Bill Spotlight: SB1813 – Ending the 55-Bed Cap for Maricopa County Residents at the Arizona State Hospital

SB1813 Hearing Monday in the House Health Committee

Arizona’s behavioral health system includes an unusual rule that most people have never heard about: only 55 residents of Maricopa County can be admitted to the civil side of the Arizona State Hospital at any one time.

The limit dates back to 1995 and came out of the Arnold v. Sarn litigation that reshaped Arizona’s behavioral health system through the 1995 Stipulation Agreement. At the time, the goal was to reduce reliance on institutional care and move the system toward community-based services.

The 55-bed treatment cap isn’t written in Arizona statute. It exists only because of stipulation agreements stemming from the Arnold v. Sarn case that were later incorporated into the 2014 settlement that finally closed the litigation.

Today, however, the cap has become a major bottleneck in Arizona’s behavioral health system and no longer serves a useful purpose.

It’s important to understand what the cap does and does not apply to.

The limit doesn’t apply to patients sent to the Arizona State Hospital through the criminal courts (the forensic side of the hospital). It applies only to civil patients—people with severe mental illness who meet Arizona’s legal standard for court-ordered treatment because they are a danger to themselves, a danger to others, persistently or acutely disabled, and require the type of care that only a psychiatric hospital can provide.

How the Civil Unit Admission Process Works

Typically, a person experiencing a severe mental health crisis is evaluated in a hospital emergency department or crisis facility. If clinicians believe the person meets Arizona’s legal standard for involuntary treatment, the county attorney files a civil commitment petition.

A judge can then order treatment after hearing the evidence—even if the patient doesn’t want the help.

At that point, the system first tries to provide care in the least restrictive setting, usually a community behavioral health facility funded through AHCCCS or while the person lives with family or a behavioral health group home.

Only when those options can’t meet the person’s needs (and when the patient needs the intensive psychiatric services that only a state hospital can provide) does the system pursue admission to the Arizona State Hospital.

That’s where a bottleneck develops.

Because of the 55-bed cap created by the 1995 Arnold v. Sarn Stipulation Agreement and carried forward in the 2014 Settlement Agreement, Maricopa County residents end up waiting for admission even after a court decides they need the level of care provided at ASH. Actually – most of them can’t get in at all and get stuck in places that can’t meet their needs.

Again… nothing in state law requires the 55-person cap. Yet admission can still be blocked simply because the patient lives in Maricopa County.

Why the Cap Creates Systemwide Problems

The consequences ripple across the entire behavioral health system.

Patients can become stuck in emergency departments, crisis units, or community facilities that are not designed for long-term, high-acuity psychiatric care.

That delays treatment for people who are often in the most severe phase of their illness and forces them to receive care in settings that are not best for what they need.

Removing the cap would also allow ASH to re-commission unused space in the Ironwood and maybe even Palo Verde buildings once staff are hired and trained, creating more treatment capacity…  potentially adding more than twenty badly needed treatment slots.

A Partial Solution

SB1813 (which will be heard in the House Health Committee on Monday) addresses the source of the bottleneck.

Why lawmakers may lift the 55-bed cap for Maricopa County residents at the Arizona State Hospital

If SB1813 passes, the 55-bed cap would be eliminated directly in state law. No agreement between the original parties is needed to remove the current 55 treatment capacity cap. Why? Because the Legislature has the authority to make that change when there is a compelling community need and when the fix is narrowly tailored.

Once SB1813 is enacted, ADHS & AHCCCS could return to court with an amendment to the Settlement Agreement consistent with the new state law. Courts routinely approve such changes when circumstances have evolved… especially when statutes have changed.

A Personal Note

When the 2014 settlement agreement was finalized, I was Director of the Arizona Department of Health Services and signed the agreement on behalf of the state.

At the time, I disagreed with the plaintiffs’ insistence on keeping the 55-bed cap for Maricopa County residents, but I signed the settlement anyway.

The broader agreement set up objective performance measures and finally resolved a lawsuit that had lasted more than three decades.

In that context, the compromise made sense.

Today, however, the cap has become an unnecessary bottleneck in the civil commitment system and is increasingly unfair to Maricopa County residents.

Policies that no longer serve their purpose should be revisited—and this is one of them.
The Bottom Line
  • Arizona’s behavioral health system should admit patients to the Arizona State Hospital based on clinical need and medical judgment, not what county they live in.
  • SB1813 moves us toward that goal by ending an outdated policy that is a system bottleneck & barrier to care.
  • The 55-bed cap may have made sense decades ago in the context of a specific lawsuit and a different behavioral health system. Today, it’s simply getting in the way of the system working better.
  • The Arnold v. Sarn Settlement Agreement wouldn’t be at risk if SB1813 passes because courts routinely approve settlement agreement changes when circumstances change… especially when the legislature amends state law.
  • Even if SB1813 passes & ASH increases capacity by staffing up the vacant Ironwood floors, there will still be grossly inadequate high-end treatment capacity in Arizona – but at least things would be marginally better.

______________________________________

Our message to the House Health Committee:

Hi…

I’m writing to urge you to support SB1813 when it comes before your health committee next week.

SB1813 addresses a long-standing bottleneck in Arizona’s behavioral health system: the 55-bed cap for Maricopa County residents admitted to the civil units of the Arizona State Hospital. This limit is not in statute. It stems from a decades-old provision in the Arnold v. Sarn settlement agreement and no longer reflects the needs of Arizona’s largest county or today’s behavioral health system.

The result is simple and troubling: admission to ASH is constrained not by clinical need, but by a patient’s county of residence. SB1813 corrects that problem by requiring that admission decisions be based on clinical criteria rather than geography.

Some opponents have suggested that passing SB1813 would “reopen the Arnold case.” That claim is inaccurate and often motivated by a core opposition to psychiatric treatment in secure environments. The Legislature has clear authority to address pressing community needs through statute—especially when the solution is narrowly tailored, as it is here. SB1813 simply establishes in state law that access to treatment at ASH should be determined by medical need.

If SB1813 becomes law, the ADHS/AHCCCS could then return to court to seek a modification of the settlement agreement so that it aligns with the new statute. Courts routinely approve such updates when circumstances change or when legislatures revise the governing law.

In short, SB1813 doesn’t undermine the goals of the original settlement. Instead, it updates an outdated operational constraint that is now harming patients and creating unnecessary pressure throughout Arizona’s behavioral health system.

For individuals with the most severe mental illnesses who require secure hospital treatment, the current 55-person limit is simply no longer workable for Maricopa County. Clinical need—not geography—should guide access to care.

I respectfully urge you to vote YES on SB1813 when it is heard in committee.

Here’s my blog post with more information about the bill, why it’s needed, and why the Arnold scare tactics are inaccurate: Bill Spotlight: SB1813 – Ending the 55-Bed Cap for Maricopa County Residents at the Arizona State Hospital – AZ Public Health Association

Thanks for your consideration…

will

 

Corporation Commission Scraps Renewable Energy Standard 

Last week the Arizona Corporation Commission ended Arizona’s two decade long Renewable Energy Standard and Tariff (REST), ending a policy that for 20 years required utilities to increase the share of electricity generated from renewable sources like solar and wind.

The REST rules were first adopted in 2006 and required regulated electric utilities to get 15% of their power from renewable energy by 2025 including distributed sources like rooftop solar.

Last week the Commission threw all that out the window.

The former REST standards helped drive investment in clean energy by creating incentives for utilities and customers to install solar systems and other renewable technologies.

Electric power generation remains one of the largest sources of air pollution. Burning fossil fuels releases pollutants including particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and sulfur dioxide that contribute to asthma, heart disease, and premature death. Moving even a portion of the energy mix toward renewable sources reduces these emissions and improves air quality.

Renewable energy policies also matter for climate change. Heat waves are already intensifying across the Southwest, and Arizona is on the front lines of climate-related health risks. Expanding renewable energy helps reduce greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to those long-term risks.

Arizona’s former REST rules weren’t aggressive compared with standards adopted in many other states. Arizona’s requirement (15% renewable power by 2025) was modest. But at least it encouraged utilities to invest in solar and other clean technologies.

Removing the REST standards won’t end renewable development in Arizona because solar is often the most cost-effective way to add generating capacity – but even so – APS seems to be consistently averse to solar compared to methane generation.

Market forces will still drive some growth in utility scale solar. But eliminating the standard it will be much less than it otherwise would have been. 

Arizona voters elect the members of the Corporation Commission. The current commissioners campaigned openly on their opposition to clean-energy mandates and renewable standards. Voters knew their views.

In that sense, the decision to scrap the REST rules reflects the direction AZ voters chose when they elected the current commission.

That doesn’t make the outcome good for public health. But it explains how we got here.

Agenda Posted: AZPHA Conference – From Crisis to Care: Improving Outcomes in Arizona’s Behavioral Health System

From Crisis to Care:
Improving Outcomes in Arizona’s Behavioral Health System
May 1, 2026: Desert Willow Conference Center

The Arizona Public Health Association’s 2026 conference will focus on strengthening Arizona’s behavioral health system and improving outcomes for people with mental and behavioral health needs.

Arizona’s behavioral health system sits at the intersection of public health, Medicaid, housing, courts, and community-based services.

View Our Agenda

This year’s conference will highlight innovative strategies, evidence-based practices, and policy approaches that move the system beyond crisis response toward sustainable, person-centered care. Our final agenda will be released in late February and will focus on:

  • Policy, Advocacy, and Systems Change
  • Serious Mental Illness & Population-Specific Needs
  • Integrated Care and Community Well-Being
  • Crisis Response and Civil Commitment Systems
  • Maternal Mental Health & Perinatal Care
  • AI & Behavioral Health
  • Keynote address from Dr. Georges Benjamin, APHA Executive Director

View Our Agenda

Register

Sponsorship Opportunities & Benefits

Webinar for Health Professionals About Kupper’s Constitutional Amendment Eliminating Public Health Authority & Vaccine Requirements

Arizona healthcare and public health leaders are invited to join a 60-minute webinar on March 10 at 6 PM to understand the potential impact of HCR2056, a proposed constitutional amendment that could affect community health protection measures and disease control infrastructure.

Arizona voters may decide to end school vaccine mandates – Arizona PBS

‘Medical freedom’ bill means more lice in school | Opinion Bob England & Will Humble

This session will bring together experts in public health law, hospital leadership, and communicable disease control to discuss

  • What HCR2056 will impact
  • What it will not impact
  • Implications for hospitals, clinicians, and public health response
  • Potential effects on outbreaks, healthcare use, and state systems
  • What healthcare leaders can do to stay informed and engaged

Speakers include leaders from Arizona health systems, public health agencies, and national public health law experts.

This conversation is intended for healthcare executives, clinicians, hospital leaders, and public health professionals and Arizonans concerned about community health who want a clear understanding of the proposal and its potential implications.

Date: Tuesday, March 10

Time: 6:00 PM (AZ)

Format: Zoom Webinar Link

Meeting ID: 841 3014 5001

Password: HCR2056

Agenda Update: AZPHA Spring Conference – From Crisis to Care: Improving Outcomes in Arizona’s Behavioral Health System

From Crisis to Care:
Improving Outcomes in Arizona’s Behavioral Health System
May 1, 2026: Desert Willow Conference Center

The Arizona Public Health Association’s 2026 conference will focus on strengthening Arizona’s behavioral health system and improving outcomes for people with mental and behavioral health needs.

Arizona’s behavioral health system sits at the intersection of public health, Medicaid, housing, courts, and community-based services.

This year’s conference will highlight innovative strategies, evidence-based practices, and policy approaches that move the system beyond crisis response toward sustainable, person-centered care. Our final agenda will be released in late February and will focus on:

  • Policy, Advocacy, and Systems Change

  • Serious Mental Illness & Population-Specific Needs

  • Integrated Care and Community Well-Being

  • Crisis Response and Civil Commitment Systems

  • Maternal Mental Health & Perinatal Care

  • AI & Behavioral Health

  • Keynote address from Dr. Georges Benjamin, APHA Executive Director

View Our Agenda

Register

View Our Sponsorship Opportunities & Benefits

 

Mayes Sues CDC Over New Vaccine Schedule

Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes is challenging the way federal vaccine policy is being rewritten — and she’s right to do it.

Her lawsuit targets recent actions by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention under Kennedy that scaled back universal recommendations for seven vaccines: rotavirus, meningococcal disease, hepatitis A, hepatitis B, influenza, COVID-19, and RSV.

But this case isn’t just about the vaccines themselves.

It’s about the process.

As we wrote back in early January, the initial schedule changes created less immediate disruption than the headlines suggested. Insurance coverage didn’t end. School requirements in Arizona didn’t suddenly change. Pediatricians largely kept practicing according to long-standing evidence.

But we also warned that the real threat wasn’t the first round of changes.

The federal vaccine system depends on a structured, evidence-based process led by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. That committee reviews data, debates publicly, and makes formal recommendations. Those recommendations drive insurance coverage mandates, clinical practice, and public messaging.

According to the lawsuit, that process was bypassed (and it was).

Kennedy cleared out ACIP and replaced members. Then, without the standard evidentiary review, a new vaccine schedule was issued. The suit argues the decision memo relied on officials with no statutory role in CDC vaccine policy development.

That’s a shortcut. And shortcuts in public health policy matter… especially when they involve immunization infrastructure that protects millions of kids.

Here’s the bigger issue: Kennedy is likely to remain in this role for 2.8 more years. If process shortcuts go unchallenged now, the risk becoming legally normalized.

That’s why this lawsuit matters.

Even when the immediate policy change seems modest, defending the process is important. The judicial branch is one of the few institutional guardrails available right now. Challenging procedural violations slow down Kennedy’s unilateral actions.

Protecting evidence-based vaccine policy isn’t only about today’s schedule. It’s about preserving the decision-making framework for the next several years.

Kudos to AG Mayes for taking up the mantle and defending evidence based public health policy.

HCR 2056: The “Right to Refuse” Constitutional Amendment Dismantles School Vaccine Protections & Undermines Public Health Authority

The Arizona House is expected to pass HCR2056 next week. If that happens, the Senate becomes the last real opportunity to stop it. Because this is a referendum, the Governor can’t veto it. It would go straight to the November ballot.

On the surface, HCR 2056 sounds simple. It proposes a constitutional amendment recognizing a broad “right to refuse medical mandates.” The language is framed around personal freedom and bodily autonomy.

But here is what the measure actually does: It effectively ends school vaccine requirements, undermines public health authority, and takes away the ability of schools and preschools to protect students from exposure to a host of disease and infestation threats.

Arizona voters could decide future of vaccine mandates in November

The constitutional amendment (if approved by voters) would prohibit government entities from requiring individuals to accept medical products or treatments as a condition of employment, education, or access to public spaces. That includes schools.

While the proposal never explicitly says “this eliminates school vaccine requirements,” that’s what it would do. Arizona’s longstanding immunization requirements for school attendance would be unenforceable. Additionally, if the voters approve it, a judge will surely say the existing school vaccine requirements are unconstitutional and order them to stop.

Arizona bill would enshrine right to refuse medical mandates in state constitution | Arizona Capitol Times

Public schools could no longer require routine childhood vaccinations as a condition of enrollment.

But there’s more.

Under current law, county health officers have authority to exclude unvaccinated students from school during outbreaks of diseases like measles AAC 9 Title, Chapter 6 Article 33 AZ Administrative Code… a long-standing public health tool used to slow transmission and protect medically vulnerable children.

A tool that will be increasingly important as measles again becomes endemic because of falling vaccination rates (even without a constitutional amendment ending school vaccine requirements).

If this constitutional amendment passes, that authority would disappear too. During a measles outbreak in a school, local health officials couldn’t exclude unvaccinated students while the outbreak is being contained (until they get vaccinated).

Likewise, schools wouldn’t be able to protect students from exposures to diseases and conditions like Meningococcal meningitis, Diphtheria, Typhoid, Scabies, and even Lice.

Using the lice example, a school or preschool would no longer be able to send a kid home from school or preschool pending application of anti-lice medication (pediculicide). Same thing for the other diseases listed above.

Again, the proposal doesn’t say this directly, which is why it’s so sneaky.

HCR2056 Is a Constitutional Amendment — Not a Statute

Ending school vaccine requirements and the associated ability of schools and county health departments to respond to outbreaks would be in the Arizona Constitution making it nearly impossible to fix later.

Statutes can be adjusted as circumstances change. Constitutional amendments cannot. This would permanently limit Arizona’s ability to respond to future infectious disease threats.

The Political Reality

If HCR 2056 reaches the ballot, it’ll trigger a high-dollar campaign with the biggest pockets on the ‘vote yes side. Well-funded organizations like Turning Point Action and other national advocacy groups have already proven their willingness to invest heavily in ballot measures like this one.

Expect them to use simplified slogans about “medical freedom” and “parental rights” and use their dough to confuse people into voting yes.

Don’t expect clear explanations about the loss of school vaccine standards or the elimination of outbreak exclusion authority from their side. We’ll need to do that if it happens.

The Bottom Line

School immunization requirements have protected Arizona children for generations. Outbreak exclusion authority has prevented measles and other vaccine-preventable diseases from spreading widely in classrooms.

HCR 2056 would undo both.

The Senate now has an opportunity to prevent this measure from reaching the ballot. If it advances, Arizona’s public health and healthcare communities will face a difficult and expensive campaign to defend basic disease-prevention safeguards.

We’ll be collaborating with a host of others over the next couple of weeks to get the word out to the Senate about how bad HCR2056 is. We’ll see soon enough if it works.

If our advocacy doesn’t work – then we’ll need to pivot ourselves to a fall campaign to educate millions of voters about why this is BAD.

Halftime at the Capitol: What’s Still Alive, What’s Dead, and What’s Dangerous

We’re basically at halftime of the 2026 legislative session.

By the end of next week, bills must have been heard in their committees of origin to stay viable. They don’t all need a final floor vote yet—but the clock is ticking. Expect long third-read sessions, especially in the Senate (the House already did its 4 a.m. marathon last week).

Only two bills are up in committee next week: HB2178 and SB1247 — and we support both.

Many bad bills have died quietly. Some good ones too. Plenty remain. And remember: the most important bills — the budget — don’t even exist yet.

Our top priority in the budget will be ensuring AHCCCS and ADES have the funding to implement HR1 by January 1, 2027. If we don’t prepare, hundreds of thousands could lose Medicaid and SNAP coverage. We also absolutely need to keep HCR2056 off the ballot.

View our updated AZPHA Bill Tracking Spreadsheet

Here’s where things stand.

Public Health Authority & Vaccination Policy

❌ We Oppose

  • HCR2056 – Awaiting House Floor Vote
    Would amend the AZ Constitution to prohibit any entity (including schools) from requiring vaccines or treatments as a condition of employment, education, public access, or benefits. Also strips outbreak control authority. Extremely dangerous.
  • HB2248 – Passed Full House
    Anti-vaccine bill prohibiting businesses and private entities (including medical facilities) from setting vaccine requirements. Likely vetoed if it reaches the Governor.
  • HB2086 – Passed Full House
    Prohibits governments and businesses from requiring masks or proof of vaccination (hospital carve-out unclear).
  • SB1194 – Awaiting Senate Floor Vote
    Prevents clinicians from declining electively unvaccinated patients.
  • SB1212 – Awaiting Senate Floor Vote
    Prohibits vaccine incentive reimbursement structures.
  • SB1011 – Awaiting Senate Floor Vote
    Requires medical examiners to record vaccination status on death certificates.

Healthcare System & Licensing Reform

✅ We Support

  • HB2176 – Passed Full House
    ADHS licensing reform. Stops “license swapping,” improves complaint transparency, structured dispute resolution.
  • HB2195 – Passed Full House
    Skilled nursing reform. Timelines, access to personnel records, CMS-aligned investigations.
  • HB2178 – Passed Full House; Senate Health next week
    Requires state chief medical officers to hold an active AZ MD/DO license.
  • SB1247 – Passed Full Senate; House Health next week
    Allows a non-service recipient to live with someone in assisted living (with consent).
  • SB1112 – Passed Full Senate
    Allows acquaintance witnesses in court-ordered mental health hearings.
  • SB1113 – Passed Full Senate
    Allows evaluation agencies to serve documents if court-authorized.
  • SB1169 – Awaiting Senate Floor Vote
    $18M appropriation authority for graduate medical education slots.
  • SB1564 – Awaiting Senate Floor Vote
    Requires long-term care facilities to disclose video monitoring policies.
  • SB1813 – Passed Full Senate
    State hospital admissions based on clinical need—not geography. Removes Maricopa cap.

AHCCCS & Medicaid Policy

✅ We Support

  • HB2051 – Passed Full House
    Expands AHCCCS breastfeeding and lactation coverage.
  • HB2177 – Passed Full House
    Restores tribal waiver services discontinued in 2010.
  • SB1372 – Awaiting Senate Floor Vote
    Forms committee to study comprehensive Medicaid dental benefit.

❌ We Oppose

  • HB2448 – Passed Full House
    Limits ADES ability to seek work requirement waivers.
  • HB2797 – Awaiting House Floor Vote
    Adds burdensome verification requirements for SNAP/TANF.
  • SB1236 – Awaiting Senate Floor Vote
    Adds bureaucratic eligibility checks for AHCCCS.
  • SB1368 – Passed Full Senate
    Restricts SNAP purchases to narrow statutory list (pending USDA waiver).

Oral Health

✅ We Support

  • HB2542 – Dead
    Would have allowed preventive dental care under AHCCCS emergency benefit.
  • HB2958 – Dead
    Would have provided dental coverage for pregnant AHCCCS members.

Behavioral Health & Serious Mental Illness

✅ We Support

  • HB2673 – Awaiting House Floor Vote
    Requires mental health screening, assessment, and treatment in county jails.
  • HB2923 – Awaiting House Floor Vote
    Improves judicial review standards for court-ordered treatment.
  • SB1112 / SB1113 / SB1813 – See above (all positive SMI reforms).

Reproductive & Gender-Related Bills

❌ We Oppose

  • HB2060 – Passed Full House
    Prohibits university health centers from mentioning abortion care.
  • HB2085 – Passed Full House
    Prohibits gender-affirming procedures for minors, including hormones.
  • HB2364 – Passed Full House
    Makes mailing abortion-inducing drugs a Class 4 felony.

Long-Term Care & Elder Protection

✅ We Support

  • HB2228 – Passed Full House
    Improves accountability in elder abuse reporting to the AG.
  • SB1247 – See above (assisted living flexibility).

Bills That Have Died (Not Exhaustive)

A number of problematic bills are gone, including ivermectin OTC (HB2007), fluoride prohibition (SB1019), religious exemption expansion (SB1016), and “Trump Derangement Syndrome” research (SB1070).

Some good ones also died — sun safety plates, jail clozapine fixes, preventive dental expansion — but we’ll regroup.

Bottom Line at Halftime

The most dangerous live bill is HCR2056. If it passes both chambers, it goes straight to the ballot. The Governor cannot veto it. That’s the one to watch. HB2248 is bad, but vetoable.

Meanwhile, the biggest fight is still ahead: the budget. If AHCCCS and ADES don’t get the operational funding to implement HR1’s work requirements and redeterminations, Arizona families will pay the price.

Why Violent Immigration Enforcement Is a Public Health Crisis

Violent and indiscriminate immigration enforcement isn’t just a civil-rights or legal issue. It’s a public health problem that harms trust, safety, and community wellbeing.

The Center for Public Health Law, through the Network for Public Health Law, recently explained why in “A Humanitarian Crisis Unfolds at Home.” Their analysis shows how aggressive federal enforcement by ICE and CBP undermines health, even far from the border.

https://www.networkforphl.org/news-insights/a-humanitarian-crisis-unfolds-at-home-violent-and-unlawful-immigration-enforcement-requires-us-all-to-respond/

Fear Is a Health Threat

Public health depends on trust. People need to feel safe seeking medical care, sending their kids to school, and reporting unsafe conditions. When enforcement is violent or unpredictable, families avoid clinics and withdraw from community life — not because they don’t want care, but because they’re afraid of what might happen if they interact with any authority.

That fear becomes chronic stress — and chronic stress drives poor health outcomes like anxiety, depression, and heart disease.

Communities Hurt Together

The Center’s report highlights that harm doesn’t stop with undocumented individuals. Clinics see fewer patients. Schools see reduced attendance. Community health workers lose contact with the people they serve. Public health agencies struggle to do basic prevention and outreach because people are too scared to engage.

Public health isn’t neutral about fear. Policies or actions that rely on force erode health, community cohesion, and essential social support systems.

Public Health Law Offers Guidance

Public health law helps us recognize when government actions start doing more harm than good. The Center for Public Health Law offers legal analysis and tools to guide policies that protect safety without undermining health or dignity.
https://www.networkforphl.org/center-for-public-health-law/

What AZPHA Is Calling For

As AZPHA’s statement earlier this week explained, violence and unaccountable federal enforcement are public health failures. We urged U.S. Senators to condition any Department of Homeland Security funding on verifiable accountability, independent oversight, enforceable limits on force, and protections for families — all grounded in public health principles.

Kelly, Gallego Introduce Bicameral Bill to Increase ICE Accountability and Keep Communities Safe – Senator Mark Kelly

The Bottom Line

Health depends on trust, safety, and access — not fear. If we care about strong communities and healthy people, we have to pay attention to how law-enforcement practices affect public health. Enforcement that harms health shouldn’t be accepted as normal. And public health law gives us a framework to say so clearly.