![\"\"](\"https:\/\/impeachreno.org\/politicalhat\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/07\/doctor-check-your-privilege.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
An opinion piece in the New England Journal of Medicine is calling for healthcare to be redistributed<\/a> by taking away from some people who are of the wrong race and given to others who are of other races.<\/p>\n \u201cBiden\u2019s executive order puts forth a definition of equity that could be seen as somewhat self-contradictory. According to the order, equity refers to \u2018the consistent and systematic fair, just, and impartial treatment of all individuals, including individuals who belong to underserved communities that have been denied such treatment, such as Black, Latino, and Indigenous and Native American persons, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders and other persons of color; members of religious minorities; lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ+) persons; persons with disabilities; persons who live in rural areas; and persons otherwise adversely affected by persistent poverty or inequality.\u2019 The first part of this definition emphasizes equality for all people, whereas the second part calls attention to specific underserved groups.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n And the author makes it clear which side he favors<\/p>\n \u201cTo promote equity, the Biden administration should distribute resources differentially in order to benefit groups that are persistently disadvantaged.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n That\u2019s right, this piece in the New England Journal of Medicine is calling for the Federal government to engage in racial discrimination by determining what medical care you get based on your race.<\/p>\n This, of course, is \u201cequity\u201d, which involves systemic discrimination that denigrates people into categories and gives<\/span><\/span><\/span> those categories<\/i> equality not of outcome but of perceived share of power\/position even if it means institutional inequality of individuals.<\/p>\n Oh, but this woke-fest doesn\u2019t end there. It goes whole hog with the \u201cgender\u201d agenda.<\/p>\n \u201cThe Office of Minority Health, however, advises organizations to collect race and ethnicity data separately as part of its guidance on advancing the National Standards for Culturally and Linguistically Appropriate Services in Health and Health Care. Both agencies use binary options for gender in their surveys and don\u2019t permit people to select multiple options for sexual orientation, which would be in keeping with the idea that sexuality is fluid. Updating variables related to identity would fulfill the Data Working Group\u2019s responsibility to refine data in order to measure equity and capture diversity.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n And of course this proposal is fully intersectional.<\/p>\n \u201cSecond, the administration could use variable disaggregation to model the ways in which various groups face disadvantages based on intersectional identities, or interconnected affiliations with various groups defined by race, ethnicity, gender identity, sexual orientation, class, or other factors that contribute to privilege and power or to discrimination and disadvantage.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n The author covers all three points of \u201cdiversity\u201d, \u201cinclusion\u201d, and \u201cequity\u201d (AKA the \u201cDIE\u201d agenda); by \u201credistributing\u201d medical resources those of the incorrect race, sexuality, or gender identity will indeed literally \u201cDIE\u201d.<\/p>\n Hat Tip<\/b>: Wesley J. Smith<\/a>.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" An opinion piece in the New England Journal of Medicine is calling for healthcare to be redistributed by taking away from some people who are of the wrong race and given to others who are of other races. \u201cBiden\u2019s executive … Continue reading \n
\n
\n
\n