(Liberty Bell) – One of the main strategies the radical progressives have for helping to tear the United States down to pieces so they can rebuild it in the image of Marx is to ensure that Americans are divided in every way that you can possibly think of, especially racially.
Nothing will tear down a country faster than a lack of shared history and common ground. If we are all allowed to look beyond our color and ethnicity and treat each other as human beings judged by what they do rather than how they look, well, we will create a shared culture of true equality that would result in this nation being indestructible.
Sort of throws a wrench into the works for the Democratic Party, doesn’t it?
This is likely one of the reasons behind insane policies like the one in New York where racial minorities are now automatically being given eligibility for scarce coronavirus therapeutics, regardless of their age or what kind of underlying conditions, if any, they might have.
According to the Washington Free Beacon, in the state of Utah, “Latinx ethnicity” is counting for more points than serious conditions like “congestive heart failure” in patients’ “COVID-19 risk score,” which is the framework for how the state is allocating monoclonal antibody treatments.
Oh and then in Minnesota, health officials have come up with a scheme for their own “ethical framework” that prioritizes black 18-year-olds over white 64-year-olds, despite the fact that the latter demographic is actually at a significantly higher risk of contracting a severe case of the illness.
“These schemes have sparked widespread condemnation of the state governments implementing them. But the idea to use race to determine drug eligibility wasn’t hatched in local health departments; it came directly from the federal Food and Drug Administration,” the Free Beacon reported.
“When the FDA issued its emergency use authorizations for monoclonal antibodies and oral antivirals, it authorized them only for ‘high risk’ patients—and issued guidance on what factors put patients at risk. One of those factors was race,” the report continued.
“The FDA ‘fact sheet’ for Sotrovimab, the only monoclonal antibody effective against the Omicron variant, states that ‘race or ethnicity’ can ‘place individual patients at high risk for progression to severe COVID-19.’ The fact sheet for Paxlovid, Pfizer’s new antiviral pill, uses the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s definition of ‘high risk,’ which states that ‘systemic health and social inequities’ have put minorities ‘at increased risk of getting sick and dying from COVID-19,'” the WFB report stated.
These guidance sheets are nonbinding and are not requiring clinicians to racially allocate the medications. However, several states have ended up relying on them to try and justify race-based triage.
“The FDA has acknowledged that in addition to certain underlying health conditions, race and ethnicity ‘may also place individual patients at high risk for progression to severe COVID-19,’” Minnesota’s plan goes on to say. “FDA’s acknowledgment means that race and ethnicity alone, apart from other underlying health conditions, may be considered in determining eligibility for [monoclonal antibodies].”
The plan from Utah also has similar language. In one section called the “Ethical Justification for Using Race/Ethnicity in Patient Selection,” the plan points out that the FDA “specifically states that race and ethnicity may be considered when identifying patients most likely to benefit from this lifesaving treatment.”
As of this writing, the FDA has refused to comment on either state’s plan, stating only that “there are no limitations on the authorizations that would restrict their use in individuals based on race.”
So the ones who are supposed to be fighting for fairness and equality are actually supporting a piece of legislation that creates the very racism they say they are attempting to destroy.
“The triage plans are part of a broader push to rectify racial health disparities through race-conscious means. In March of last year, for example, two doctors at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston outlined an ‘antiracist agenda for medicine’ that involved ‘offering preferential care based on race.’ And last year, Vermont and New Hampshire both gave racial minorities priority access to the COVID-19 vaccine, resulting in at least one formal civil rights complaint against New Hampshire,” the report stated.
This new trend has raised a lot of red flags for Roger Severino, who is the former civil rights director at the Department of Health and Human Services, who has called racial preferences made in the halls of medicine a “corrosive and grossly unfair” practice.
“Our civil rights laws are not suspended during a public health emergency,” Severino stated. “We should never deny someone life-saving health care because of the color of their skin.”
“The triage plans show how federal guidelines can encourage this sort of race discrimination. They also suggest that the FDA is making political judgments, not just scientific ones,” the WFB report continued.
“They’re injecting politics into science,” a former senior HHS official went on to say. “That’s something the Trump administration was pilloried for allegedly doing.”
Legal experts commented on one particularly clear sign of the politicization that was made by this senior HHS official, which is the seeming double standard of the guidance between race and sex. Men in the U.S. have now proven to be roughly 60 percent more likely than women to die from COVID-19 than women, according to research from the Brookings Institution. Within some of the age brackets, the mortality gap is even bigger than that.
“But the FDA doesn’t list sex as a risk factor anywhere in its guidance. And while the Utah scheme does take it into account, the New York and Minnesota schemes do not. Nor do they or the FDA give any weight to geography and socioeconomic status, both of which are associated with COVID-19 mortality,” The Free Beacon notes.
“Instead, the triage plans give more weight to race than to many comorbidities. In Minnesota’s scoring system, ‘BIPOC status’ is worth two points, whereas ‘hypertension in a patient 55 years and older’ is worth just one,” the report continued (screenshot here).
In the scoring system from Utah, “non-white race or Hispanic/Latinx Ethnicity” is worth a whopping two points, which is the same amount allocated to diabetes, obesity, and “severely immunocompromised” individuals, while things like hypertension, congestive heart failure, chronic pulmonary disease, and “shortness of breath” only count for one each (screenshot here).
However, it seems gentlemen will end up receiving one extra point in Utah, based on the grounds that, “male gender is associated with increased risk of severe COVID-19.” Nonbinary patients, the document says, “may choose to answer” questions about their gender identity “with that background information.”
When the Washington Free Beacon asked legal experts about the legality of these measures, “It’s certainly unconstitutional to use race in this way,” David Bernstein, a professor of constitutional law at George Mason University stated.
He continued by saying, “We don’t have a lot of happy examples of countries that have used race as a medical criterion.”
Copyright 2022. LibertyBell.com