What is Prop 54?
- 0Sep 20, '03 by pickledpepperRNMore info:
Ward Connerly, a University of California Regent, author of the proposition, once said, "The UC hospitals do not exist to provide patient care. Their purpose is the training of medical students."
This was said to questions regarding unsafe staffing and the replacement of RNs by unlicensed 'Care Partners'.
Prohibits state and local governments from classifying any person by race, ethnicity, color, or national origin. Various exemptions apply. Fiscal Impact: The measure would not result in a significant fiscal impact on state and local governments.
Diane Schachterle American Civil Rights Coalition P.O. Box 189113, Sacramento, California, 95818 (916) 444-2278 email@example.com <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org> www.racialprivacy.org <http://www.racialprivacy.org>
Ed Lee Coalition For An Informed California 1611 Telegraph Avenue, Oakland, California, 94612 (510) 452-2728 email@example.com <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org> www.informedcalifornia.org <http://www.informedcalifornia.org>
Who Signed the Ballot Arguments:
Ward Connerly, University of California Regent
Martha Montelongo Myers, Columnist
Joe Hicks, Human Relations Consultant
Sam Aanestad, California State Senator
Dr. MaryRose Consiglio, Prop. 54 Statewide Vice Chair
Rodger Hedgecock, Talk Show Host KOGO San Diego
Jacqueline Jacobberger, President; League of Women Voters
John C. Lewin, M.D., Chief Executive Officer; California Medical Association
Molly Coye, M.D., Former Director; Department of Health Services, Wilson Administration
Robert M. Pearl, M.D., Kaiser Permanente
The California Medical Association Says Information Saves Lives
VOTE NO! ON PROPOSITION 54
L.A. mayor, NAACP oppose Proposition 54, which will appear on Oct. 7 ballot
Wed Aug 20, 9:06 AM (Daily Bruin)
On October 7, Californians will be voting on the gubernatorial recall initiative. They will also vote on Proposition 54, the "Classification by Race, Ethnicity, Color or National Origins" (CRECNO) Initiative. This is also called the Racial Privacy Initiative or the RPI.
This California constitutional initiative is an effort to move toward a "race-blind" society by prohibiting state and other public entities from classifying and tracking individuals by race. Although Proposition 54 allows for classification by race for medical research, this may not be possible when the information is to be collected by state agencies, such as the California Cancer Registry (NCCC's cancer registry operates under the authority of the California Cancer Registry). Proposition 54 will make it difficult, if not impossible, to classify cancer patients by race and to develop population estimates so that race-specific cancer rates can be calculated.
Though a race-blind society may be a desirable social goal, the fact is that diseases such as cancer, heart disease, Alzheimer's, AIDS, birth defects, sickle cell anemia, and diabetes are NOT race-blind. These and other diseases are more severe in some racial groups than in others. Even some treatments for these diseases are more effective in some groups than in others.
Researchers, such as those at the NCCC, and public health professionals need race and other information to determine disease rates, develop patient education and screening programs, and to deliver effective care to patients. Many of us working in medical research and public health are concerned that Proposition 54 will limit our ability to identify high-risk people in our efforts to more fully understand disease so we can prevent it and provide better care to those who become ill. Without access to this information, we fear that future research will be substantially compromised and public health programs will be less effective.
I urge you to read Proposition 54 very carefully before you vote and evaluate its possible impact on medical research in general and specifically on cancer research carried out at the Northern California Cancer Center.
Dee W. West, Ph.D.
Chief Scientific Officer
- 0Oct 5, '03 by pickledpepperRNhttp://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...,3851622.story
County Officials Fear Prop. 54 Effects
A report says the measure would affect costs and services, including adoptions and collection of data on hate crimes.
By Daren Briscoe, Times Staff Writer
Los Angeles County officials said Thursday that the passage of Proposition 54, which would bar state and local governments from collecting or using most kinds of racial and ethnic data, would hamper many critical county functions and cost millions to implement.
Officials giving a report on the proposition prepared by the county's Human Relations Commission said that, if the Oct. 7 ballot measure passes, it will adversely affect county services from adoptions to mental health and the collection of data involving hate crimes.
The state's legislative analyst has said that the measure would not have a significant fiscal effect on state and local governments. But according to the county's report, retraining as many as 35,000 employees and modifying county computer systems and forms could cost between $6 million and $8 million.
The legislative analyst also has said that the measure contains exemptions that would allow for the continued collection of racial data for medical and law enforcement purposes.
But representatives from several county departments said the measure would have far-reaching consequences.
"It would set public health back a couple of hundred years," said Jonathan Fielding, director of the county's Department of Public Health.
Fielding said that substantial gains in life expectancy have been made in the past century, largely because of improvements in targeting services on the basis of the health practices and status of different populations.
Diane Schachterle, coordinator for the Yes on Proposition 54 campaign, said that such efforts would be covered under the proposition's exemptions for medical research and disease tracking.
"Those are all medical subjects, and they are all exempt," Schachterle said.
According to county officials, the proposition's medical exemptions are too narrow and leave many unprotected areas in which information on race or ethnicity is crucial.
Supervisor Yvonne Brathwaite Burke said that many adoptive families request matches with foster children of like racial or ethnic backgrounds, and that, without the ability to provide such children, the county probably would lose those clients to private adoption agencies.
Michael R. Judge, the county's chief public defender, said that the "overwhelming majority" of his department's clients are members of minority groups and that Proposition 54 would compromise his ability to recruit a "diverse staff of highly qualified law students and lawyers that match up demographically" with those clients.
Schachterle said that public agencies are not supposed to use race as a factor in public employment.
In addition, she suggested that reports such as the one prepared by the county are part of an organized campaign to discredit the initiative.
"We keep hearing the exact same things because the opposition has a campaign that's very carefully laid out," she said.
"They present the same disinformation at each venue," she said.
A Los Angeles Times poll conducted earlier this week found that 54% of likely voters oppose Proposition 54.
- 0Oct 9, '03 by pickledpepperRNhttp://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/....ap/index.html
Wednesday, October 8, 2003 Posted: 12:28 AM EDT (0428 GMT)
LOS ANGELES, California (AP) -- California voters overwhelmingly rejected a contentious ballot initiative Tuesday that would have banned state and local governments from tracking race in everything from preschools to police work
The race initiative, Proposition 54, would have banned the collection or analysis of racial information in public education, contracting and employment. It would have been the first of its kind in the nation.
Opponents of Proposition 54 had criticized it as a blow against antidiscrimination policies, while backers insisted it was a leap toward a "colorblind society."
With 12 percent of precincts reporting, 1,008,773 voters, or 57 percent, were against Proposition 54, while 764,931, or 43 percent, favored the measure
The results weren't much of a surprise. Even Proposition 54's chief proponent, Ward Connerly, quipped that Tuesday night's "victory party" would better be dubbed a wake