YW Urges You to Vote NO on Prop 54 - California

[deez nuts]

Originally Posted by kasia

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?

[sandra]

Originally Posted by Chasiubao_Boy

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]

Originally Posted by kasia

.
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]

Originally Posted by kasia

my professor from the asian american studies department.

ok, a Ph.D.

where did your subject pool come from?

[sandra]

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.

[sandra]

Originally Posted by Chasiubao_Boy

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]

Originally Posted by kasia

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.

[sandra]

Originally Posted by Chasiubao_Boy

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]

Originally Posted by kasia

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.

[sandra]

Originally Posted by Chasiubao_Boy

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.

[sandra]

Originally Posted by Chasiubao_Boy

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]

Originally Posted by kasia

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]

Originally Posted by kasia

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.