Ferry Terminal Clock Tower on the right

View of the Pier C Park waterfront walkway and in the background the One World Trade Center on the left and the Erie-Lackawanna Railroad and Ferry Terminal Clock Tower on the right

Getty Images, Philippe Debled

The City Where Traffic Fatalities Vanished

A U.S. city of 60,000 people would typically see around six to eight traffic fatalities every year. But Hoboken, New Jersey? They haven’t had a single fatal crash for nine years — since January 17, 2017, to be exact.

Campaigns for seatbelts, lower speed limits and sober driving have brought national death tolls from car crashes down from a peak in the first half of the 20th century. However, many still assume some traffic deaths as an unavoidable cost of car culture.

Keep ReadingShow less