Archive

Posts Tagged ‘Minorities’

Impact on Minority Populations of State Refusals to Expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act

April 7th, 2014 No comments

By: Aaron Kostyk

Blog Category: Race & Healthcare

The recent Supreme Court decision in National Federation of Independent Businesses v. Sebelius struck down federal penalties on states that refuse to expand their Medicaid programs under the Affordable Care Act (“ACA”). The Court held that these penalties exceeded the scope of the government’s spending powers. This made the expansion of Medicaid programs essentially voluntary on a state by state basis. Not surprisingly, some states don’t want to accept federal funds to expand their programs. As of October 22, 2013, twenty six states were moving forward with Medicaid expansion and twenty four were not.

Refusal to accept federal funding for Medicaid expansion creates a “gap” in coverage between existing Medicaid programs and subsidies under the ACA and minorities account for a significant portion of the persons in this gap. Minority populations are more likely to be uninsured than the White population (13%), as compared with nonelderly Hispanics (32%), followed by American Indians/Alaska Natives (27%), Blacks (21%), and Asians/Pacific Islanders (18%). These populations are also more likely to have issues accessing affordable healthcare. Furthermore, given that roughly six out of ten Medicaid recipients are persons of color, minorities are more likely to be disproportionately affected by state refusals to expand their Medicaid programs. People in the gap who fall between one hundred percent of the federal poverty level (the current level of Medicaid coverage) and one hundred and thirty eight percent of the federal poverty level (the level at which ACA subsidies apply) will again be without options if states refuse to accept the money to cover them. The ACA has the potential to improve access to healthcare for historically under served populations. Furthermore, it is important to note that the majority of Medicaid recipients are children. In conclusion, states should set aside ideology and act in the best interest of their most vulnerable populations by expanding Medicaid.

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:

Nat’l Fed’n of Indep. Bus. v. Sebelius, 132 S. Ct. 2566, 2607 (2012).

Health Coverage by Race and Ethnicity: The Potential Impact of the Affordable Care Act, The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, available at http://kff.org/disparities-policy/issue-brief/health-coverage-by-race-and-ethnicity-the-potential-impact-of-the-affordable-care-act/, (publication #8423).

Samantha Artiga & Jessica Stephens, The Impact of Current State Medicaid Expansion Decisions on Coverage by Race and Ethnicity, The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, July 02, 2013, available at http://kff.org/disparities-policy/issue-brief/the-impact-of-current-state-medicaid-expansion-decisions-on-coverage-by-race-and-ethnicity/, (publication #8450).

Status of State Action on the Medicaid Expansion Decision, as of October 22, 2013, The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, available at http://kff.org/health-reform/state-indicator/state-activity-around-expanding-medicaid-under-the-affordable-care-act/ (last visited Oct. 26, 2013).

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: , ,

Putting the Red Light on Racially Motivated Traffic Stops

June 17th, 2013 No comments

By: Jay Patel

Blog Category: Racial Profiling & Traffic Stops

Putting the Red Light on Racially Motivated Traffic Stops

In the late 1990’s the State of New Jersey entered into a consent decree with the United States Department of Justice.[1] The basis: New Jersey State Troopers were using race as a means of discriminating among drivers stopped for traffic infractions.[2] The consent decree underscored a stark reality; police officers across the country were using race as a pretext to stop, and in many cases, harass minorities.[3] The question then becomes: How can we curb these flagrant abuses?

Several commentators have proposed suggestions which could be easily implemented and maintained.[4] The first proposal would establish internal police policies which would set forth standardized procedures that an officer would have to follow when conducting a traffic stop.[5] To ensure that these policies are followed, the author suggests financial awards or fines based on departmental adherence.[6] Another commentator has suggested that by either restricting or barring consent based searches race-centric stops will cease.[7] He would apply the Terry standard of reasonable suspicion for a stop and frisk as a prong to any motorist consent.[8] In short, law enforcement officers would need both the motorist’s consent and reasonable suspicion that illegal contraband was present before conducting a search.[9] The other plausible scenario would render ineffective a citizen’s consent to search and effectively bar the police from searching a motor vehicle.[10]

Ideally we would like to reside in a society where racial profiling does not exist; however, that is not the reality. Therefore, it is important that we consider one or many of the proffered solutions as a means to end racial profiling.


[1]  Noah Kupferberg, TRANSPARENCY: A NEW ROLE FOR POLICE CONSENT DECREES, 42 Colum. J. L. & Soc. Probs. 129,139 (2008).

[2]  Id.

[3] Id.  at 134 (detailing the United State Department of Justice’s investigation and subsequent consent decree with the City of Los Angeles); See also  David A. Harris, ESSAY: “DRIVING WHILE BLACK” AND ALL OTHER TRAFFIC OFFENSES: THE SUPREME COURT AND PRETEXTUAL TRAFFIC STOPS, 87 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 544, 561-69 (1997) (detailing several disturbing race-based traffic stops).

[4]  Id. at 576-79; See also, Timothy P. O’Neil, Article: Vagrants in Volvos: Ending Pretextual Traffic Stops and Consent Searches of Vehicles in Illinois, 40 Loy. U. Chi. L.J. 745, 772-779. (2009).

[5] Harris, supra, note 3 at 576-79.

[6] Id. at 579.

[7]  O’Neil, supra, note 4 at 774-75.

[8]  Id. at 773.

[9]  Id. at 778-79.

[10]  Id. at 778.

Whether or not racial profiling in traffic stops is a thing of the past

May 27th, 2013 No comments

By: *Marthe Ngwashi

Blog Topic: Racial Profiling & Traffic Stops

Whether or not racial profiling in traffic stops is a thing of the past.

 

Could racial profiling in traffic stops be an issue of the past? While difficult to determine whether discrimination or other factors dictate a traffic stop, people of color, as research indicates, continue to be stopped more often than whites.[1] For a traffic stop, the purpose of profiling based on race remains unsubstantiated, while the length and search rate for stops between a person of color and a similarly situated white driver may be no different at all.[2] In fact, one study noted that a higher level of discrimination on an officer’s part, does not even take place prior to a stop.[3] Analytically though, something likely more important than the stop itself is the character of each stop and the subsequent treatment of the individual(s) detained.[4]

All things considered, research verifies that subjectivity plays a role in an officer’s decision to make a stop.[5] As such, any attempts to discontinue a practice involving racial bias will require commitment and persistence on a police chief’s part and patience from the public. It is unknown whether the bias stems from the culture within a police department or merely a small group of problem officers.[6] As a result, it is evident that racial profiling in traffic stops is not an issue of the past.

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.

 


*Marthe Ngwashi is a staff member on Widener’s Journal of Law, Economics & Race. To learn more about Marthe, click here to view her page.

[1] Racial Profiling and Traffic Stops, National Institute of Justice (Jan 10, 2013), http://www.nij.gov/topics/law-enforcement/legitimacy/traffic-stops.htm#noteReferrer1

[2] Id.

[3] Id.

[4] Id.

[5] Id.

[6] Id.

Driving While Intoxicated and Driving While Black

May 6th, 2013 No comments

By: *Bruce Owens

Blog Topic: Racial Profiling and Traffic Stops

Driving While Intoxicated and Driving While Black: Analyzing the Inconsistency in Police Traffic Stops and the Proposal of House Bill 2661

Racial Profiling during traffic stops has been notorious in America for many years.  Take the state of Oregon, for example, where Representative Lew Frederick (D-Portland), an African-American male, who is the spokesperson for Portland’s Public Schools, has been stopped three times by the police near his own home.  Oregon’s minority population has been growing since the year 2000 where the population for Hispanics “rose from 8 percent in 2000 to 11.7 percent in 2010,” while African-Americans grew from a substantially small percentage of 1.6 to a miniscule 1.8 percent.  According to an Oregon State Police study in the year 2001-02, it was reported that minorities were “no more likely to be stopped than whites.”  However, they received arrests and citations, rather than warnings, “at greater rates than whites after being stopped.” This has become a huge issue, especially in areas of Oregon where the amount of minority drivers is substantially outweighed by drivers that are white.

It is not always easy to determine, from an outsider’s perspective, whether traffic stops of all or most minorities are actually the result of some illegal activity or being at the wrong place at the wrong time due to heightened suspicions of officers at night or in being in an urban area.  However, a recent attempt by Rep. Frederick is aimed at requiring the collection of data on these type of statistics to help determine what the core issue is when police are making these types of decisions.  The Bill proposed by Rep. Frederick, House Bill 2661, would require a study by the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission to collect data on police stops of minorities.  Frederick states, “It’s clear we have racial disparities in stops, arrests and other law enforcement actions.”  “What we do not have is the data to show where it is happening and how often it is happening.”

The Bill will specifically collect data on the following:
1)    Disparities in the racial or economic status of people that are stopped or “subjected to the use of force by police officers;”
2)   The effect racial and economic status “on interactions not related to crime between police officers and members of the public;” AND
3)   “Recruitment and retention of minorities by law enforcement agencies, district attorney offices,” and other facilities.

On paper, this seems like a progressive way of targeting the issue of racial profiling by the police, specifically in traffic stops.  However, the question, as it always will be with legislative bills, is how effective will this study actually be?

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.

_____________________________

*Bruce Owens is a staff member on Widener’s Journal of Law, Economics & Race. To learn more about Bruce, Click here to visit his page.

To learn more about this topic see:

Peter Wong, Bill Would Gather Data On Police Stops of Minorities, Statesmen Journal (Mar. 15, 2013), http://www.statesmanjournal.com/article/20130312/NEWS/303120016/Bill-would-gather-data-police-stops-minorities.

Hannah Hoffman, Bill Would Require More Collection of Crime Data On Minorities, Statesmen Journal (Mar. 15, 2013), http://www.statesmanjournal.com/article/20130306/UPDATE/130305058/Bill-would-require-more-collection-crime-data-minorities.

Changing the Landscape of Corporate Leadership: “Know when to hold ‘em, Know when to fold ‘em.”

April 29th, 2013 No comments

By: Marcia Leach

Blog Category: Minorities in the Corporate World

Changing the Landscape of Corporate Leadership: “Know when to hold ‘em, Know when to fold ‘em.”[1]

In May of 2011, the Alliance for Board Diversity (“ABD”) Census reported that between 2004 and 2010, Caucasian men in the Fortune 100 corporations gained 32 corporate board seats while African American men lost 42, and women, particularly minority women, had no appreciable increase in corporate board seats.[2] The census also found that Fortune 500 boards were even less diverse than the Fortune 100 boards.[3] Ilene H. Lang, Chair of ABD and President and CEO of Catlyst, called the results “staggering”, in light of today’s labor market having “. . . so many qualified women and minority candidates available for board service.”[4] Thus, the results confirm that in order to change the landscape of corporate leadership, proponents for the diversification of corporate boards need to change their strategic approach by shifting away from arguments “based on social and moral grounds” to “market-based” arguments supporting diversity on corporate boards.”[5]

Evan Roberts in his law review article, Corporate Leadership and the Unfinished Diversity Movement, found that “[D]espite their symbolic rhetoric, these rationales [social and moral grounds] do not appear to energize the business community enough to inspire broad changes in policy.”[6] In response to the judicial opinions in Bakke and Grutter where the majority of the Supreme Court justices “indicated skepticism over arguments for affirmative action based on the need to remedy past (or even present) societal discrimination,” market based arguments offer a way for advocates to utilize the broad ‘diversity’ rationale that eliminated strict consideration of race.”[7] According to Roberts, the “business case for diversity” makes sense in the present social and legal climate and is increasingly playing “a major role in the debate over why firms should seek to accelerate racial and gender integration.” [8]

One study by The Council of Institutional Investors (“CII”) offers “two sale-related” arguments for corporate boards to diversify.[9] First, diverse boards have a “deeper understanding of minority purchasing priorities and better connections to various minority communities” where there has been new growth in marketing opportunities.[10] Second, diverse boards have a better understanding of cultural differences in the global marketplace.[11] “Talented minority candidates can more easily plug themselves into markets where they have an understanding of the cultural differences of the market, relative to their white peers.”[12]

For diversity advocates, surely the time has come “to know when to hold ‘em and know when to fold ‘em” if they are going to change the corporate landscape.[13]

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.

___________________________________

*Marcia Leach is a staff member on the Widener Journal of Law, Economics & Race. To learn more about Marcia, click here to view her page.

[1] Kenny Rodgers,The Gambler,(Dream Catcher 1978)

[2] Women and Minorities lose Ground on Fortune 500 Corporate Boards, Diversity Employers, © 2011 by IMDiversity, Inc. http://www.diversityemployers.com/index.php/career-news/137-board-diversity, accessed 3/3/2013.

[3] Id.

[4] Id.

[5] Evan Roberts, Corporate Leadership and the Unfinished Diversity Movement, 14 Duq. Bus. L.J. 277, 280-81 (Summer 2012).

[6] Id. at 280-81.

[7] Id. at 281

[8] Id.

[9] Id. at 282.

[10] Id.

[11] Id.

[12] Id.

[13] Rodgers, supra note 1.