The outcome of the upcoming presidential election between Vice President Harris and former President Trump will have a strong impact on the lives of many Americans. During election season, public health is always on the ballot. We have asked our experts in topics such as abortion, drug policy, preemption, and employment law to share what they're watching for, the outcomes or changes they hope to see after the election, and possible impacts on the policy landscape surrounding these public health issues.
Here is what they had to say:
Abortion: Cydney M. Murray, JD
Are there any specific outcomes or changes you are hoping to see after the election in relation to abortion?
CM: “I’m keeping an eye on the abortion-related ballot initiatives being presented to voters in ten states this election season. Not only am I watching for their outcomes, but the specific language and messaging around them - from both proponents and opponents - are also important. Which initiatives successfully made it to the ballot, and which initiatives faced roadblocks (such as ballot initiative efforts in Arkansas) is notable, as well."
What are some of the key factors or data trends that voters should be aware of when it comes to abortion on the ballot?
CM: "Language is critical when it comes to abortion on the ballot – not only the language of the initiatives themselves but also the language used by proponents and opponents in their messaging about those initiatives. For example, mentions of fetal personhood and anti-trans rhetoric in messaging around abortion-related ballot initiatives are important to note, as they may signal how the policy landscape will shift and what to prepare for in the near future."
Resources on abortion policy:
Drug Policy: Jonathan Larsen, JD, MPP
What are you watching for during this election regarding drug policy?
JL: “The opioid crisis has not gone away—hovering at around 100,000 lives lost a year—this needs to be prioritized. This reality has garnered serious attention on both sides of the aisle. Numerous important policy changes have occurred over the past several years at the federal level, from continued telehealth flexibility for treatment of opioid use disorder (started during the pandemic), to the removal of the federal X-waiver requirement that has made prescribing treatment of opioid use disorder easier, to over-the-counter access to naloxone, and Medicaid 1115 waivers that originated during the Biden Administration to address social determinants of health (e.g. homelessness, lack of employment opportunities, and food insecurity) by providing states with flexibility to address housing, job training, nutrition, and other health-related social needs for people living with substance use disorders. These innovations need to continue and more hurdles to treatment and harm reduction need to be dismantled to better coordinate a response. I am looking for serious consideration of addressing the opioid epidemic at the federal, state, and local levels and a serious shift away from the “war on drugs” to a treatment and harm reduction paradigm that can more effectively reduce overdose and overdose-related deaths. Within this conversation, parity for mental and behavioral health services is also key.”
How do you think the current election might impact the policy landscape around drug policy, regardless of which party wins?
JL: "Every election is an opportunity to reassess priorities and refocus attention on critical issues. The opioid crisis has continued to take thousands of lives and that needs to change. That change will come from efforts to better coordinate response to the opioid crisis and align objectives around treatment and harm reduction rather than criminalization.
Continued federal and state attention to the Medicaid inmate exclusion policy is also needed, as this policy removes individuals from Medicaid rolls while incarcerated, often leading to the gaps in care just noted. Opioid overdose risk is at least ten times greater for those reentering the community following incarceration.”
Resources on drug policy:
Preemption: Lauren M. Langan, Esq, and Amy Cook, JD
*New preemption-focused research coming soon
What are you watching for during this election regarding preemption?
AC: "Preemption, where a higher authority of law overrides a lower one when they conflict, is a neutral doctrine, but recently we’ve been seeing it wielded as a political tool to shape policy. Unfortunately, I don’t think this current trend is going to slow down any time soon, but it’s important to remember that preemption can have positive impacts on public health. It can be used as a way to set minimum standards, such as setting a threshold fair minimum wage or requiring paid leave." – Amy Cook
LL: “Preemption in and of itself is neither good nor bad; it is the uniform policy being applied that determines whether preemption promotes or harms public health. Many of the preemption statutes we have collected contain nearly identical language, especially the preemption statutes related to transgender rights and race and racism in school curriculum— which tend to isolate marginalized groups and undermine public health. Unfortunately, it appears interest groups have taken a strong hand in writing preemption statutes. On the other hand, however, we have seen some "floor preemption" that could promote public health through minimum standards applies statewide with discretion left to local governments to apply more robust protections based on their local needs. For example, some states have begun paid leave insurance programs that ensure paid family leave (i.e., Colorado) while another state has enacted legislation requiring curriculum related to diversity (i.e., California). This election, I will be watching for candidates who prioritize public health and trust local officials to tailor policies to their unique local populations."
Resources on preemption policy:
Wages: Jennifer Lee, JD
What are you watching for during this election regarding wages?
JL: “I’m watching what candidates have to say that might impact low-wage workers (approximately 30 million “prime-age” workers making $16.98 or less). First and foremost is what the candidates are saying about increasing wages. But support for other work law policies too have the potential to impact wages: from paid sick leave policies to combat misclassification.”
Are there any specific outcomes or changes you are hoping to see after the election in relation to wages?
JL: “Several states are proposing minimum wage increases this election cycle. At the federal level, only Vice President Harris has come out to support a $15 minimum wage. This is a long overdue since the federal minimum wage of $7.25 was last increased in 2009.”
How do you think the current election might impact the policy landscape around wages, regardless of which party wins?
JL: "I am not sure. An increase to the federal minimum wage has been gridlocked in Congress for a very long time and will likely continue to be stalled after the election. Given likely federal inaction, we will continue to see some states step in to increase the minimum wage.
Interestingly, both Trump and Harris have proposed that they would not tax tipped wages. While that sounds great for tipped workers, it really masks a more fundamental problem: a separate federal tipped minimum wage of $2.13/hour, causing many tipped workers to live in poverty. Rather than give tipped workers a tax credit, we should eliminate the tipped minimum wage and raise baseline minimum wages for all workers."
What are some of the key factors or data trends that voters should be aware of when it comes to wages on the ballot?
JL: "Even when we are talking about increases to the minimum wage of $15 or $17 per hour, these increases are ultimately insufficient considering what a real living wage should be. Using the MIT Living Wage Calculator—which calculates wages backwards by determining the amount of money a family needs to pay for necessities, such as rent, transportation, food, and medical care—these amounts still fall short of allowing workers to meet basic needs."