The comprehensive pro se lawsuit by two New Jersey activists against the healthcare-reform bill alleges, as one of its fifteen counts, that certain elements of the bill constitute racial discrimination, hence a "den[ial] [of] the equal protection of the laws."
Amendment XIV of the Constitution reads in relevant part:
No State shall...deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
In addition, Nicholas E. Purpura and Donald R. Laster Jr, the originating plaintiffs in Purpura et al. v. Sebelius et al., say that the bill labeled "HR 3590" contains provisions that violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the title dealing with discrimination in employment. Purpura and Laster cite Title VII primarily because, more than any other single title of the CRA, it illustrates the principle of equal treatment under the law. They cite the recent case of Ricci et al. v. DeStefano et al. (in which the fire department of New Haven, CT, passed over several higher-scoring firefighters for promotion because they were of the wrong race, i.e., white or Hispanic rather than black) to make their point.
Purpura and Laster have two objections with regard to the unequal treatment of citizens and lawful residents under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. First, Title V, Sections 5201 and 5202, dealing with federally funded student loans, and Section 10908, dealing with State student loans, specifically steer certain student loan moneys to "historically black- and minority-serving colleges." The framers of the bill appear to have made a judgment that members of racial and ethnic minorities are chronically underserved because not enough members of these groups are able (or willing?) to become doctors, nurses, and other "allied health professionals."
The lawsuit says that the Congressional Black Caucus insisted on this provision, which would thus make it a legislative bribe comparable to the infamous "Cornhusker Kickback." More to the point, making student loan funds available to medical, nursing, med-tech, and other students based on race constitutes the very sort of "reverse discrimination" that occasioned the famous legal challenge by Allen Paul Bakke (Regents U. Cal. v. Bakke, 438 US 265, decided 28 June 1978).
The second objection involves the taxation of certain services that only patients of a certain race might ask for. The law taxes all "tanning salons" by 10 percent. Tanning enhancement is something that only a fair-skinned individual is accustomed to using, and therefore, says the lawsuit, that constitutes discrimination against certain patients on account of their fair skin.
This might seem trivial, primarily because tanning salons have traditionally marketed their services as cosmetic rather than therapeutic. But Joseph R. Mercola, DO, has specifically recommended tanning enhancement for all patients, regardless of skin tone, on the theory that the radiation that produces a suntan (ultraviolet) allows the body to produce vast quantities of Vitamin D, a substance in which Mercola asserts that virtually every American is seriously deficient, especially in the wintertime.
The student-loan objection is the more salient example of racial-ethnic discrimination in this bill, and illustrates the rank hypocrisy of the American left, with its implication that only black doctors may serve black patients, etc. The tanning-salon issue appears to be racially discriminatory only because whites are the chief or sole users of such services, and they use it for cosmetic reasons only. In fact, the tax on that service might be deleterious to the nation's health because it discourages people from using a service that, if used wisely, might alleviate several other health issues that result from Vitamin D deficiency. (According to Mercola, this includes maladies as diverse as seasonal upper-respiratory infections, including influenza, and even malignant neoplasms.)
Tomorrow, Purpura and Laster will make another attempt to hand-deliver a reply affidavit in opposition to a motion to stay a summary-judgment proceeding.
Like this article? Want to be notified of more? Click Subscribe, above.
Comments
You know what You guys should stop complaining because, one the health care we have now isnt as good as it was supposed to be. also the law has just been signed so give it some time. so if u want to say u have the right to choose tell that to ur congress men or state official. If you do not have insurance and need one You can find full medical coverage at the lowest price by searching online for "Wise Health Insurance" If you have health insurance and do not care about cost just be happy it and trust me you are not going to loose anything!
you know if you would all work together for a better health care system you would have it, instead you are all fighting with one another and refusing to cooperate,
who losses? the american people who need the sort of coverage, the rich couldn't care less about these working class people who fall through the cracks, they have their great insurance plans they have nothing to worry about. They don't live day to day worrying about getting sick because they have no coverage from their measly little jobs, and just because they make 8.00 a hour they don't qualify for medicare or medicaid.
The adjustable rate mortgage that I had before had me nearly to the brink of bankruptcy because of the never-ending payment increases. Now I have 3.18% fixed rate. I would absolutely recommend "123 Mortgage Refinance" I worked with to anyone I know planning to refinance mortgage.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!