NY State Announces Racially Discriminatory Standard For Rationing COVID Therapeutic Treatment
Non-whites do not need to show they personally are at risk for severe illness to be eligible for treament, it is presumed from their racial and ethnic status. Whites need proof, a clearly discriminatory standard.
Citing a “significant surge” in COVID cases and “severe resource limitations”, the New York State Department of Health this week announced it would ration oral antiviral and monoclonal antibody treatments based on race:
Oral antiviral treatment is authorized for patients who meet all the following criteria (emphasis added):
- Age 12 years and older weighing at least 40 kg (88 pounds) for Paxlovid, or 18 years and older for molnupiravir
- Test positive for SARS-CoV-2 on a nucleic acid amplification test or antigen test; results from an FDA-authorized home-test kit should be validated through video or photo but, if not possible, patient attestation is adequate
- Have mild to moderate COVID-19 symptoms o Patient cannot be hospitalized due to severe or critical COVID-19
- Able to start treatment within 5 days of symptom onset
- Have a medical condition or other factors that increase their risk for severe illness.
Non-white race or Hispanic/Latino ethnicity should be considered a risk factor, as longstanding systemic health and social inequities have contributed to an increased risk of severe illness and death from COVID-19
Based on these guidelines, non-whites do not need to show they personally are at risk for severe illness, it is presumed from their racial and ethnic status. Whites need proof, a clearly discriminatory standard.
Such brazen discrimination against white Americans based on vague, sweeping claims of “systemic” “inequities” was rejected by several federal courts earlier this year when they considered the Biden Administration’s race-based pandemic relief programs. In those cases, the courts “rejected systemic racial discrimination as a compelling state interest to support race-based legislation.”
It seems inevitable that there will be constitutional challenges to the New York State Health Department policy prioritizing medical treatment based on race, just as there were to the race-based pandemic relief programs. When the government denies a benefit to citizens based on race, it must meet a very high standard to pass constitutional muster. The Biden Administration was unable to come up with the kind of concrete evidence necessary to do so. As the Sixth Circuit observed, “the bar is a high one,” and it is hard to see how New York State will be able to meet it.
————————–
Jane Coleman writes on law and policy and lives in New Jersey. Her legal treatise Secondary Trademark Infringement was published by Bloomberg BNA. You can follow Jane on Twitter @JaneBColeman and LinkedIn.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
That should be an incredibly interesting case study when the eventual litigation is resolved. When people choose to demonstrate very publicly in their actions that they wish to prioritize race or ethnicity and demand those concepts be injected into decision making to choose winners and losers we should make sure to label them correctly as racist.
Especially if plaintiff represents a white who was denied treatment and died as a result.
The amount should be on the order of $100,000,000. To discourage government officials from engaging in lethal racist behavior in the future.
Wanna bet that she and other powerful, well-connected white Communists get first priority?
This woman is nuts. She is genuinely nuts.
I thought no one could be as bad as Cuomo. I thought wrong.
For decades, men have been saying they can do jobs better than men. She proves it.
Paving the road with “good intentions,” New York State’s justification for mandating nursing homes accept contagious covid infected patients was to prevent “discrimination.”
This is what they do while operating under the restraint of laws and people who would push back.
Imagine what they will do when those restraints have been rendered completely impotent.
Andy,
These clowns are currently benefiting from the restraints of rule of law. When or if they abandon the restraints the rule of law provide the calculus changes dramatically. No doubt many of these clowns would like to impose their will and punish their opponents and reward their friends; they already do so in many spheres under their ideological yoke. Some would willingly employ the armed apparatus of the state against it’s citizens who dissent.
IMO, the majority of these would be fascists are simply running off at they mouth. They lack the will to face the adversity, strife and sacrifice such a course would demand from them. It’s one thing for them to wish cast but quite another to actually get their own hands dirty. Compare and contrast the life experience, career path, background and genuine level of ability to create or maintain the necessities of life between the typical d/prog and the typical MAGA populist. Now tell me who is more likely to succeed in a Hobbesien world without the restraints of Locke? I know which I will back.
“IMO, the majority of these would be fascists are simply running off at they mouth. They lack the will to face the adversity, strife and sacrifice such a course would demand from them.”
In all due respect, bull.
Fascist and communists are highly dedicated to their evil vision. This has been amply demonstrated time and time again. It is the not-so committed, the normal citizen just trying to get by and do best his family that shows restraint, fairness, and compassion. The radicals will not.
The typical progressive does not need the “ability to create or maintain the necessities of life.” In fact, they do not care a whit about that at all. They care about your enslavement to their will., and should you resist, they are most happy, delighted even, to sit you on the edge of the grave they just made you dig and put a bullet in the back of your head.
Don’t underestimate the mendacious will of these maggots.
BSR,
I don’t think we actually disagree. There are basically two classes of d/prog. The theoretical types and the foot soldiers. The theoretical types are administrators or knowledge workers while the foot soldiers are exemplified by the antifa goons. The d/prog, as a whole, have less practical experience in getting necessary things done; grow food, transportation, building and repairing. As a broad generalization they tend to choose less physically demanding careers. A bit oversimplified and there are exceptions but still valid.
In contrast the MAGA populist tends to be more well rounded. In general he knows how to garden and preserve food. He understands thrift and making do by performing maintenance and repair themselves. I believe that he would have vastly more relevant military experience than our potential opponents.
You correctly point out that sitting on the sideline during a period of strife is foolhardy. I would submit that neither side in an active conflict would allow that. Everyone will be forced to choose a side. Every counter insurgency conflict tells us that the reluctant middle can be motivated by fear of reprisal so the answer, unfortunately, is to be the most feared. The blue bastions are, largely, confined to the Northeast and the Pacific Coast with multiple blue city enclaves. Isolate them by dropping bridges, cutting rail, stopping pipelines for fuel and NG while isolating their power grid.
A modern city can’t function in isolation. The hungry cold residents will turn on each other. For that reason alone I sincerely hope that such a turn of events never comes to pass here. Those of us who have seen first hand how brutal and devastating a toll an internal conflict, civil war, insurgency and counter insurgency takes don’t wish to be involved in one in our Nation.
Unfortunately you are also correct that there are those who would delight in the idea of a Stalinist purge. I don’t believe the folks who want that are numerous enough nor competent enough to accomplish that. If they were so foolish to try then, IMO, they would be defeated in a no ROE conflict. I could be wrong but it certainly won’t be the automatic victory these totalitarian types hope for as they will rule a devastated landscape.
.Some would willingly employ the armed apparatus of the state against it’s citizens who dissent.
The personnel in that armed apparatus are only too eager to follow those orders.
There are reasons that now, even law abiding white folks are distrusting the police.
Grizz,
Some of those personnel would absolutely delight in it. Others would do so out of fear of consequences for not doing so. No question about that. However some would refuse and disperse. Those that remained would have made their choice. In the event of such a scenario it would up to those of us opposed to authoritarians to ensure that our opponents learn to fear us more than their masters. That will require deliberate actions with no containing ROE in order to generate fear. IMO the result would look similar to Yugoslavia where neighbor fought neighbor and the largest and most violent group tended to win in that area by any means required and often by using methods that were not required but very effective.
This should be avoided if at all possible. If not avoidable then it’s either win or be put to the wall and in that environment anything goes. Hopefully it never comes to this sort of thing. I don’t want it and no one with any experience in anything remotely like a civil war in destabilized Nation would wish it upon their own Nation. It would be truly horrific by design and deliberately cruel.
When?
Seems to me that some attorney with an eye on a cut of a large settlement could locate a suitable plaintiff: A white person who fulfills all the other criteria but has been turned down for not having a “medical condition or other risk factor”, and several suitable examples of similarly situated young, healthy “minorities” who did get the pills because their race counts as a risk factor. Once those are located, the suit writes itself.
How was this policy not enjoined within hours of publication?
If another state, say a state in south for instance, adopted a policy prohibiting black people from attending public school, how long would it take for a judge to put a stop to it? Moments. Moments is the correct answer.
That’s different! (R)
Because the Marxist judge(s) first reviewing it agree with it?
It was not enjoined, because it is a program of the Leftist Nomenklatura. As such it is defined for all practical purposes as being above any mere law or the Constitution. Even granting that there are more than a few questions about the oral medications and their safety and efficacy; this will be used as a precedent.
Subotai Bahadur
That is not true. Judges can’t do anything until a plaintiff with standing comes before them and asks for the injunction. Finding one of those takes time.
The third branch of government is ill-equipped to control sustained unconstitutional assault from the executive branch, especially as it relates to an urgent medical need. How many whites will be denied treatment on the basis of race, and of them, how many will die? They have not legal remedy for this. Whites should just go Galt, go on strike. Unfortunately the last two years have shown that way to many of us are willing to accept being ruled over.
Diversity, Inequity, and Exclusion
This is exactly what the end result of Obamacare was to be.
Implementation of CRT throughout American institutions is Obama’s legacy. As the closet Marxist intended.
We shall see if America succumbs to Comrade Obama’s racial Marxism.
Was thinking the same thing. If the government were to run all health care, think of the power the Dems will have to achieve “equity”.
Whites are 65% of the Country, why are we standing for this?
In feudal times, vastly more of the people were serfs or slaves. Why did they stand for it? How did they cease being serfs or slaves?
Subotai Bahadur
It isn’t the numbers, it is the number with guns. We can actually thank Klinton for jumping the, err, gun and being the one to crank up the heat too fast. At least 20 million Americans now have an AR in the closet thanks to him. In 1993 the black rifle club was a pretty lonely place. Not any more. But the real irony was the Chinese dumping all of the SKS rifles and ammo on the market in the 80’s, because they didn’t want their peasants to get ahold of them. Little did they know that they’d be arming the American peasants. Every Mall Ninja could afford an $89 SKS when the $600-800 AR’s were still out of reach. Of course the Mall Ninja would eventually put $500 of attachments on it, but that is another long story. 😉
This isn’t new. We’ve been getting memos similar to this from DOH for months.
I am researching how to change my ethnicity. I think it may just be self reported. I do have a Hispanic sounding first name.. so it just might work.
They want to play unfair.. so be it.
Elizabeth Warren has already shown how to do it. Native American status.
I’ve said this in other threads: were I filling out job applications today, or applying for college, I would tick the Asian and Hispanic boxes. If the box for “black” were marked with some fig-leaf thing like “west African”, or, “African-American, I would tick that box as well.
I’d be telling the truth in every case. Ancestry from Georgia/Ukraine (Asia), Spain (Hispanic), and the other two: some traces of Moroccan ancestry.
Use their own rules against them.
Seems to me that Rachel Dolezal and Shaun King have the solution. Just identify as transracial.
These women are batsh-t crazy:
AOC:
“If Republicans are mad they can’t date me they can just say that instead of projecting their sexual frustrations onto my boyfriend’s feet.”
https://t.co/Z7bZCgXpWJ
Such discrimination cannot be explained without ascribing some motivation; the obvious is rarely the actual motivation. And, this is a demonrat initiative/policy “imposed” on segments of the population which have resisted the “jabs” and “boosters”; and such segments have been trending away from the demonrat party servitude. … Could the “discrimination” be “punishment” rather than “favoritism” ?
There are some situations in which race or ethnicity is a valid medical consideration, as some groups are more (or less) susceptible to various diseases than others.
“longstanding systemic health and social inequities have contributed to an increased risk of severe illness and death from COVID-19” is not in my opinion a valid medical consideration so, as far as I am concerned, people should feel free to circumvent this by putting down whatever race or ethnicity they feel like to gain access to lifesaving treatments. My opinion, not medical or legal advice.
How about “I identify as (insert race or ethnicity of convenience here)” to circumvent racial preferences? You can, after all, identify as whatever gender you want, so why not?