Archive

Posts Tagged ‘gender’

Women of Color and the “Gender Gap” Troubling for Republicans

May 26th, 2014 No comments

By: Stephen McLendon

Blog Category: Race & Religion

Women of color have recently been nicknamed the “gender gap” and have been a source of trouble for conservative Republicans.  This title has been derived from their alleged swing vote resulting from differing candidates’ stance on religious issues, such as abortion and birth control.  However, this “gender gap” ideal assumes that women of color vote solely based on issues dealing with their reproductive rights.   The truth is that their vote extends past issues solely of race and religion.

Women of color, single, and low-income women are directly affected by Republican policies extending beyond race and religion.  The largest issue for these groups of women is healthcare and what the new Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”) has to offer.  These groups of women also vote based on education and job policies.  So, the next time Republicans alter their policies based on this “swing vote” group, they will need to change their stance on more than just issues of race and religion.

The opinions expressed herein are strictly those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Widener Journal of Law, Economics & Race.  

Source:

Zerlina Maxwell, Black Voters, Not the ‘Gender Gap,’ Won Virginia for McAuliffe, TheNation.com (November 1, 2013), available at http://www.thenation.com/article/177064/black-voters-not-gender-gap-won-virginia-mcauliffe.

Undue Burden- How Far Is Too Far?

March 3rd, 2014 No comments

By: Marica Leach

Blog Category: Racial Implications of Recent Supreme Court Decisions

In a 5-4 decision in Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas v. Abbott, the United States Supreme Court refused to vacate the Fifth Circuit’s stay of the district judge’s injunction against the enforcement of the abortion restriction law known as Texas HB 2.  Texas HB 2 requires that physicians performing abortions have admitting privileges at a hospital within thirty miles of the clinic from where the abortion is performed.  Additionally, it requires that medication abortions, non-surgical abortions, be induced only using the FDA approved medications as opposed to the “off the shelf” medications that some physicians recommend.

Planned Parenthood, on behalf of themselves and their clients, argued that Texas HB 2 is unconstitutional since it places an enormous burden on approximately 22,000 who would have to travel almost 150 miles to medical facility where physicians have admitting privileges.  As a result of staying the trial court’s permanent injunction on the enforcement of Texas House Bill HB2, many clinics had to turn away women and some even had to close their doors.

The restrictive abortion statute passed by Texas demonstrates that the Supreme Court is deeply divided.  The Order affirming the stay resulted in two very different opinions.  The dissent points out that the underlying legal question, —whether the new Texas statute is constitutional—is a difficult question that “at least four Members of the Court will wish to consider irrespective of the Fifth Circuit ultimate decision.”  In contrast, Justice Scalia joined by Justices Alito and Thomas feel that Texas HB-2 will win on the merits.  Until that ultimate decision is made, however, the Supreme Court does not find that travelling 150 miles for an abortion is an undue burden for the women living in rural Texas counties especially minority women who will have difficulty affording travel costs to cities such as Corpus Christie.

The opinions expressed herein are strictly those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Widener Journal of Law, Economics & Race. 

Sources:

Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas Surgical Health Servs. v. Abbott, 134 S. Ct. 506, 187 L. Ed. 2d 465 (2013), aff’g 2013 WL5857853.Act of July 12, 2013, 83rd Leg., 2d C.S., ch. 1, §§ 1–12, 2013 Tex. Sess. Law Serv. 4795–802 (West).

Categories: Headline Tags: , ,

Why the Racial and Political Divide over the Affordable Care Act?

January 20th, 2014 No comments

By: Deanna Watson
Blog Category: Race & Healthcare

The United States is divided racially divided over the Affordable Care Act (ACA) or ObamaCare. In general, research shows that whites are the least supportive of this healthcare reform.[1] Despite not one single Republican voice in Congress, ACA was a major legislative achievement for President Barack Obama.[2] However when Republicans took control of congress in 2010, the Republicans in the House of Representatives symbolically voted unanimously to repeal the law.[3] Among other benefits, ACA extends the age of dependents able to be covered under their parents’ healthcare plan; insurance companies can no longer deny coverage to those with pre-existing conditions; and it extends Medicare benefits for the growing populations of our nation’s senior citizens.

With all of these new or expanded benefits, it is unclear why it is so poorly supported by many whites and Republicans. Already, the Affordable Care Act has benefitted the nearly 85% of Americans who already have insurance: 3.1 million young adults have gained coverage through the parents’ plans; 6.6 million seniors are paying less for prescription drugs; 105 million Americans are paying less for preventative care & no longer face lifetime coverage limits; 13.1 million Americans have received rebates from insurance companies; 17 million children with pre-existing conditions no longer denied coverage or charged extra.[4] Women (as well as the general population) have more access to preventative care and treatment.[5] Logically, when there is more access to prevention, the whole country and globe is better for it.

In reference to race, the ACA will level out the inequalities among races’ access to healthcare. Blacks suffer from higher rates of a range of illnesses as compared to the general population.[6] Blacks have the highest mortality rate of any racial and ethnic group for all cancers combined and for most major cancers, including stomach, liver, prostate, and colon cancers.[7]

An especially interesting provision of ACA is that insurers will be held more accountable. Health insurers must justify any rate increase of 10% or more before the increase takes effect.[8] It is clear that the healthcare system is a broken system. With the rising costs of healthcare, it just does not make sense that this issue polarizes the country the way it has.

The opinions expressed herein are strictly those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Widener Journal of Law, Economics & Race. 


[1] Mollyann Brodie et. al., Regional Variations in Public Opinion on the Affordable Care Act, 36 J. Health Pol. Pol’y & L. 1097, 1101 (2011).

[2] Michael Henderson & D. Sunshine Hillygus, The Dynamics of Health Care Opinion, 2008 – 2010: Partisanship, Self-Interest, and Racial Resentment, 36 J. Health Pol. Pol’y & L. 945, 945 (2011).

[3] Id.

[4] U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., The Affordable Care Act and African Americans, http://www.hhs.gov/healthcare/facts/factsheets/2012/04/aca-and-african-americans04122012a.html (last visited Oct. 11, 2013) [hereinafter ACA and African Americans].

[5] U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., The Affordable Care Act and Women, http://www.hhs.gov/healthcare/facts/factsheets/2012/03/women03202012a.html (last visited Oct. 11, 2013).

[6] ACA and African Americans, supra note 4.

[7] Id.

[8] U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., Rate Review, http://www.hhs.gov/healthcare/insurance/premiums/rate-review.html (last visited Oct. 11, 2013).