YW Urges You to Vote NO on Prop 54 - California

[kasia]

i just wanted to post the text of the initiative here for members to discuss. for more information, you can visit www.informedcalifornia.org.

out of curiosity, is anyone voting for it?


Proposition 54: Classification by Race, Ethnicity, Color, or National Origin Initiative (CRECNO) Qualified for the October 7th, 2003 ballot.

Prohibition Against Classifying by Race by State and Other Public Entities

Section 32 is added to Article I of the California Constitution as follows:

Sec. 32

(a) The state shall not classify any individual by race, ethnicity, color or national origin in the operation of public education, public contracting or public employment.

(b) The state shall not classify any individual by race, ethnicity, color or national origin in the operation of any other state operations, unless the legislature specifically determines that said classification serves a compelling state interest and approves said classification by a 2/3 majority in both houses of the legislature, and said classification is subsequently approved by the governor.

(c) For purposes of this section, “classifying” by race, ethnicity, color or national origin shall be defined as the act of separating, sorting or organizing by race, ethnicity, color or national origin including, but not limited to, inquiring, profiling, or collecting such data on government forms.

(d) For purposes of subsection (a), “individual” refers to current or prospective students, contractors or employees. For purposes of subsection (b), “individual” refers to persons subject to the state operations referred to in subsection (b).

(e) The Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) shall be exempt from this section with respect to DFEH-conducted classifications in place as of March 5, 2002.

(1) Unless specifically extended by the legislature, this exemption shall expire ten years after the effective date of this measure.

(2) Notwithstanding DFEH’s exemption from this section, DFEH shall not impute a race, color, ethnicity or national origin to any individual.

(f) Otherwise lawful classification of medical research subjects and patients shall be exempt from this section.

(g) Nothing in this section shall prevent law enforcement officers, while carrying out their law enforcement duties, from describing particular persons in otherwise lawful ways. Neither the governor, the legislature nor any statewide agency shall require law enforcement officers to maintain records that track individuals on the basis of said classifications, nor shall the governor, the legislature or any statewide agency withhold funding to law enforcement agencies on the basis of the failure to maintain such records.

(h) Otherwise lawful assignment of prisoners and undercover law enforcement officers shall be exempt from this section.

(i) Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as prohibiting action which must be taken to comply with federal law, or establish or maintain eligibility for any federal program, where ineligibility would result in a loss of federal funds to the state.

(j) Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as invalidating any valid consent decree or court order which is in force as of the effective date of this section.

(k) For the purposes of this section, “state” shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, the state itself, any city, county, city and county, public university system, including the University of California, California State University, community college district, school district, special district, or any other political subdivision or governmental instrumentality of or within the state.

(l) This section shall become effective January 1, 2005.

(m) This section shall be self-executing. If any part or parts of this section are found to be in conflict with federal law or the United States Constitution, the section shall be implemented to the maximum extent that federal law and the United States Constitution permit. Any provision held invalid shall be severable from the remaining portions of this section.

[SunWuKong]

i am undecided on how i feel about this. on the one hand, it seems like it's ignoring the obvious problem of racism, on the other hand, it's definitely going to benefit Asian Americans in higher education.

[AliBabaIncorporated]

I'll probably vote for it. Though I doubt the effect either positive or negative will be very large at all. Those who are determined to find away around it, such as education officials trying to implement affirmative action by stealth, probably won't find themselves facing enough opposition to make a difference.

[kasia]

here is a bit about the effects of the proposition on healthcare.

MEDICAL AND HEALTHCARE PROFESSIONALS OPPOSE PROP. 54
Health professionals across state call measure's so-called medical exemption dangerously misleading.

Pledging to do whatever it takes so they can continue to save lives and protect the public health of California, medical and healthcare professionals from across California today vowed to launch a full frontal assault against Proposition 54.

The initiative, sponsored by Ward Connerly, would bar public agencies from compiling or using information about race or ethnicity. The dramatic impact would virtually eliminate statistical information that health care providers need to ensure quality care to all Californians, prevent disease and save lives.

Experts from such groups as the California Medical Association, California Nurses Association, California Primary Care Association, American Cancer Society, California Association of Health Plans, Kaiser Permanente and the UCLA School of Public Health denounce the initiative's so-called medical exemption, which they called dangerously misleading.

"The Connerly exemption is so narrow as to render it meaningless to the protection of public health and the greater good of California," said Dr. Jack Lewin, MD, CEO of the California Medical Association. "What he calls 'medical research subjects and patients' is in reality a miniscule number of people participating in a small number of studies and surveys. The vast majority of vital health information will still be kept out of the hands of the medical professionals who use it to save lives. Voters beware? this measure is bad for your health and this exemption offers you nothing but empty promises."

Virtually every group concerned with the provision of medical and healthcare services has come out in opposition to the measure, including hundreds of doctors, nurses and medical researchers who have never been politically active in the past. Many of them are on the front lines of addressing and treating diseases and illnesses that impact the general public.

"Clinics like the Venice Family Clinic serve a very diverse population," said Susan Fleischman, Medical Director of the Venice Family Clinic and president-elect of the California Primary Care Association. "Statewide, almost 70% of our patients are from communities of color. The one-size-fits-all model has not worked for these communities. While we should all receive care with equal dignity and quality, our needs are not all the same. Our clinics are successful because we utilize data by race and ethnicity to develop specific programs to meet the varying needs of each community no matter the race or ethnicity."

"Information enables public health professionals to target life-saving programs to those who have the greatest risks, those who can benefit the most. We use statistical analyses of such information to track health problems, identify who is most affected by them, and to develop strategies and programs to stop the spread of disease, reduce death rates and improve the health of all communities," said Dr. Rick Brown, a professor at the UCLA School of Public Health and the Director of the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research

Medical and healthcare professionals also warned of health threats that would be caused by Prop. 54. The warning was issued in a joint statement released today by health officials from Alameda, San Francisco and Santa Clara Counties, and the City of Berkeley. The statement emphasized the "disastrous" impact on health research and treatment.

[AngryABCGirl]

I sent in my absentee ballot voting No for it yesterday.

[kasia]

we've been calling people from apalc to inform them about the harms of the rpi initiative.

chinese people didn't seem too receptive - they just wanted to get of the phone. interestingly, korean people - regardless of age - were eager to tell us how horrible they thought the initiative was, and that they'd send it their absentee ballot right away.

perhaps this could be attributed to their experience during the l.a. riots (i.e., they are well aware that discrimination still exists).

[AngryABCGirl]

we've been calling people from apalc to inform them about the harms of the rpi initiative.

chinese people didn't seem too receptive - they just wanted to get of the phone. interestingly, korean people - regardless of age - were eager to tell us how horrible they thought the initiative was, and that they'd send it their absentee ballot right away.

perhaps this could be attributed to their experience during the l.a. riots (i.e., they are well aware that discrimination still exists).

There's actually been a lot of coverage about Prop 54 on Chinese television, but I don't know what effect it's making at this point. From my experience, Chinese people are generally scared of getting involved in *anything.* It's survival strategy that worked back in the day but screws you in America.

[SunWuKong]

There's actually been a lot of coverage about Prop 54 on Chinese television, but I don't know what effect it's making at this point. From my experience, Chinese people are generally scared of getting involved in *anything.* It's survival strategy that worked back in the day but screws you in America.


maybe they just don't think it affects them directly in their daily lives.

[kasia]

YELLOWWORLD urges all to VOTE NO on Proposition 54.

Now that the election is confirmed to proceed on October 7, please take a moment to consider another important item on the ballot: Proposition 54. At the board retreat in January of this year, we agreed to take a position against Propisition 54 and to make it one of our priority issues for the year. The board has participated actively in legal efforts and fundraising efforts to defeat Proposition 54. Here are our reasons:



PROP 54



Prop 54, if passed, will make it illegal for any non-federal public entity in California to collect individual data on race, ethnicity, or national origins in state operations, including public education, contracting and employment. Use of such data is then impossible, as one cannot use what does not exist.Â

The initiative purports to make government color-blind. But, if passed, it makes government completly blind to realities.
Â
A significant impact of Prop 54 is in the area of health care education and medical research. Different ethnic or racial groups enjoy and suffer at sometimes drastically different rates for various diseases; sometimes the factors are behavioral, sometimes they are genetic. Race based statistics help identify, for example, the increasing rate of breast cancer among Asian American women, and allow for targeted outreach. Although there is a stated exception in the intiative for medical researchers, the intiative overlooks the fact that much of the data upon which medical researchers rely is collected from other sources -- the very sources that this initiative seeks to hamstring by preventing them from collecting the data.

The initiative was poorly drafted with circular and missing definitions (as well as very narrow and unclear exemptions). This constitutional amendment, if passed, will likely undo the effects of years of legislation and practices aimed at promoting equality in housing, education, law enforcement, government contracting, employment and consumer transactions. Without data or statistics by race, ethnicity or national origin, many social ills become difficult to detect let alone to prove, such as hate crime, racial profiling by unethical law enforcement agencies, employment discrimination, biased contract award, and unequal allocation of educational resources. The proposition would impinge not only on individuals’ right of equal protection but also their due process right in proving the violations of that right.

Ward Connerly is the main proponent of this initiative. He may wish to hide his race and he may certainly elect not to provide that information on request. I, for one, am extremely proud of my heritage and am happy to declare it at every opportunity. Frankly, I think we should celebrate our racial differences, not hide or ignore them -- so that we are openly inclusive, not covertly exclusive. The misguided Proposition 54 initiative goes beyond that the sociological and would create significant harm and problems for increasing awareness, knowledge and progress in health, education, employment and law enforcement matters.



ORGANIZATIONS THAT ARE AGAINST PROP 54



Like APABA, other bar associations, health care professionals and many more have publicly opposed the proposition. The Asian Pacific American Legal Center, is the lead organization in the APA campaign against it. A partial list of Proposition 54 opponents:

American Academy of Pediatrics, California; American Public Health Association; Association of Asian Pacific Community Health Organizations; California Academy of Family Physicians; California Association of Public Hospitals and Health Systems; California Medical Association; California Nurses Association; California Primary Care Association; Physicians for Social Responsibility; Asian Law Caucus; Asian Pacific American Bar Association; Asian Pacific American Legal Center; Chinatown Service Center; Filipino Civil Rights Advocate; Hapa Issues Forum; Japanese American Citizens League; Korean Community Center for the East Bay; National Pacific Islander Educator Network; Organization of Chinese Americans; Pan Asian Lawyers of San Diego; South Asian Bar Association; Suthern California Chinese Lawyers Association; Vietnamese American Public Affairs Committee of California.



RECOMMENDATIONS



We recommend that you

Vote against Prop 54;
Inform your friends and families of the adverse impacts of Prop 54;
Support the Asian Pacific American Legal Center, financially or with volunteer assistance (contact Kathay Feng at 213-977-7500)

For more information, please go to www.informedcalifornia.org

[kasia]

Of course you'll vote for it. You're a right-wing kinda guy. You're white, right? At least a hapa.

on this board, we attack positions, not identities. there are many hapa members who are not in support of the proposition.

i suggest you go to the feedback & support forum and memorize the YW guidelines.

consider this your first warning.

[Fireblade]

I see. So where is exactly is my 'attack'? The term left-wing and right-wing are used often in the newsmedia. And if 'hapa' is considered an insult, well then isn't that a bit racist?

Here's a bit of advice to you, since you're new here to YW. Never pick a fight with Kasie. You'll never win in a debate with her. Not to mention she's a mod.

[SunWuKong]

I see. So where is exactly is my 'attack'? The term left-wing and right-wing are used often in the newsmedia. And if 'hapa' is considered an insult, well then isn't that a bit racist?


you're questioning a person's ethnic identity based on his opinions, and insinuating that a white or mixed person will naturally have opinions different from full-blooded Asian people. you are suggesting that someone's ethnic makeup will therefore form his opinions, regardless of a person's lifestyle and experiences. i'm going to consider that an attack, and don't try to argue about it, because i'm pulling the admin card.

by the way, that little remark makes you little different from many of the posters at MM.com, whom you claim to dislike.

[kasia]

Eh. The moderator card. It doesn't make you right, but it sure makes your opponent shut up.

=P

it doesn't make me right. but even absent the fact that i'm an admin, you should address the issue at hand and not attack the person's identity.

you were implying - in your post - that alibaba supported the initiative b/c he was part white. and if you deny this, what you are saying is that even when you join sentences together in a coherent paragraph, other members should view them as purely separate thoughts that have nothing to do with one another.

in other words, what happened was that you had sporadic thoughts and just happened to write them down one right after the other.

Random thought #1: Alibaba supports the initiative.

Random thought #2 that has nothing to do with Random thought #1 that immediately preceded it: Alibaba is hapa.

interesting stream of consciousness you have there.

k, let's get back on the topic. i don't support the initiative either.

[SunWuKong]

PROFESSOR FRINK PROFESSOR FRINK, HE'LL MAKE YOU THINK..HE'LL MAKE YOU....UH....


Yeah, I agree.


"he" is really a she, by the way.

[Chester]

love,
prof. frink

This is apropos of nothing in particular, but I was just wondering...

Do you type "love, prof. frink" each and every time, or is it part of your sig?

Yours Till Niagara Falls,

Chester

[kimpossible]

plus, what a leeway for the prison industrial system to get away with not informing what the demographics of the prison industrial complex are.

love,
prof. frink

ooh i hadn't thought of that. how very true.

[kimpossible]

This is apropos of nothing in particular, but I was just wondering...

Do you type "love, prof. frink" each and every time, or is it part of your sig?

Yours Till Niagara Falls,

Chester

i confess to wondering the same thing

[Tao]

This is apropos of nothing in particular, but I was just wondering...

Do you type "love, prof. frink" each and every time, or is it part of your sig?

Yours Till Niagara Falls,

Chester
i think she types it every time....her sig is in gray font.

[Tao]

My point was that whites are generally more conservative than ethnic minorities. Prove me wrong.
generally....maybe, but not everyone...and even less likely if he/she doesn't have white skin.

[deez nuts]

i'm in the health profession and i'm full asian. i would support this proposition, if i lived in cali.

[kimpossible]

i'm in the health profession and i'm full asian. i would support this proposition, if i lived in cali.

okay but why? i thought it disallowed race to be used in gather medical data. isn't that bad in analyzing diseases that affect certain races? i'm confused.

[Chris]

I will be voting NO on this Prop.

After reviewing the wording of this ballot measure. There is a lot of flaws to it. As more people learn about it. There is a lot more people that are against this ballot measure. I'm sure the writer "really" try to mean well. But unfournately I see more harm coming out of it than postive.

[deez nuts]

okay but why? i thought it disallowed race to be used in gather medical data. isn't that bad in analyzing diseases that affect certain races? i'm confused.


in the proposition

section F

(f) Otherwise lawful classification of medical research subjects and patients shall be exempt from this section.

[AliBabaIncorporated]

Of course you'll vote for it. You're a right-wing kinda guy. You're white, right? At least a hapa.
haha, if you're gonna engage in racial attacks and generalizations, at least let us know what race you are beforehand so we can throw the appropriate epithets back. Unless of course you simply dislike providing such information about your background (hey, a crypto-RPI-supporter!) Interesting how you call MM.com as Nazis, but then turn around and pull the same rhetorical tactics on anyone who disagrees with you.

rightwing? Howzat, cuz I don't support affirmative action? Guess what, that's cuz I've lived in another country with this same kinda system (bonus points if you guess which one, hint: I speak 3 out of the 4 major languages used there), except further along the road, and I've seen the debilitating effects on every level of society, from corporate governance to politics right down to friendships with your college classmates. So I want to knock down that system wherever I find it. If that means the two types of people whom California has in profusion, Asian-American "revolutionary" jackasses and white bleeding-heart "minority allies" from the all-white suburbs, wants to label me as a sellout, so be it. I'm voting with my feet to get myself and any future kids away from such neighbors, like millions of other ex-Californians.

I'm a libertarian, at a state level I'll naturally support the opposition party cuz their main goal will be to gut all the pork-barrel spending their opponents put into place. Nothing to do with race. Similarly, at a national level, though all the back-and-forth whining about the "stolen election" gets on my nerves, I mildly supported Gore. (No really. I'm not just saying this to try to give frink up there a heart attack.) Again nothing to do with race, I just find the Republicans' trade policies disgustingly hypocritical and can't stand the national party's confusion of "pro-big business" and "free market."

[SunWuKong]

My point was that whites are generally more conservative than ethnic minorities. Prove me wrong.


that matters little to me because you accused someone of being white or "at least hapa" just because he disagrees with you.

[achtungbaby]

My point was that whites are generally more conservative than ethnic minorities. Prove me wrong.I think you're missing the point. You're just being rude. We dont' have to act like children in here and debate semantics.

[Chris]

Eh. The moderator card. It doesn't make you right, but it sure makes your opponent shut up.

=P


I do suggest you watch you say very carefully. I know you're new but you are making enemies really fast here.

[Chris]

Okay, Mr.Fleischer.



Ten points to anyone who actually gets that.

^_^


I do and not funny

[annaplurabelle]

QUOTE (originally posted by The MaguS):
My point was that whites are generally more conservative than ethnic minorities. Prove me wrong.

Most people, regardless of race, are fiscal conservatives and social moderates. Prove me wrong?

QUOTE (originally posted by Chasiubao_Boy):
i'm in the health profession and i'm full asian. i would support this proposition, if i lived in cali.

What about this? (IOW, will it affect in hospital charts and third party med records???):

QUOTE (originally posted by kasia):
Experts from such groups as the California Medical Association, California Nurses Association, California Primary Care Association, American Cancer Society, California Association of Health Plans, Kaiser Permanente and the UCLA School of Public Health denounce the initiative's so-called medical exemption, which they called dangerously misleading.

"The Connerly exemption is so narrow as to render it meaningless to the protection of public health and the greater good of California," said Dr. Jack Lewin, MD, CEO of the California Medical Association. "What he calls 'medical research subjects and patients' is in reality a miniscule number of people participating in a small number of studies and surveys. The vast majority of vital health information will still be kept out of the hands of the medical professionals who use it to save lives. Voters beware? this measure is bad for your health and this exemption offers you nothing but empty promises."

[deez nuts]

QUOTE (originally posted by The MaguS):
My point was that whites are generally more conservative than ethnic minorities. Prove me wrong.

Most people, regardless of race, are fiscal conservatives and social moderates. Prove me wrong?

QUOTE (originally posted by Chasiubao_Boy):
i'm in the health profession and i'm full asian. i would support this proposition, if i lived in cali.

What about this? (IOW, will it affect in hospital charts and third party med records???):

QUOTE (originally posted by kasia):
Experts from such groups as the California Medical Association, California Nurses Association, California Primary Care Association, American Cancer Society, California Association of Health Plans, Kaiser Permanente and the UCLA School of Public Health denounce the initiative's so-called medical exemption, which they called dangerously misleading.

"The Connerly exemption is so narrow as to render it meaningless to the protection of public health and the greater good of California," said Dr. Jack Lewin, MD, CEO of the California Medical Association. "What he calls 'medical research subjects and patients' is in reality a miniscule number of people participating in a small number of studies and surveys. The vast majority of vital health information will still be kept out of the hands of the medical professionals who use it to save lives. Voters beware? this measure is bad for your health and this exemption offers you nothing but empty promises."

nope, in my opinion it wouldn't affect it.

they're blowing it way out of proportion, almost bordering on shock tactics. i wouldn't be surprised if they're all MPH's or hold a MPH degree along with their MD, Ph.D, RN or any combination.

[annaplurabelle]

nope, in my opinion it wouldn't affect it.

they're blowing it way out of proportion, almost bordering on shock tactics. i wouldn't be surprised if they're all MPH's or hold a MPH degree along with their MD, Ph.D, RN or any combination.Well, if you're right about that, then I would support it too. That is my major concern.

[kasia]

in the proposition

section F

it's vague. the courts will be left to interpret this. and how will they interpret it? nobody knows.

what if, say, they decide that only medical doctors can ask for this information? what would happen to other individuals in the field who would want to conduct similar helpful studies?

[annaplurabelle]

QUOTE (originally posted by professor frink):
anyhow, the exemptions prop 54 would allow are quite arduous and agrievous - the medical community would have to go through a long process of forms and papers just to obtain some data and information on race/ethnicity for their research.

Okay, then scratch my (hypothetical) vote. I'm against it again (I sometimes fail to follow my libertarian instincts).

QUOTE (originally posted by professor frink):
could i just add, and i know and i know - doesn't it tell the public something when the only most obvious and loud supporters of prop 54 are the cal republicans club?
(im at berkeley)

I know what you mean. But it's like pulling teeth to try and get realistic info on the repercussions of this legislation. In medicine, race matters (what race is, is another story). But being against something, as a knee jerk reaction against republican support, is (IMO) a stupid position. JUST GIVE ME THE FACTS, DAMMITT!!!

[kasia]

Well, if you're right about that, then I would support it too. That is my major concern.

what about the fact that it would be difficult for us to track down police departments that engage in racial profiling?

or whether students of certain ethnicities do better or worse or specific sections of standardized tests?

[kasia]

But being against something, as a knee jerk reaction against republican support, is (IMO) a stupid position. JUST GIVE ME THE FACTS, DAMMITT!!!

of course. but whatever gave you the idea that it was a knee jerk reaction against republican support?


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: September 03, 2003

Doctors, Nurses, Medical Researchers, Hospitals, Community Clinics, County Health Officers, American Cancer Society, Public Health Experts Blast Prop. 54
ELENA STERN
work (310) 226-3098
Cell (310) 738-1376

Pledging to do whatever it takes so they can continue to save lives and protect the public health of California, medical and healthcare professionals from across California today vowed to launch a full frontal assault against Proposition 54.

The initiative, sponsored by Ward Connerly, would bar public agencies from compiling or using information about race or ethnicity. The dramatic impact would eliminate statistical information that health care providers need to ensure quality care to all Californians, prevent disease and save lives.

Experts from such groups as the California Medical Association, California Nurses Association, California Primary Care Association, American Cancer Society, California Association of Health Plans, Kaiser Permanente and the UCLA School of Public Health stood outside the UCLA Emergency Center today to denounce the initiative’s so-called medical exemption, which they called dangerously misleading.

"The Connerly exemption is so narrow as to render it meaningless to the protection of public health and the greater good of California," said Dr. Jack Lewin, Executive Vice President of the California Medical Association. "What he calls ‘medical research subjects and patients’ is in reality a miniscule number of people participating in a small number of studies and surveys. The vast majority of vital health information will still be kept out of the hands of the medical professionals who use it to save lives. Voters beware – this measure is bad for your health and this exemption offers you nothing but empty promises."

Virtually every group concerned with the provision of medical and healthcare services has come out in opposition to the measure, including hundreds of doctors, nurses and medical researchers who have never been politically active in the past. Many of them are on the front lines of addressing and treating diseases and illnesses that impact the general public.

"Clinics like the Venice Family Clinic serve a very diverse population," said Susan Fleischman, Medical Director of the Venice Family Clinic and president-elect of the California Primary Care Association. "Statewide, almost 70% of our patients are from communities of color. The one-size-fits-all model has not worked for these communities. While we should all receive care with equal dignity and quality, our needs are not all the same. Our clinics are successful because we utilize data by race and ethnicity to develop specific programs to meet the varying needs of each community no matter the race or ethnicity."

Dr. Rick Brown, a professor at the UCLA School of Public Health and the Director of the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research spoke about the importance of continued public health data. "Information enables public health professionals to target life-saving programs to those who have the greatest risks, those who can benefit the most. We use statistical analyses of such information to track health problems, identify who is most affected by them, and to develop strategies and programs to stop the spread of disease, reduce death rates and improve the health of all communities."

Also attending the press conference today were Dr. Jonathon Fielding, Director of Public Health, County of Los Angeles, Howard Kahn, CEO, LA Care Health Plan and a board member of the California Association of Health Plans, Dr. Daniel Higgins of the Los Angeles County Medical Association, Martha Swiller, acting director of Planned Parenthood, Dr. Michael Rodriguez of the California Academy of Family Physicians and the Latino Coalition for a Healthy California, representatives from Health Access of California, the National Health Law Program, the California Physicians Alliance, California Pan-Ethnic Health Network, Asian Pacific American Legal Center, California Public Health Association North, doctors and nurses from the SEIU Local 660, which represents staff at the UCLA Medical Center, and the California Nurses Association.

While the medical and healthcare professionals were gathering at UCLA, Bay Area Public Health Departments also warned of health threats that would be caused by Prop. 54. The warning was issued in a joint statement released today by health officials from Alameda, San Francisco and Santa Clara Counties, and the City of Berkeley. The statement emphasized the "disastrous" impact on health research and treatment.

[deez nuts]

it's vague. the courts will be left to interpret this. and how will they interpret it? nobody knows.

what if, say, they decide that only medical doctors can ask for this information? what would happen to other individuals in the field who would want to conduct similar helpful studies?


is the potential medical ramifications of this proposition the reason or a big part of why you're apprehensive and skeptical of this bill?

there is no way MD's will be the only ones privy to this information.

in nyc hospitals (not sure about other hospitals nationwide) we're already subjected to a privacy act it's called Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. when it was first implemented less than a year ago at my hospital, everybody was screaming bloody death, how it'll affect patient care, how it'll stymie research progress and it'll be the end of the world.

[deez nuts]

of course. but whatever gave you the idea that it was a knee jerk reaction against republican support?


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: September 03, 2003

Doctors, Nurses, Medical Researchers, Hospitals, Community Clinics, County Health Officers, American Cancer Society, Public Health Experts Blast Prop. 54
ELENA STERN
work (310) 226-3098
Cell (310) 738-1376

Pledging to do whatever it takes so they can continue to save lives and protect the public health of California, medical and healthcare professionals from across California today vowed to launch a full frontal assault against Proposition 54.

The initiative, sponsored by Ward Connerly, would bar public agencies from compiling or using information about race or ethnicity. The dramatic impact would eliminate statistical information that health care providers need to ensure quality care to all Californians, prevent disease and save lives.

Experts from such groups as the California Medical Association, California Nurses Association, California Primary Care Association, American Cancer Society, California Association of Health Plans, Kaiser Permanente and the UCLA School of Public Health stood outside the UCLA Emergency Center today to denounce the initiative’s so-called medical exemption, which they called dangerously misleading.

"The Connerly exemption is so narrow as to render it meaningless to the protection of public health and the greater good of California," said Dr. Jack Lewin, Executive Vice President of the California Medical Association. "What he calls ‘medical research subjects and patients’ is in reality a miniscule number of people participating in a small number of studies and surveys. The vast majority of vital health information will still be kept out of the hands of the medical professionals who use it to save lives. Voters beware – this measure is bad for your health and this exemption offers you nothing but empty promises."

Virtually every group concerned with the provision of medical and healthcare services has come out in opposition to the measure, including hundreds of doctors, nurses and medical researchers who have never been politically active in the past. Many of them are on the front lines of addressing and treating diseases and illnesses that impact the general public.

"Clinics like the Venice Family Clinic serve a very diverse population," said Susan Fleischman, Medical Director of the Venice Family Clinic and president-elect of the California Primary Care Association. "Statewide, almost 70% of our patients are from communities of color. The one-size-fits-all model has not worked for these communities. While we should all receive care with equal dignity and quality, our needs are not all the same. Our clinics are successful because we utilize data by race and ethnicity to develop specific programs to meet the varying needs of each community no matter the race or ethnicity."

Dr. Rick Brown, a professor at the UCLA School of Public Health and the Director of the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research spoke about the importance of continued public health data. "Information enables public health professionals to target life-saving programs to those who have the greatest risks, those who can benefit the most. We use statistical analyses of such information to track health problems, identify who is most affected by them, and to develop strategies and programs to stop the spread of disease, reduce death rates and improve the health of all communities."

Also attending the press conference today were Dr. Jonathon Fielding, Director of Public Health, County of Los Angeles, Howard Kahn, CEO, LA Care Health Plan and a board member of the California Association of Health Plans, Dr. Daniel Higgins of the Los Angeles County Medical Association, Martha Swiller, acting director of Planned Parenthood, Dr. Michael Rodriguez of the California Academy of Family Physicians and the Latino Coalition for a Healthy California, representatives from Health Access of California, the National Health Law Program, the California Physicians Alliance, California Pan-Ethnic Health Network, Asian Pacific American Legal Center, California Public Health Association North, doctors and nurses from the SEIU Local 660, which represents staff at the UCLA Medical Center, and the California Nurses Association.

While the medical and healthcare professionals were gathering at UCLA, Bay Area Public Health Departments also warned of health threats that would be caused by Prop. 54. The warning was issued in a joint statement released today by health officials from Alameda, San Francisco and Santa Clara Counties, and the City of Berkeley. The statement emphasized the "disastrous" impact on health research and treatment.

and again MPH's spearheading this whole thing.

[annaplurabelle]

of course. but whatever gave you the idea that it was a knee jerk reaction against republican support?Just a general comment, inspired by this comment:

QUOTE (originally posted by professor frink):
could i just add, and i know and i know - doesn't it tell the public something when the only most obvious and loud supporters of prop 54 are the cal republicans club?
(im at berkeley)

Is that enough info to make an informed decision?

I'm a (currently non-practicing) RN. I still have no idea how this legislation would affect patient care, or research. And I'm making an effort to find out. So, just a commentary on how difficult it is to form a knowledgable opinion.

[annaplurabelle]

But the logic is there. If republicans support it, it's obviously quite a bad idea, and probably evil.


PS: I can't tell if I'm serious or not.I'm gonna go with: you're not serious. FTR: I'm "white". I don't trust republicans, I don't trust democrats, I don't trust opinion polls.

It's not that simple. If you want to debate this on the basis of fact, you have to do the grunt work (and I certainly sympathise with the idea that fact is difficult to come by).

[deez nuts]

I'm a (currently non-practicing) RN. I still have no idea how this legislation would affect patient care, or research. And I'm making an effort to find out. So, just a commentary on how difficult it is to form a knowledgable opinion.


off topic:

i assume you're in cali

you should consider coming to NY to work

1)there's a huge shortage of nurses here. the hospitals offer huge incentives like signing bonus, tuition reimbursement for grad school if you choose to specialize, 4-5 weeks paid vacation etc etc.

2)no pesky propositions to worry your head off.

[annaplurabelle]

off topic:

i assume you're in cali

you should consider coming to NY to work

1)there's a huge shortage of nurses here. the hospitals offer huge incentives like signing bonus, tuition reimbursement for grad school if you choose to specialize, 4-5 weeks paid vacation etc etc.

2)no pesky propositions to worry your head off.Hey, thanks for the advice, but I'm a New Yawker! Right now, I'm considering the grad school options, but leaning towards a total career change, since I don't plan on staying in the US (and I'm so tired, doctor).

(I'm married to an MD, so I'm living off my former good karma of supporting him through med school :p)

[deez nuts]

it's vague. the courts will be left to interpret this. and how will they interpret it? nobody knows.

what if, say, they decide that only medical doctors can ask for this information? what would happen to other individuals in the field who would want to conduct similar helpful studies?

i'll throw another variable into the mix. since yw has the occasional conspiracy theories that pop up every now and then on how "the man" and republicans keep us minority down; i'll throw in my first conspiracy theory like idea on yw.

say hypothetically that prop 54 is passed.

as you know most hospitals have one main hospital and several subsidary hospitals affiliated with that main hospital. if prop 54 was passed, hospitals wouldn't know the ethnic demographics in the surrounding areas of each of their hospitals.

follow me on this:

for example: my mom's radical hysterectomy with overlapping bilateral lymph node biopsy recently. her ob/gyn oncologist that did the procedure is affiliated with NYU hospital. he has priviledges at NYU hospitals. the main NYU hospital located on 32nd and 2nd ave is pretty afluent area with mostly upper class white people. after going through her medicaid paperwork and pre-cert to get approval for the procedure, they told her NYU hospital center doesn't take medicaid which is state health insurance for retired people without private health insurance. however, NYU downtown hospital in chinatown takes medicaid. NYU downtown is on the outskirts of chinatown inhabited mostly by recently immigrated chinese people. same hospital medical center affiliation. different insurance polices. coincidence?

it's the same at my old hospital: ny presbyterian-cornell on 68th and york ave. it's in the upper east side of manhattan. a really rich and affluent area mostly populated by rich white people. they don't take the state funded medicaid. one of it's subsidary, NY Hospital in Flushing Queens, populated by working class minorities takes medicaid. same hospital medical center affiliation. different insurance policies. coincidence?

so if prop 54 gets passed, the hospital administration won't be up to date on the possible changing ethnic demograhics around the hospital and therefore will not be able to determine the most efficient way to generate income for each hospital. the hospital isn't an altruistic place you may believe it to be. it is a corperation that needs to make money to keep it running.

[SunWuKong]

take your personal disagreements over on PM. any new irrelevant posts will be promptly deleted, just like the two posts i deleted.

[kasia]

is the potential medical ramifications of this proposition the reason or a big part of why you're apprehensive and skeptical of this bill?.

of course. that and the fact that i think that racial statistics are necessary for sociological and criminological studies as well.





there is no way MD's will be the only ones privy to this information.



but that's not what the medical exemption makes clear; it's only what you claim. why isn't it fair to say we will not pass the initiative unless we are clear that the exemption is broad enough to cover all necessary studies? again, i add that there is no rush. this initiative has been around since at least 2000, and it wasn't passed before.





in nyc hospitals (not sure about other hospitals nationwide) we're already subjected to a privacy act it's called Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. when it was first implemented less than a year ago at my hospital, everybody was screaming bloody death, how it'll affect patient care, how it'll stymie research progress and it'll be the end of the world.



i think you may describe this act in your post below, but let me ask, does it affect medical studies? what is the wording of the act?

[kasia]

i'll throw another variable into the mix. since yw has the occasional conspiracy theories that pop up every now and then on how "the man" and republicans keep us minority down; i'll throw in my first conspiracy theory like idea on yw.

say hypothetically that prop 54 is passed.

as you know most hospitals have one main hospital and several subsidary hospitals affiliated with that main hospital. if prop 54 was passed, hospitals wouldn't know the ethnic demographics in the surrounding areas of each of their hospitals.

follow me on this:

for example: my mom's radical hysterectomy with overlapping bilateral lymph node biopsy recently. her ob/gyn oncologist that did the procedure is affiliated with NYU hospital. he has priviledges at NYU hospitals. the main NYU hospital located on 32nd and 2nd ave is pretty afluent area with mostly upper class white people. after going through her medicaid paperwork and pre-cert to get approval for the procedure, they told her NYU hospital center doesn't take medicaid which is state health insurance for retired people without private health insurance. however, NYU downtown hospital in chinatown takes medicaid. NYU downtown is on the outskirts of chinatown inhabited mostly by recently immigrated chinese people. same hospital medical center affiliation. different insurance polices. coincidence?

it's the same at my old hospital: ny presbyterian-cornell on 68th and york ave. it's in the upper east side of manhattan. a really rich and affluent area mostly populated by rich white people. they don't take the state funded medicaid. one of it's subsidary, NY Hospital in Flushing Queens, populated by working class minorities takes medicaid. same hospital medical center affiliation. different insurance policies. coincidence?

so if prop 54 gets passed, the hospital administration won't be up to date on the possible changing ethnic demograhics around the hospital and therefore will not be able to determine the most efficient way to generate income for each hospital. the hospital isn't an altruistic place you may believe it to be. it is a corperation that needs to make money to keep it running.

i'm not quite following the point. i understand that race/ethnicity is tied to income - and that hospitals accept different insurance policies based on the income of the neighborhood. am i following? i'm not sure how this applies to our discussion.

aren't there other areas of medical studies that apply to purely race/ethnicity and have nothing to do with income level? for example, aren't certain races/ethnicities of people more prone to certain diseases?

[deez nuts]

but that's not what the medical exemption makes clear; it's only what you claim. why isn't it fair to say we will not pass the initiative unless we are clear that the exemption is broad enough to cover all necessary studies? again, i add that there is no rush. this initiative has been around since at least 2000, and it wasn't passed before.

i think you may describe this act in your post below, but let me ask, does it affect medical studies? what is the wording of the act?

sure tweak the prop to be more specific in regards to section f, either way, i'm still for prop54.

nope. the medical argument is a weak one at best. if you're gonna argue against prop54, i hope it would revolve on the issue of racial profiling. which is totally different debate than you and i are having right now.

and the wording of HIPPA. it basically insures patient confidentiality and anonymity via strict guidelines and protocol. i'm not gonna go through the specifics since we all had to go through a 2 day seminar, but feel free to look it up.

[deez nuts]

i'm not quite following the point. i understand that race/ethnicity is tied to income - and that hospitals accept different insurance policies based on the income of the neighborhood. am i following? i'm not sure how this applies to our discussion.

aren't there other areas of medical studies that apply to purely race/ethnicity and have nothing to do with income level? for example, aren't certain races/ethnicities of people more prone to certain diseases?

if this bill was passed hypothetically it will lead to a more uniform insurance policy amongst hospitals and it's subsidaries since the ethnic demographics won't be available. since the demographics would be used for hospital corperate reasons.

and in regards to certain groups being more prone to diseases? i'm sure that'll fall under section f in regards to lawful classification so that the right diagnosis and treatment can be made and applied.

[kasia]

here's an example in reference to mental health.

say, hypothetically, i wanted to ascertain whether an asian outreach program for victims of domestic violence were necessary. (this happens to be an true example of something i did in the past).

the most logical way to go about this - to gather information in order to obtain grants and to convince the board of directors of the center itself that such a program is needed - is to 1) gather data on reported incidents of domestic violence in asian homes (police records, etc.) or conduct a survey.

this number, then, can be compared with the actual number of asian women who call the number to seek help.

the reason i was inspired to do this project was because other studies showed that asian individuals in general are reluctant to seek help for mental help and instead wait until they are at the brink of losing it before either seeking help or being sent to seek help.

had prop 54 been in place at that time, i am unsure if the medical exemption would have applied to my study. probably not - b/c it wouldn't apply to police records. i'm also not a doctor in any way - so it would have been very difficult for me to conduct my own survey. and our center, which to this day asks the ethnicity of each caller, would not have records on the calling rate by asian women.

without this data, the board of directors would probably have been left unconvinced. and i doubt anyone would have given me a grant for a project that seemed unnecessary.

[deez nuts]

and if you can't find out the ethnicity of your patient or at the very least surmise and validate it directly with your patient, if it deems necessary. you shouldn't have gotten into med school to begin with, let alone be left to diagnose and treat them.

[deez nuts]

here's an example in reference to mental health.

say, hypothetically, i wanted to ascertain whether an asian outreach program for victims of domestic violence were necessary. (this happens to be an true example of something i did in the past).

the most logical way to go about this - to gather information in order to obtain grants and to convince the board of directors of the center itself that such a program is needed - is to 1) gather data on reported incidents of domestic violence in asian homes (police records, etc.) or conduct a survey.

this number, then, can be compared with the actual number of asian women who call the number to seek help.

the reason i was inspired to do this project was because other studies showed that asian individuals in general are reluctant to seek help for mental help and instead wait until they are at the brink of losing it before either seeking help or being sent to seek help.

had prop 54 been in place at that time, i am unsure if the medical exemption would have applied to my study. probably not - b/c it wouldn't apply to police records. i'm also not a doctor in any way - so it would have been very difficult for me to conduct my own survey. and our center, which to this day asks the ethnicity of each caller, would not have records on the calling rate by asian women.

without this data, the board of directors would probably have been left unconvinced. and i doubt anyone would have given me a grant for a project that seemed unnecessary.

first off, if you wanted to run a study like that you would need consent and approval, you don't think you can gather your specific demographic patient pool during that time?

[kasia]

if this bill was passed hypothetically it will lead to a more uniform insurance policy amongst hospitals and it's subsidaries since the ethnic demographics won't be available. since the demographics would be used for hospital corperate reasons.

and in regards to certain groups being more prone to diseases? i'm sure that'll fall under section f in regards to lawful classification so that the right diagnosis and treatment can be made and applied.


here's from the RPI web site's Q&A section:

3. Will the initiative affect University faculty members who currently use state-created data bases of racial and ethnic data for their research?

Yes, but the effect will be the same on faculty members of other institutions—both in and out of California—that currently rely on the same data.


but as we know, many studies done by universities don't use actual patients; student subjects are used. would they qualify as medical subjects? what if the study isn't done by the medical school but rather the one of the science departments? would that count? these are questions that have not been answered.

[kasia]

first off, if you wanted to run a study like that you would need consent and approval, you don't think you can gather your specific demographic patient pool during that time?

during what time? and consent and approval for what? what i'm saying is that the information wouldn't even be there for me to gather had the prop 54 been passed back then.

[deez nuts]

here's from the RPI web site's Q&A section:

3. Will the initiative affect University faculty members who currently use state-created data bases of racial and ethnic data for their research?

Yes, but the effect will be the same on faculty members of other institutions—both in and out of California—that currently rely on the same data.


but as we know, many studies done by universities don't use actual patients; student subjects are used. would they qualify as medical subjects? what if the study isn't done by the medical school but rather the one of the science departments? would that count? these are questions that have not been answered.

of course, it would. who's authorized to run studies. MD's and Ph.D's the rest need supervision of a MD and Ph.D to run a study. you think anyone can stroll in and run a research study?

[deez nuts]

during what time? and consent and approval for what? what i'm saying is that the information wouldn't even be there for me to gather had the prop 54 been passed back then.

where would you be doing the research? at a women's shelter i presume. to bypass HIPPA would would need approval from the in house staff and the irb. you have to consent your subjects on the aspects of your study don't you? the in-house staff would have records of the patient's ethnicity under section F

i would be more concern about getting IRB approval and bypassing HIPPA than prop54.

how many medical research projects have you done? i've done five, four are published in which of the four, i'm second author on two. the fifth one is pending approval by the journal publication that we submitted it to. you'll stand a better chance against prop54 than against HIPPA and the hospital IRB.

[kasia]

of course, it would. who's authorized to run studies. MD's and Ph.D's the rest need supervision of a MD and Ph.D to run a study. you think anyone can stroll in and run a research study?

PhD's are doctors, but not doctors in the medical sense. i don't think that the medical exemption applies to all doctors (e.g., anyone with a phd) in general. do you?

[deez nuts]

PhD's are doctors, but not doctors in the medical sense. i don't think that the medical exemption applies to all doctors (e.g., anyone with a phd) in general. do you?

yes.

for example: psychologists are Ph.D's. psychiatrists are MD's. the only difference is that a psychiatrist can prescribe meds.

who do you think does medical research? Ph.D's and MD/Ph.D's.

[deez nuts]

PhD's are doctors, but not doctors in the medical sense. i don't think that the medical exemption applies to all doctors (e.g., anyone with a phd) in general. do you?

yes.

for example: psychologists are Ph.D's. psychiatrists are MD's. the only difference is that a psychiatrist can prescribe meds.

who do you think does medical research? mostly all Ph.D's and MD/Ph.D's.

[kasia]

where would you be doing the research? at a women's shelter i presume. to bypass HIPPA would would need approval from the in house staff and the irb. you have to consent your subjects on the aspects of your study don't you? the in-house staff would have records of the patient's ethnicity under section F

i would be more concern about getting IRB approval and bypassing HIPPA than prop54.

how many medical research projects have you done? i've done five, four are published in which of the four, i'm second author on two. the fifth one is pending approval by the journal publication that we submitted it to. you'll stand a better chance against prop54 than against HIPPA and the hospital IRB.

that's my point. i haven't done any medical research projects. the study that i conducted wasn't considered a medical study at all. it was a sociological study. imagine the hurdles that prop 54 would set for studies like these.

also, although we have patients at the clinic, i wanted to ascertain the race of the callers - not just the patients. would the callers have qualified as medical subjects? it's not clear.

[kasia]

yes.

for example: psychologists are Ph.D's. psychiatrists are MD's. the only difference is that a psychiatrist can prescribe meds.

who do you think does medical research? mostly all Ph.D's and MD/Ph.D's.

i'm agreeing with you. but you're speaking of medical research in the broad sense. our concern is that the initiative does not.

[deez nuts]

i'm agreeing with you. but you're speaking of medical research in the broad sense. our concern is that the initiative does not.

i'm saying it does and section F isn't the death of patient care.

[deez nuts]

that's my point. i haven't done any medical research projects. the study that i conducted wasn't considered a medical study at all. it was a sociological study. imagine the hurdles that prop 54 would set for studies like these.

also, although we have patients at the clinic, i wanted to ascertain the race of the callers - not just the patients. would the callers have qualified as medical subjects? it's not clear.

ok sociological

who was mentoring you? where was the patient pool from or where did you get referrals for your participants?

[kasia]

ok sociological

who was mentoring you? where was the patient pool from or where did you get referrals for your participants?

my professor from the asian american studies department.

[deez nuts]

.
also, although we have patients at the clinic, i wanted to ascertain the race of the callers - not just the patients. would the callers have qualified as medical subjects? it's not clear.

they become medical subjects after you consent them and they agree to the consent. you can't just present or publish them (with name or name withheld) into a case study thereby violating their anonymity rights without informed consent.

[deez nuts]

my professor from the asian american studies department.

ok, a Ph.D.

where did your subject pool come from?

[kasia]

bah - looks like we've been arguing about something that has already been decided. the court ruled that the wording was too vague and can be interpreted very narrowly.


Posted on Sun, Aug. 31, 2003

Squabbling continues on Prop. 54
REWRITTEN SUMMARY ORDERED
Mercury News Staff and Wire Reports

In the continued wrangling over how much Proposition 54 would affect medical care in the state, a Superior Court judge has ordered the ballot summary rewritten to more narrowly portray how the measure could affect the collection of health data.

The statewide initiative, written by University of California regent Ward Connerly and appearing on the Oct. 7 recall ballot, would block public agencies from acquiring and using many types of racial data.

It would provide an exemption for ``medical research subjects and patients,'' according to the proposition's wording. But opponents say the measure could prevent officials from collecting racial data on birth or death certificates and in public surveys -- the sources of many epidemiological and public health findings.

The ballot summary said the exemption applies to ``all medical and health-care subject matter,'' which supporters say was their intent when they wrote the measure.

But Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Gail D. Ohanesian said Friday that the language was too broad and ordered that it be replaced with the exact language in the initiative.

The legal victory for opponents Friday follows a court victory for Connerly on ballot summary wording earlier this month.

That ruling ordered Attorney General Bill Lockyer to amend the ballot summary to include the medical exemption. The original summary included only the proposition's exemptions for law enforcement descriptions, prisoner and undercover assignments, and actions taken to maintain federal funding.

Connerly said the original summary carried a ``glaring omission'' that could mislead voters. He pointed to an independent analysis of the proposition by the state Legislative Analyst's Office, which said, ``state and local agencies collect a variety of public health information through the use of surveys of the public, which may include race-related information. It appears that this activity could continue under the measure's medical research exception.''

But opponents argued Friday that the wording before Ohanesian also was misleading to voters.

In addition, Ohanesian ordered the voter pamphlet changed to read that collection of racial data for surveys and general sources used by public health officials ``might continue'' under Proposition 54, showing that the exact impact of the measure is uncertain in some areas.

The judge's ruling Friday ``tells the average voter that this exemption is very narrow, and they need to worry about it if it passes,'' said Maria Blanco, attorney for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, which challenged the wording in Superior Court.

[kasia]

ok, a Ph.D.

where did your subject pool come from?

let's stick with the ph.d. part first. with her supervising me, would that qualify as a medical study?

[deez nuts]

buncha nit picky rhetoric lawyers.

i'm still for this proposition, though.

[deez nuts]

let's stick with the ph.d. part first. with her supervising me, would that qualify as a medical study?

now your baiting and witholding information without giving me the details of the study for all i know it has nothing to do with medicine - i have a great jewish lawyer-consult.

if, it receives approval from the university and if the professor went through proper channels, then i don't see why it wouldn't pass.

prop54 isn't the death of the research field, either.

[kasia]

buncha nit picky rhetoric lawyers.

i'm still for this proposition, though.

can i ask why?

i can see how the initiative may be good in theory, but i don't think now is the time for it. not while discrimination based on race is still existent in california. the idea behind the proposition is that we should have a colorblind society. however, how can we ascertain whether racist acts are being taken by the state unless we are permitted to conduct studies collecting racial data?


as another yw member (ca resident) put it: even if the california constitution forbids discrimination based on race, the data gathered on this sensitive subject acts as a 'checkpoint' of some sort to ensure it doesnt happen
by making illegal the gathering of the data, we leave ourselves open to racial profiling and discrimination aplenty

[deez nuts]

also by your argument, prop54 would essentially put a halt in those students pursuing an advance degree in ethnic studies. soon to be ethnic studies professors, would eventually be non-existent because their dissertation would be stymied. ethnic courses in college and grad school will cease to exist. leaving thousands of people unemployed.

that's kinda extreme, don't you agree?

[deez nuts]

can i ask why?

i can see how the initiative may be good in theory, but i don't think now is the time for it. not while discrimination based on race is still existent in california. the idea behind the proposition is that we should have a colorblind society. however, how can we ascertain whether racist acts are being taken by the state unless we are permitted to conduct studies collecting racial data?


as another yw member (ca resident) put it: even if the california constitution forbids discrimination based on race, the data gathered on this sensitive subject acts as a 'checkpoint' of some sort to ensure it doesnt happen
by making illegal the gathering of the data, we leave ourselves open to racial profiling and discrimination aplenty

that is for another day maybe. and personally, i don't know if i want to divulge my views for public scrutiny.

maybe, i'll divulge that part, if prop54 is up here in ny.

[kasia]

now your baiting and witholding information without giving me the details of the study for all i know it has nothing to do with medicine - i have a great jewish lawyer-consult..

YES. that's what i've been trying to say. the study had nothing to do with medicine. and thus it wouldn't have fallen within the medical exemption.

if, it receives approval from the university and if the professor went through proper channels, then i don't see why it wouldn't pass.

this is why.

i wanted to get the rate of asian victims of domestic violence who called our center.

our center has this form that the crisis counselor fills out each time someone calls in.

the form includes a question about the caller's ethnicity.

this information is continually entered into a database.

thus, i got from the database the number of asian women who called in.

i then divided that number by the number of asian women in the county.

it was a less than 1% rate.

my point is this: if RPI had been in place, our center would not have been able to keep records or even ASK about the caller's ethnicity.

[kasia]

also by your argument, prop54 would essentially put a halt in those students pursuing an advance degree in ethnic studies. soon to be ethnic studies professors, would eventually be non-existent because their dissertation would be stymied. ethnic courses in college and grad school will cease to exist. leaving thousands of people unemployed.

that's kinda extreme, don't you agree?

hm. kinda. shouldn't that question be posed to ward connelly?


once the proposition is passed, it begins affecting lives. i would much rather sort these things out now, then give anyone the benefit of the doubt.

[deez nuts]

YES. that's what i've been trying to say. the study had nothing to do with medicine. and thus it wouldn't have fallen within the medical exemption.



this is why.

i wanted to get the rate of asian victims of domestic violence who called our center.

our center has this form that the crisis counselor fills out each time someone calls in.

the form includes a question about the caller's ethnicity.

this information is continually entered into a database.

thus, i got from the database the number of asian women who called in.

i then divided that number by the number of asian women in the county.

it was a less than 1% rate.

my point is this: if RPI had been in place, our center would not have been able to keep records or even ASK about the caller's ethnicity.

domestic violence.

i assume battered wives?

where do you get a majority of your subject pool from in a battered wife study? women shelters

who runs these women shelters? psychologists, csw's with the possbility of an in house psychiatry staff.

what field do they belong to? social medicine.

edit: and you gathered data over the phone? did they know they were part of a study?

[deez nuts]

hm. kinda. shouldn't that question be posed to ward connelly?


once the proposition is passed, it begins affecting lives. i would much rather sort these things out now, then give anyone the benefit of the doubt.

i, personally, doubt this would happen.

[kasia]

domestic violence.

i assume battered wives?

where do you get a majority of your subject pool from in a battered wife study? women shelters

who runs these women shelters? psychologists, csw's with the possbility of an in house psychiatry staff.

what field do they belong to? social medicine.

we had psychologists, etc. but most were counselors without a medical degree. the board of directors were all housewives or businesswomen.

if the medical exemption includes that, great. but the wording of the initiative leaves us to wonder.

[kasia]

presuming all of these people haven't just bought into the "conspiracy theory"...


Opposition to Proposition 54 (the Information Ban)
Partial List
HEALTH ORGANIZATIONS:

Alameda Health Consortium
American Academy of Pediatrics, California District
American Cancer Society
American College of Epidemiology
American Heart Association, Western States Affiliate
American Public Health Association
Armenian American Medical Society
Asian Health Services
Asian Pacific Islander American Health Forum
Asian Pacific Islander Wellness Center
Asian Perinatal Advocates
Association of American Medical Colleges
Association of Asian Pacific Community Health Organizations
Blue Cross/Blue Shield
Breast Cancer Action
Breast Cancer Fund
California Academy of Family Physicians
California Association of Public Hospitals
California Black Health Network
California Center for Public Health Advocacy
California Conference of Local Health Officers
California Health Collaborative
California Healthcare Association
California Medical Association
California Nurses Association
California Pan-Ethnic Health Network
California Physicians Alliance
California Primary Care Association
California Public Health Association-North
California Public Health Association-South
Capitol Medical Society
Community Health Partnership
Health & Environmental Justice Project
Health Access California
Health Officers Association of California
Health Services Agency - County of Santa Cruz
Healthy Children Organizing Project
Kaiser Permanente
La Clinica de la Raza
Latino Coalition for a Healthy California
Local Health Plans of California
Los Angeles Free Clinic
National Latina Health Organization
Native American Health Center
North Coast Clinics Network
Orange County Asian & Pacific Islander Community Alliance
PALS for Health
Physicians for Human Rights
Physicians for Social Responsibility, San Francisco Bay Area Chapter
Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California
Planned Parenthood Mar Monte
Public Health Institute
Rucker’s Wellness Center
Sacramento County Public Health Advisory Board
San Francisco Health Commission
Trust for America's Health
Women’s Community Clinic
Women's Health Leadership

HEALTH PROFESSIONALS (titles included for identification purposes only):
Jocelyn Elders, MD, Former US Surgeon General
C. Everett Koop, MD, Former U.S. Surgeon General
David Satcher, MD, Former U.S. Surgeon General
Kwabena Adubofour, MD, Fifth Street Medical Center
Barbara Anderson, Loma Linda University School of Public Health
Alberto Bolanos, MD, Surgeon
Nancy Bowen, MD
Paula Braverman, MD, MPH, Professor of Family and Community Medicine, UCSF
Esteban G. Burchard, MD, UCSF Department of Medicine
Dina Burrell, Staff Writer, LA County Medical Association
Raul Calderon, Jr., Ph.D, Postdoctoral Fellow, Stanford School of Medicine
Patricia Castaneda-Davis, MD, La Clinica de la Raza
Alice Chen, MD, MPH
Armen Cherik, MD, MBA
Eileen Chun, MD
Molly J. Coye, MD, MPH, Former Director, California Department of Health Services
Anissa Daws, MD, MPH, Prevention Medicine Resident, Family Physician, Long Beach Department of Health & Human Services
Felipe Dominguez, MD
Patricia Fajardo, RN, MPH
Marty Fenstersheib, Health Officer, Santa Clara County
Richard Garcia, MD
Kathy Giacomini, PhD, Chair, UCSF Department of Biopharmaceutical Sciences
Harold Goldstein, Executive Director, California Center for Public Health Advocacy
Sharon Grigsby, ED PHBT Preparedness, County of Los Angeles Department of Health Services
David Hayes-Bautista, PhD, Professor, School of Medicine, UCLA
Margaret Juarez, MD
Andy Karter, PhD, Department of Research, Kaiser Permanente
Joyce Lashof, MD, Dean Emeritus, UC Berkeley School of Public Health
Phil Lee, MD, Chancellor Emeritus, UCSF; Former Assistant Secretary, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Scarlett Lin-Gomez, PhD, Northern California Cancer Center
Dexter Louie, MD
Edward Machtinger, MD, Assistant Professor of Medicine, Co-Director, UCSF Fellowship in AIDS care; Assistant Director, UCSF Active Care Services
Kristen Marchi, MPH, Principal Analyst, UCSF
Michael McLean, MD, MS, Health Officer, Kings County, Tulare County
David McNutt, MD, MPH, Health Officer, Health Services Agency-County of Santa Cruz
Ray Morales, MD, Medical Director, Blue Cross of California
Walter Morris, MD
Nina Mulia, DrPH
Carmen Nevarez, MD, MPH, Medical Director & Vice President of External Relations, Public Health Institute
Richard Olshen, Stanford University, Department of Statistics
Sandra Perez, MD
Pierrette Mimi Poinsett, MD, Pediatrician
David Pryor, MD
Neil Risch, PhD, Stanford University, Department of Genetics
Ruth Roemer, JD, Adjunct Professor Emerita, UCLA School of Public Health
Mylene Rucker, MD
Morrie Schambelan, MD, Chief, UCSF Division of Endocrinology
Darryl Sexton, MD, Health Officer, City of Long Beach
Dean Sheppard, MD, Director, UCSF Lung Biology Center
Stephen Shortell, PhD, Dean, UC Berkeley School of Public Health
Brian Smedley, PhD, National Academy of Science
Frank Staggers, MD
Dong Suh, Policy and Planning Director, Asian Health Services
Glennah Trochet, MD, Health Officer, Sacramento County Department of Health Services
Harvey M. Weinstein, MD, Associate Director, Human Rights Center & Clinical Professor, UC Berkeley School of Public Health.
La Donna White, MD
Elad Ziv, MD, UCSF Division of General Internal Medicine

PUBLIC OFFICIALS:
California Governor Gray Davis
California Lieutenant Governor Cruz Bustamante
California Attorney General Bill Lockyer
California State Treasurer Phil Angelides
California Secretary of State Kevin Shelley
California State Controller Steve Westley
California State Superintendent of Education Jack O'Connell
California Insurance Commissioner John Garamendi
U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein, California
U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer, California
Former U.S. Ambassador to Luxembourg James Hormel
U.S. Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, 8th District, House Minority Leader
U.S. Congressman Howard Berman, 26th District
U.S. Congresswoman Susan Davis, 53rd District
U.S. Congressman Mike Honda, 15th District
U.S. Congresswoman Barbara Lee, 9th District
U.S. Congressman Robert Matsui, 5th District
U.S. Congresswoman Hilda Solis, 32nd District
U.S. Congresswoman Diane Watson, 33rd District
California State Senator John Burton, President Pro Tem, District 3
California State Senator Richard Alarcon, District 20
California State Senator Dede Alpert, District 39
California State Senator Debra Bowen, District 28
California State Senator Gilbert Cedillo, District 22
California State Senator Wesley Chesbro, District 2
California State Senator Joseph Dunn, District 34
California State Senator Martha Escutia, District 30
California State Senator Dean Florez, District 16
California State Senator Betty Karnette, District 27
California State Senator Sheila Kuehl, District 23
California State Senator Michael Machado, District 5
California State Senator Denise Moreno Ducheny, District 40
California State Senator Kevin Murray, District 26
California State Senator Deborah Ortiz, District 6
California State Senator Don Perata, District 9
California State Senator Gloria Romero, District 24
California State Senator Jack Scott, District 21
California State Senator Byron Sher, District 11
California State Senator Nell Soto, District 32
California State Senator Jackie Speier, District 8
California State Senator Tom Torlakson, District 7
California State Senator John Vasconcellos, District 13
California State Senator Edward Vincent, District 25
California Assemblymember Herb J. Wesson, Jr.. Speaker of the Assembly
California Assemblymember Wilma Chan, 16th District
California Assemblymember Judy Chu, 49th District
California Assemblymember Mervyn Dymally, 52nd District
California Assemblymember Marco Antonio Firebaugh, 50th District
California Assemblymember Jackie Goldberg, 45th District
California Assemblymember Loni Hancock, 14th District
California Assemblymember Jerome Horton, 51st District
California Assemblymember Mark Leno, 13th District
California Assemblymember Lloyd Levine, 40th District
California Assemblymember Carol Liu, 44th District
California Assemblymember Alan Lowenthal, 54th District
California Assemblymember Cindy Montanez, 39th District
California Assemblymember George Nakano, 53rd District
California Assemblymember Fabien Nunez, 47th District
California Assemblymember Mark Ridley-Thomas, 48th District
California Assemblymember Darrell Steinberg, 9th District
California Board of Equalization Chairwoman Carole Migden
California Board of Equalization Member John Chiang, District 4
Alameda County Board of Supervisors
Colusa County District Attorney John R. Poyner
Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca
Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors
Los Angeles County Supervisor Yvonne Brathwaite Burke
Los Angeles County Supervisor Gloria Molina
Los Angeles Mayor James Hahn
Los Angeles City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo
Los Angeles City Board of Education
Los Angeles City Councilmember Alex Padilla, President
Los Angeles City Councilmember Tony Cardenas
Los Angeles City Councilmember Eric Garcetti
Los Angeles City Councilmember Martin Ludlow
Los Angeles City Councilmember Bernard Parks
Los Angeles City Councilmember Jan Perry
Los Angeles City Councilmember Ed Reyes
Los Angeles City Councilmember Antonio Villaraigosa
Los Angeles City Councilmember Jack Weiss
Los Angeles City Councilmember Dennis Zine
San Francisco Mayor Willie L. Brown, Jr.
San Francisco Sheriff Michael Hennessey
San Francisco Board of Education
San Francisco Board of Education Commissioner Eric Mar
San Francisco Board of Supervisors
San Francisco City College Board of Trustees
San Mateo County Sheriff Don Horsley
Santa Clara County Supervisors
Santa Clara County Sheriff Laurie Smith
Berkeley City Councilmember Kriss Worthington
Chico City Councilmember Dan Nguyen-Tan
Culver City Board of Education
Culver City Council
Davis City Council
Dos Palos City Chief of Police Paul (P.C.) Lopez
Inglewood City Chief of Police Ronald C. Banks
Oakland City Councilmember Desley Brooks
Oroville City Chief of Police Mitchel "J" Brown
San Diego City Council
San Jose City Councilmember Terry Gregory
Santa Cruz City Councilmember Cynthia Mathews
Santa Monica City Chief of Police James T. Butts, Jr.

GUBERNATORIAL CANDIDATES:
Cruz Bustamante, Democratic Party
Peter Miguel Camejo, Green Party
Arianna Huffington, Independent Party
Arnold Schwarzenegger, Republican Party

Presidential Candidates:
Howard Dean, Democratic Party
John Kerry, Democratic Party
Dennis Kucinich, Democratic Party
Al Sharpton, Democratic Party

Newspapers:
Sacramento Bee
San Diego Union-Tribune
San Francisco Chronicle

EDUCATION:
American Association of University Women
American Association of University Women-California
Associated Students of UC San Diego
CalCARE
California Black Faculty and Staff Association
California Coalition for Authentic Reform in Education
California Faculty Association
California Parent Teachers Association (PTA)
Center for Commercial-Free Public Education
Education Trust West
Multicultural Education Training and Advocacy
National Coalition of Education Activists
National Pacific Islander Educator Network
Samuel Merritt College Board of Trustees
San Jose-Evergreen Community College District
UCLA Graduate Students Association
United States Student Association
United Teachers Los Angeles
University Council - American Federation of Teachers
University of California Regents
R. Eunice Aaron, Lecturer, San Francisco State University
Roberta Ahlquist, Professor, San Jose State University
Chandra S. Brahma, Professor, Civil Engineering, CSU Fresno
Lewis Call, Lecturer, Department of History, Cal Poly San Luis Obispo
Cecil E. Canton, Professor, CSU Sacramento
Dorothy Chen-Maynard, Program Director, CSU San Bernadino
James Conway, Professor, Department of Speech and Communication, Cal Poly San Luis Obispo
Margaret Costa, Professor, CSU Long Beach
Catherine Cubbin, Ph.D. Stanford University Research Fellow
Myrna Cherkess Donohue, Assistant Professor, Coordinator, Department of Women’s Studies, CSU Dominguez Hills
Laurie Drabble, Assistant Professor, San Jose State University
Patricia Evridge Hill, Professor, San Jose State University; Secretary, California Faculty Assocation
Dan Fendel, Professor of Mathematics, San Francisco State University
Manzar Foroohar, Professor, Department of History, Cal Poly San Luis Obispo
Anthony Garavente, California Faculty Association, Carson, CA
Emma C. Gibson, Librarian, Cal Poly Pomona
Paul Gilmore, Lecturer, History, CSU Fresno
Jan Gregory, Lecturer, San Francisco State University
Leslie Grier, Assistant Professor, CSU Fullerton,
John Hess, California Faculty Association, Regional Representative, Oakland California
Sally Hurtado, Professor Emeritus, School of Education, Sonoma State University
Elaine Kim, Associate Dean of the Graduate Division, UC Berkeley; Professor, Asian American Studies
Rose Marie Kuhn, Professor, Department of French, CSU Fresno
Taeku Lee, Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, UC Berkeley
W.M. Littell, Emeritus, San Francisco State University
Judith Little, Associate Professor, Department of Sociology, Humboldt State University
Harriet Lord, President, California Faculty Association, Cal Poly Pomona Chapter
R. Jeff Lustig, Professor, Government, CSU Sacramento
Christine Maitland, Organizational Specialist, National Education Association
Jorge Mariscal, Associate Professor, Department of Literature, UC San Diego
Chris Mays, Senior Assistant Librarian, San Francisco State Univesity
Eloise McQuown, Librarian, San Francisco State University
Susan Meisenhelder, President, California Faculty Association
Robert D. Merill, Professor, Geologist, CSU Fresno, California Faculty Association
Muogo Nyaggah, Professor, CSU Fullerton
Aashish Parekh, Teacher, Compton Unified School District
Elaine Peterson, Assistant Professor, CSU Stanislaus
Audrena Redmond, California Faculty Association, Southern California Political Coordinator, CSU Dominguez Hills
Tom Rivera, Associate Dean, CSU San Bernardino
Jennifer Sanford, Staff Psychologist, Humbolt State University
John J. Saraillé, Professor, CSU Stanislaus
James Smith, California Faculty Association, Los Angeles, CA
Bede Ssensalo, Professor, California Black Faculty and Staff Association
Joseph Torres, Assistant Dean, San Francisco State University
John Travis, Professor, Humboldt State University
Mitch Turitz, San Francisco State University Chapter President, California Faculty Association
Alma Vegor, Student Body Representative, UC Berkeley
Alexander Yamato, Professor, San Jose State University
Pat Zambell, Director, Lecturer Support Program, Cal Poly Pomona
Patricia Zavella, Professor, Merill College, UC Santa Cruz

LABOR:
AFL-CIO
California Federation of Teachers
California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO, Oakland
California School Employees Association
California Teachers Association
Labor Council for Latin American Advancement
Laborers' International Union of North America
Los Angeles County Federation of Labor
National Alliance of Postal and Federal Employees
Service Employees International Union 1877, Justice for Janitors
Service Employees International Union California State Council
Service Employees International Union, Local 2028
United Auto Workers
United Farm Workers of America AFL-CIO

BUSINESS:
Blue Cross/Blue Shield
Community Technology Foundation of California
East Bay Municipal Utility District
Health Net
Kaiser Permanente
Latino Business Association
Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce
National Association of Women Business Owners
Oakland Chamber of Commerce
Pacific Gas & Electric
San Diego Chamber of Commerce
San Diego County Hispanic Chamber of Commerce
San Francisco Chamber of Commerce
San Francisco Foundation
San Jose Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce
Sempra Energy
The Women's Foundation
Jim Cunneen, President & CEO, San Jose Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce
F. Warren Hellman, Chairman, Hellman & Friedman LLC
Chris Larsen, CEO, E-Loan
Herbert and Marion Sandler, Co-CEOs, World Savings & Loan
Gerald Solomon, JD, CEO, PHFE Management Solutions

Law Enforcement:
ORGANIZATIONS:
A. Philip Randolph Institute
ACLU of Northern California
ACLU of San Diego
ACLU of Southern California
Alliance of Black NCR Employees
American Association for Affirmative Action
American Friends Service Committee
American GI Forum of California
American Sociological Association
Anti-Defamation League
Architects, Planners & Designers for Social Responsibility
ARIS of Santa Clara
Asian American Drug Abuse Program
Asian Americans for Community Involvement
Asian Pacific Americans for an Informed California
Association of Multi-Ethnic Americans
C-Beyond: Youth Making History
California Coalition for Civil Rights
California Common Cause
California Firefighters Association
California Immigrant Welfare Collaborative
California Latino Civil Rights Network
California National Organization for Women
California Prison Focus
California Tomorrow
California Women's Agenda
Californians for Justice
Cambodian Association of America
Center for Collaborative Planning
Center for Third World Organizing
Center on Race, Poverty & the Environment
Centro Shalom
Children's Advocacy Institute
Chinatown Community Development Center
Chinese for Affirmative Action
Chinese Progressive Association
Coalition for Economic Equity
Coalition for Humane Immigrants Rights of Los Angeles
Communities United Against Violence
Community Development Institute
Consumers Union of U.S., Inc.
Drug Policy Alliance Network
Ella Baker Center for Human Rights
Equal Justice Society
Equal Rights Advocates
Equality California
Fresno Center for Nonviolence
Gay / Straight Alliance Network
Grayson Neighborhood Council
Greenlining Institute
Growing Children
Hapa Issues Forum
HOMEY
Intergroup Clearing House—Stop Hate Crimes
Japanese American Citizens League
Japanese American Citizens League – Pacific Southwest District Civil Rights Caucus
John Gardner Center/Yell Project
Justice Matters Institute
L.A. Gay and Lesbian Center
Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund
Latino Council of Marin
Latino Issues Forum
Lavender Youth Recreation and Information Center
Leadership Conference on Civil Rights
Leadership Excellence
League of Women Voters of California
LTSC Community Development Corporation
MALDEF - Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund
Modesto Committee for Peace in the Middle East
Modesto Peace/Life Center
Movement Strategy Center
NAACP
NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund
NAACP Modesto/Stanislaus
National Association of Social Workers - CA Chapter
National Black Police Association, Inc.
National Center for Lesbian Rights
National Conference for Community and Justice
National Council of La Raza
National Gay and Lesbian Task Force
National Latino Peace Officer's Association of Santa Clara County
National Organization for Women
National Organization for Women – UC Berkeley Chapter
National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives (NOBLE)
National Pan-Hellenic Council - Solano County Chapter
National Urban League Executives
Neighbor to Neighbor
Northern California Citizenship Project
Organization of Chinese Americans
Pat Brown Institute of Public Affairs
People For the American Way
People United for a Better Oakland
PolicyLink
Progressive Jewish Alliance
Rock the Vote
San Diego Alliance for Asian Pacific Islander Americans
San Diego Area Pride At Work
San Diego LGBT Community Center
San Francisco Bay Area Progressive Challenge
San Francisco Black Firefighters Association
School of Unity and Liberation
Services, Immigrant Rights and Education Network
South Asian Network
Speak Out
St. Peter’s Housing Committee
Student Empowerment Project
Transportation and Land Use Coalition
Underground Railroad
Union of Concerned Scientists
Union of Pan Asian Communities
United Way Silicon Valley
Urban Habitat
Urban League – San Diego
Voluntarios de la Comunidad
Watts/Century Latino Organization
Youth Empowerment Center
Youth in Focus
Youth Media Council
Youth Opportunity Center

POLITICAL ORGANIZATIONS:
Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club
Americans for Democratic Action
Asian American Republican Club
Asian Pacific Islander Democrats of San Diego County
Black American Political Association of California
California Democratic Party
Democratic Party of the San Fernando Valley
Harvey Milk LGBT Democratic Club
Los Angeles Democratic Party
Pasadena Young Democrats
Power P.A.C.
Rainbow/PUSH Coalition
Ronald H. Brown Democratic Club

ENVIRONMENTAL:
Asian Pacific Environmental Network
BlueWater Network
Butte Environmental Council
California Communities Against Toxics
California Environmental Rights Alliance
California League of Conservation Voters
Center for Environmental Health
Clean Water Action
Communities for a Better Environment
Ecology Center
Ecology Law Center
Environmental Defense
Environmental Health Coalition
Environmental Justice Coalition
Environmental Justice Coalition for Water
Natural Resources Defense Council
Planning and Conservation League
Sierra Club
Sillicon Valley Toxics Coalition

LEGAL COMMUNITY:
Alameda County Bar Association
Asian Law Alliance
Asian Law Caucus
Asian Pacific American Bar Association
Asian Pacific American Legal Center
Asian Pacific Islander Legal Outreach
Black Women Lawyers Association of Los Angeles
California Association of Black Lawyers
California Women Lawyers
California Women’s Law Center
Centro Legal de la Raza
Charles Houston Bar Association
Earl B. Gilliam Bar Assoc.
East Bay La Raza Lawyers Association
Filipino American Lawyers of San Diego
Foothills Bar Association of San Diego County
International Human Rights Law Group
John M. Langston Bar Association, Los Angeles
La Raza Centro Legal
Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund
Lawyers Club of San Diego
Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights
Legal Aid Society – Employment Law Center
MALDEF - Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund
NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund
National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium
National Bar Association, Region IX
National Center for Youth Law
National Lawyers Guild
National Women's Law Center
Pan Asian Lawyers of San Diego
Public Advocates, Inc.
San Diego County Bar Association
San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association
San Francisco Bar Association
South Asian Bar Association
Tom Homann Law Association
La Raza Lawyers Association of Sacramento

FAITH COMMUNITY:
Bishop HH Brookins
Rabbi Denise Eger, Congregation of Kol Ami
Rabbi Howard Laibson, Temple Israel, Long Beach
Reverend John Bryant, AME Churches
Reverend William Monroe Campbell, Vice President, Baptist Ministers Conference
Reverend J. Benjamin Hardwick, President, Western Baptist Convention
Reverend Jesse Jackson, Rainbow/PUSH Coalition
Reverend Norman S. Johnson, Executive Director, Southern Christian Leadership Conference
Reverend Cecil Murray, First AME Church, Los Angeles
Tommie Muhammad, Minister, Nation of Islam
California Council of Churches/CA Church IMPACT
Community Homeless Alliance Ministry
Easter Hill United Methodist Church
Interfaith Coalition for Immigrant Rights
Interfaith Communities United for Justice and Peace
Southern Christian Leadership Conference

INDIVIDUALS (titles included for identification purposes only):
Angela M. Beck, San Francisco, CA
Julian Bond, National Chair, NAACP
Maria Cesena, Student, San Diego, CA
Douglas Chan, Member, California Small Business Board
Gregory Douglas Chew, San Francisco, CA
Tyrone Freeman, President, SEIU Local 434B
Danny Glover, Actor
Shifra Goldman, Los Angeles, CA
Don Hightower, State Coordinator, A. Philip Randolph Institute
Clifford Hong, JD, Vice Co-Chair, Ethnic Minority Relations Committee, CA State Bar
Rachel Jackson, State Field Director, Books Not Bars
Kimberly A. Jameson, Ph.D. Del Mar, CA
Firyali Makau, Community Technology Director, San Diego Urban League and San Diego Urban League Young Professionals
Peter Q. Nguyen, Santa Monica, CA
Joseph Pasquariello, Oakland, CA
Sara Peterson, Project Direct, UCSF
Rhonda Sarnoff, Policy Analyst, Berkeley, CA
Erik Schnabel, Lavender Youth Recreation and Information Center
Patricia Soung, Program Fellow, Tides Foundation
Javier Stauring, Coordinator of Juvenile Detention Ministry
Judith Thigpen, Oakland, CA
Thomas Wei, Berkeley JACL Civil Rights Chair, JACL Berkeley Chapter
Roberta Welling, Research Scientist, Berkeley, CA

[deez nuts]

we had psychologists, etc. but most were counselors without a medical degree. the board of directors were all housewives or businesswomen.

if the medical exemption includes that, great. but the wording of the initiative leaves us to wonder.

just because someone is in the medical field doesn't always mean they have a medical degree i.e. social workers (csw), counselors etc etc. it's clear enough for me, it's almost common sense.

[deez nuts]

and i'm sure in that list you presented they're is a 100% concordance and not an overall opposition to prop54 not just to section F.

and why do "conspiracy theory" in quotes in the ..."buy into the conspiracy theory" are you being snippy, kas? lol

you either agree with prop54, undecided on prop54 or against prop54.

to each their own.

[537]

It is important to note that the Connerly exemption is dangerously misleading. Spouting the term 'medical exemption' is in fact vague and arbitrary, misleading the public:


MEDICAL AND HEALTHCARE PROFESSIONALS OPPOSE PROP. 54


Health professionals across state call measure's so-called medical exemption dangerously misleading.

Pledging to do whatever it takes so they can continue to save lives and protect the public health of California, medical and healthcare professionals from across California today vowed to launch a full frontal assault against Proposition 54.

The initiative, sponsored by Ward Connerly, would bar public agencies from compiling or using information about race or ethnicity. The dramatic impact would virtually eliminate statistical information that health care providers need to ensure quality care to all Californians, prevent disease and save lives.

Experts from such groups as the California Medical Association, California Nurses Association, California Primary Care Association, American Cancer Society, California Association of Health Plans, Kaiser Permanente and the UCLA School of Public Health denounce the initiative's so-called medical exemption, which they called dangerously misleading.

"The Connerly exemption is so narrow as to render it meaningless to the protection of public health and the greater good of California," said Dr. Jack Lewin, MD, CEO of the California Medical Association. "What he calls 'medical research subjects and patients' is in reality a miniscule number of people participating in a small number of studies and surveys. The vast majority of vital health information will still be kept out of the hands of the medical professionals who use it to save lives. Voters beware? this measure is bad for your health and this exemption offers you nothing but empty promises."


more.... (www.defeat54.org/healthcare.shtml)

[kasia]

just because someone is in the medical field doesn't always mean they have a medical degree i.e. social workers (csw), counselors etc etc. it's clear enough for me, it's almost common sense.

well, the court disagreed that it was common sense =)

and most things aren't. what is common sense to you may be different for someone else.


edit: snippy is fun. i've been told that i can be a brat (as opposed to a bitch) in argument.

[deez nuts]

well, the court disagreed that it was common sense =)

and most things aren't. what is common sense to you may be different for someone else.


edit: snippy is fun. i've been told that i can be a brat (as opposed to a bitch) in argument.


well that's one for the courts. i'm not a lawyer or have any expertise in law. you wanted my point of view as a MD on why i supported prop 54.

so ok, tweak and modify section F to be more specific. the bigger picture is that i still like this proposition, tweaked or not tweaked as a person and as a MD. i've stated this earlier.

and bratty looks good on you.

[annaplurabelle]

Excellent debate here. Valid points on both sides. Of course, I have no real dog in this (not a cali res) but on the basis of what I've read here, I'd give the win to kasia - my (hypothetical) vote would be NO.

Chasiubao_Boy is absolutely correct in his argument about the racial profiling of insurance corps (I worked for HIP in NY), but I'm not convinced this prop would counter that - the vague wording is just asking for more problems than it solves.

Back to the drawing board with this one; it's just not ready yet.

I believe he HIPAA law is a red herring here - still has problems on its own. Pt confidentiality is still (very much) at risk, and worthy of its own debate.

[achtungbaby]

Interesting points and arguments. If I can ask everyone to take a step back (and not because the debate is too contentious, but because we might be losing our perspective).

What is the rationale for this proposition?

According to the RPI website, "...the state should not be asking people about their race." "Race should become a private matter that is no business of government’s. Think how refreshing it would be to throw out the entire system of checking little boxes.” (That's directly quoted by the way).

There you have it. Ward Connerly is tired of having to mark the little "sell-out" check box.

Four questions for evaluating Proposition 54:

• Does the state’s collection and use of voluntarily provided data on race and ethnicity offer social,
public health and research benefits?

• Would Proposition 54 limit the state’s ability to evaluate the effectiveness of public programs or
identify disparities in the availability of public programs and services?

• Would Proposition 54 limit the ability of faculty and staff at the UC and CSU to engage in research?

• Would Proposition 54 limit or prevent public access to all data that is collected by the state?

Let's not even encroach the idea of supporting a proposition -- liberal or conservative -- based on the minimal amount of damage it could cause to society: "Oh, it's not that bad. It won't be as terrible as they say it will." Puh-leeze.

[AliBabaIncorporated]

There you have it. Ward Connerly is tired of having to mark the little "sell-out" check box.
Nah. Come on, basic rule of analyzing anyone's propaganda: don't imagine that they actually believe what they say. Connerly's primary goal isn't to reduce time or mental anguish spent on government paperwork. I view Prop 54 as a referendum on the continuing use of "back-door affirmative action" used by UCs et al to maintain the proper racial balance even after explicitly race-based affirmative action was banned. I think most Prop 54 supporters feel the same way.

[hooligan]

vote no, connelly needs to get the fuck off of the board of uc regents. enough said.

[kasia]

Nah. Come on, basic rule of analyzing anyone's propaganda: don't imagine that they actually believe what they say. Connerly's primary goal isn't to reduce time or mental anguish spent on government paperwork. I view Prop 54 as a referendum on the continuing use of "back-door affirmative action" used by UCs et al to maintain the proper racial balance even after explicitly race-based affirmative action was banned. I think most Prop 54 supporters feel the same way.

why is prop 54 so pervasive if it's primary goal is to attack race-based affirmative action?

[achtungbaby]

Nah. Come on, basic rule of analyzing anyone's propaganda: don't imagine that they actually believe what they say. Connerly's primary goal isn't to reduce time or mental anguish spent on government paperwork. I view Prop 54 as a referendum on the continuing use of "back-door affirmative action" used by UCs et al to maintain the proper racial balance even after explicitly race-based affirmative action was banned. I think most Prop 54 supporters feel the same way.That's a good point you make, and I couldn't agree with you more. I didn't mean that Connerly really is tired of checking little boxes.

Now that you mention it, who are the financial supporters of Prop. 54?

[537]

That's a good point you make, and I couldn't agree with you more. I didn't mean that Connerly really is tired of checking little boxes.

Now that you mention it, who are the financial supporters of Prop. 54?


Good question that I would like to see answered. So far the financial backing for this Proposition has been a closely guarded secret. It wouldn't surprise me if the supporters of this are either out-of-state, or are of the 'Senator Coble' camp.

[AliBabaIncorporated]

It wouldn't surprise me if the supporters of this are either out-of-state, or are of the 'Senator Coble' camp.
uh, if the government weren't allowed to collect racial data on citizens, how do you imagine they'd manage to conduct a mass internment of a given racial group? This isn't like college admissions ...

[537]

uh, if the government weren't allowed to collect racial data on citizens, how do you imagine they'd manage to conduct a mass internment of a given racial group? This isn't like college admissions ...


Condoning such a mass internment of a given racial group is the type of mentality I was trying to implicate the supporters of Prop54 as adopting. People such as this find a much easier time with racial profiling and similar discrimination. Now imagine the same group of people prepping California for an anti-affirmative action backdoor. Wouldn't it be much easier to decrease minority registration in an educational institute if the governement wasn't allowed to gather data on this? How about allowing doctors to gather data on certain illnesses and which ethnicity is afflicted most by them? Can you picture a Fortune 500 company with an all caucasian management team? Or worse yet, an all caucasian employee base, period?

Just to reiterate, I wasn't implying there would be another internment. I was shooting to depict an internment supporter's mentality.

[kasia]

Victory!

[AngryABCGirl]

Victory!
Hooray!

[coagulated fat]

I'm going to ring the big church bell atop the YW steeple.

[Chester]

I'm going to ring the big bell church bell atop the YW steeple.
Hah. Nice.

Open the doors and here's all the people.

[achtungbaby]

Bite my bunghole, Ward.

http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20031008/capt.cajm20110080453.davis_recall_prop54_cajm201.j pg

A