If the memo doesn’t exist and the policy doesn’t exist why the lawsuit?
https://news.yahoo.com/york-hit-lawsuit-over-racial-180511911.html
2 Likes
There is a memo…
The memo does not deny white people vaccines. There has not been a single case of a white person being denied because they are white.
This lawsuit will fail because no one is being denied anything.
It’s race based and if it was the other way around you know where your position would be.
Minnesota, Utah and New Hampshire tried this crap too.
1 Like
Wait this was filed by Stephen Miller?! Trump Stephen Miller?!
Oh this is rich coming from him 
It’s not. Did you read the memo?
It clearly says race should be a risk factor when determining care. Not the ONLY factor. Just something to consider in triage.
No white person will be denied a vaccine based on their race.
Replace white with black in the memo and tell me you wouldn’t have a ■■■■ fit.
We all know.
1 Like
It’s not about the vaccine, it’s about health care providers determining eligibility for anti-viral treatments … based on race/ethnicity.
3 Likes
The same holds true.
No white person will be denied anti virals because they are white. Nobody has, nobody will.
You don’t know that. The written policy makes that a distinct possibility. If it wasn’t a possibility, there would be no reason for the policy.
2 Likes
Law suit on the same thing in Wisconsin and I think another somewhere further west. The 14th Amendment and the CRA swing both ways.
2 Likes
You would think they would learn. If eligibility for limited treatment resources was based on the severity of illness for each individual examined, if indeed blacks and hispanics are of higher risk, they will naturally be given priority over others who’s illness is not so severe. It’s simple logic.
2 Likes
No it doesn’t.
There are several risk factors listed. They just added one… race.
No one will be denied anti virals based on race.
Yes it does and it’s still racist.
2 Likes
Sure if you can show that someone will be denied anti virals based solely on their race.
Good luck.
It’s a racist policy regardless whether it ever results in treatment being withheld from a white person or not.
Answer @RTchoke’s question above (post # 306) and get back to me.
3 Likes
It won’t. It’s one of several risk factors to consider.
If the same stats/risk factors existed for white people… my answer stands.
For example, statistically speaking… black men are 50% more likely to get prostate cancer and twice as likely to die from it (over white men)… should doctors be allowed to consider those realities when treating black men? Is it racist for a doctor to tell a black man he should get screened earlier than what he may tell a white man?
Then why include it in the policy. If what you say is true, there would be no reason to do so.
And what about @RTchoke’s question? What would you say if the policy gave preference to white people?
2 Likes
Did you miss it?
Is it racist for my doctor to give me a prostate exam earlier than a white man due to risk factors associated with black men and prostate cancer?
That wasn’t the question, If the risk factor was the same, there would be even less reason to discriminate.
Prostrate exams are done with a finger. I don’t think there is any potential shortage of fingers among doctors that would warrant race being a triaj factor.
1 Like
It’s my answer. If white men where more likely to get sick from (insert disease here), I would consider “white male” to be a Risk factor.
Just like my example. Being a black male means Prostate cancer is more likely to kill me. So doctors consider my race as a risk factor.
Is that racist for docfors to consider my race when determining my need for prostate exams or treatments? Even if the data show I am far more likely to get it and die from it?
