Amidst the budget issues, Afghanistan, and Health Care it seems like there are more and more issues slipping to the wayside. One of those issues that I've recently had brought to my attention has to do with past discrimination by the US Department of Agriculture. For decades both African-American and Latino farmers endured discrimination and unfair treatment in their loan applications and loan approvals.
African-American farmers who experienced this discrimination by the U.S. Government were compensated by the Agriculture Department. Latino farmers, however, were never addressed in that compensation and a lawsuit has been pending for years with no resolution under the Bush Administration.
Oh wait, you actually don't have to love them. This phone message was received at Sen. Leland Yee's office recently regarding his language discrimination bill, SB 242. The bill would include language discrimination into the Unruh Civil Rights Act. A reasonable idea, all in all, but obviously controversial. (By the by, the bill does have a business purposes exception.)
Anyway, this ignorant nativist decided to give Sen. Yee a piece of her mind. She was really angry that there were people talking on her radio. She was sure they were not in the country illegal, because they had the nerve to use another language.
If anything the call illustrates the need for this legislation. This woman apparently forgot that in fact the European immigrants were not here first. I have a hunch that the Native Americans might have a bit of an argument about who was here first.
But my favorite part was the end: "Leland, which is a white name." This lady is mad that immigrants come to America and try to change it. Then she's mad that he has a "white name." Classic.
The other day I wondered if the No on 8 side was being too cautious in their advertising, instead of putting an actual face on the discrimination and harm that would be suffered if marriage rights were eliminated for a particular class of people. Well, this video isn't exactly that, but it certainly makes the point about discrimination. Via Amanda at Pandagon, this is my favorite video of the cycle. A group redubbed the voices on a video of young people ranting about all the supposed consequences about gay marriage, and changed it so they say "interracial marriage." It's kind of perfect:
See, this comes down to discrimination, pure and simple. The other side wants to talk about ancillary outcomes, but really they want to hurt LGBT people. I mean, we have to be willing to say that. The other side has no problem outlining what they consider to be the stakes, as crazy as they think they are:
"This vote on whether we stop the gay-marriage juggernaut in California is Armageddon," said Charles W. Colson, the founder of Prison Fellowship Ministries and an eminent evangelical voice, speaking to pastors in a video promoting Proposition 8. "We lose this, we are going to lose in a lot of other ways, including freedom of religion."
Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, a conservative Christian lobby based in Washington, said in an interview, "It's more important than the presidential election."
"We've picked bad presidents before, and we've survived as a nation," said Mr. Perkins, who has made two trips to California in the last six weeks. "But we will not survive if we lose the institution of marriage."
I'm glad that No on 8 is raising a lot of money, and that high-profile Californians like Maria Shriver are on board. But at some point in this final week, someone has to break this down. This is about harming same-sex couples.
At this point the judiciary is pretty much the only government entity in this state I have a modicum of belief in; they aren't hamstrung by ridiculous rules that make it impossible to function, so they can simply follow the law. State agencies, when properly run, also can exhibit some independence. Lately, there have been several cases ruled in favor of reformers at the expense of malign protectors of the health care status quo.
After a series of investigations from the California Department of Public Health, 18 hospitals have been fined for substandard care.
Violations included an improperly inserted catheter, a ventilator that was not turned on and surgical tools left inside patients after operations [...]
The hospitals were fined $25,000 for each violation - the latest of dozens of penalties the state has issued in recent years to more than 40 hospitals.
"The number of penalties will decrease and the quality of care will dramatically improve as hospitals take action to improve," said Kathleen Billingsley, director of the health department's Center for Healthcare Quality. "The entire intent of these fines is to improve the overall quality of care in California."
As care is improved, so must access for treatment. The proposed cuts to Medi-Cal by the governor would have decimated the ability for the poor to find a doctor. The cuts never made it through district court.
A federal judge has ordered a temporary halt in the state's 10 percent reduction in Medi-Cal reimbursement rates, improving access to care for 6.5 million low-income patients but throwing a new wrench in already difficult budget negotiations.
The U.S. District Court decision forces the state to reimburse most Medi-Cal providers at rates prior to the 10 percent cut, which lawmakers and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger made effective July 1 as a cost-cutting measure to help resolve a $15.2 billion budget shortfall this year.
The move increases reimbursement rates the state pays to doctors, dentists, pharmacists, adult day-care centers and other providers who serve Medi-Cal patients. It excludes some hospitals who do not contract with the state and do not provide emergency care.
This just shows the fallacy of a cuts-only budget, which runs into all kinds of voter mandates and constitutional demands. The good news here is that reimbursement rates will be sustained, albeit at a level low enough that half of the state's doctors will still probably reject Medi-Cal patients. The Democratic budget would also have rescinded the Medi-Cal rate cuts.
In a separate decision in the State Supreme Court, the justices ruled that doctors cannot deny care to gays and lesbians based on moral objections.
Justice Joyce Kennard wrote that two Christian fertility doctors who refused to artificially inseminate a lesbian have neither a free speech right nor a religious exemption from the state's law, which "imposes on business establishments certain antidiscrimination obligations."
In the lawsuit that led to the ruling, Guadalupe Benitez, 36, of Oceanside said that the doctors treated her with fertility drugs and instructed her how to inseminate herself at home but told her their beliefs prevented them from inseminating her. One of the doctors referred her to another fertility specialist without moral objections, and Benitez has since given birth to three children.
Nevertheless, Benitez in 2001 sued the Vista-based North Coast Women's Care Medical Group. She and her lawyers successfully argued that a state law prohibiting businesses from discriminating based on sexual orientation applies to doctors.
Of course, we cannot rely on the courts to shape public policy. But they set the boundaries - the lines that lawmakers cannot cross. And those boundaries are leading to increased access and improved care.
When the Governor looks around and sees a mortgage crisis, a potential $10 billion dollar shortfall in the state budget, and failures to deal with pressing economic problems and instead push the problem off to the next generation, he always falls back on worker's compensation reform. This was the centerpiece of his economic agenda upon coming into office, it's what he always touts as the first step on getting California business moving again.
A state appeals court ruled Monday that a 76-year-old Sacramento woman can't have her permanent disability benefits reduced because of her age.
The decision by the 3rd District Court of Appeal in Sacramento represents a small but significant victory for injured workers who argued for years that their benefits have been slashed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's overhaul of the workers' compensation system three years ago.
For the first time, the court said the injured workers are protected by the state's anti-discrimination laws. In this case, insurers and doctors can't use a worker's age, race or gender in determining permanent disability awards.
The road to economic solvency for Arnold Schwarzenegger was based on this; trying to take money from the permanently disabled because of their age or race or gender. We should all feel a little bit ashamed.
Now the job of the legislature is to permanently fix this injustice to put it in legal working order. Frank Russo has a lot more, but here's a taste:
Yesterday's decision by three judges of the California Court of Appeals that the so-called "reform" of workers' compensation laws--the law that Schwarzenegger demanded and the legislature enacted in 2004--cannot be used when it leads to discrimination based on gender or race is just the latest example of how badly that law was written. The legislature bought a pig in a poke when they were stampeded into adopting at a 3 a.m. committee hearing followed by floor votes of a complicated 75 page bill which almost none of them had read--or really considered.
Senate Bill 1437 was passed from the Senate Judiciary Committee on April 5, 2006. The bill bans discrimination in school textbooks based upon sexual orientation. Further, it encourages the inclusion of LGBT contributions when students learn about contributions of other minorities. The Bill has become very controversial amongst the state’s conservatives and evangelical Christians.
This bill is a good idea. I wrote a paper about it that is now available online. Click here for the paper. Enjoy!
