From Inquest:
In October, well into the second year of the COVID-19 pandemic, public health workers across the U.S. were gathered virtually on computer screens spread throughout the country to attend the annual meeting of our professional organization. We sat awaiting the start of a session that would culminate in a series of votes where representatives from various internal divisions would decide on behalf of our organization to adopt or reject a set of newly proposed policy statements.
Several of us in the virtual audience had worked on and submitted one of these statements, titled “Advancing Public Health Interventions to Address the Harms of the Carceral System.” The statement reviewed research on the health consequences of incarceration and the health-promoting alternatives to incarceration — ultimately proposing a range of policies that would decrease reliance on the criminal legal system and move towards an abolitionist future, centering the public’s health and wellbeing. We had spent the months leading up to the vote engaging with the organization’s membership around the statement, discussing their concerns, incorporating their feedback, and addressing misconceptions.
On this day, however, as primarily non-voting members, we would not be permitted to speak. We waited, hoping our prior efforts would be sufficient to guide the discussion towards one rooted in a comprehensive evidence base, comprising collective, cross-sectoral knowledge. Continue reading >>>
|
|
|
|
