December 2009

The Washington Times editorializes about racially discriminatory provisions in the health care reform bill (see our previous coverage here):

“Not only are these provisions morally suspect, but they also fly in the face of recent (and wise) Supreme Court precedent. Even in the one recent case where the high court did allow limited racial preferences, Grutter v. Bollinger in 2003, the court went to great lengths to note that ‘racial classifications, however compelling their goals, are potentially so dangerous that they may be employed no more broadly than the interest demands. Enshrining a permanent justification for racial preferences would offend this fundamental equal protection principle.’
…
“Other cases, such as Gratz v. Bollinger (2003) and Ricci v. DeStefano (2009), make clear that racial preferences by government are presumptively illegal. The Ricci case was the one in which the court ruled in favor of white firefighters who previously had been denied promotions that all agreed they had earned. Although not a direct constitutional challenge, it succinctly stated the guiding principle: ‘No individual should face workplace discrimination based on race.’”

The strangest part of all of this is people inherently understand that the provisions are discriminatory, even if the intent is to rectify the past or “fix” under-representation. Americans cannot invoke our country’s history of discrimination to justify such practices today. Government-mandated discrimination was wrong then, and it’s wrong now.

These aren’t mere platitudes intended to downplay this country’s previous treatment of blacks. We will never come to terms with the past if we continue allowing our government to rationalize racial discrimination for whatever reason.

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

Hans A. von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation writes about racially discriminatory provisions in the most recent version of the health care reform bill. The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights sent letters to Senate and House leadership and the president advising them to remove the language.

The provisions would grant funding priority to institutions that prefer and discriminate based on race. From National Review:

“The Senate bill even creates a federally funded and administered medical school called the United States Public Health Services Track to ‘grant appropriate advanced degrees,’” von Spakovsky writes. ‘Priority in admissions is to be given to ‘students from rural communities and underrepresented minorities.’ (‘Underrepresented minorities’ is liberal code for ‘Asians need not apply.’)

“Naturally, other sections of the bill require lots of data collection regarding race, ethnicity, sex, and so on. Those data will be used to implement quotas of all kinds and put providers at risk of being sued. For example, the data will help trial lawyers pursue “disparate impact” cases against physicians and hospitals — even if the differing health outcomes of patients have nothing to do with actual discriminatory treatment by providers. One provision even requires the secretary of health and human services to consult with “representatives of racial and ethnic minorities” about the content of promotional labels or print ads for drugs. Racial politics is poised to trump scientific accuracy in drug labeling.”

The commission cited research that showed improving quality of care at hospitals in minority areas would improve minority care more than eliminating racial disparities. Poor quality care and qualifications, and not the provider’s race or ethnicity, play greater roles in disparities.

“In, sum, the kind of care you get — and your individual health outcome — is determined by your doctor’s skill, not by his race or “cultural sensitivity,” writes von Spakovsky. “Unfortunately, the Democrats’ health-care legislation will force medical institutions to hire based on race and sex, not qualifications, and to lower their admission standards, which will lead to even more ‘low-quality’ doctors. Medical students admitted based on lower qualifications generally perform more poorly on licensing exams.”

Von Spakovsky invokes the late Patrick Chavis as an example of race over qualifications. Admitted to the University of California at Davis with lower qualifications than the rejected Allan Bakke, plaintiff in University of California v. Bakke, Chavis was sued for malpractice and lost his license.

If the provisions are unchallenged (legally speaking), they will pass along with the rest of the bill.

And race will retain its place in American law.

{ Comments on this entry are closed }