“Our maternal death rates are only bad because of inherent racism in our medical industry”
There’s some truth to his statement as far as the numbers go and perhaps some correction is needed. Obviously, you wouldn’t want to entirely remove the stats of African American women, as that would be blatantly racist, but it seems some for of compromise is warranted.
Perhaps counting only half of them? or perhaps slightly more than half, say 6/10ths
This is gold satire.
NGL, you had me going in the first half
Damn there really isn’t even a quiet part anymore is there
What an inbred donkey.
On my fuck…Dude seriously…you said admitted your racist ass racist bias, what a monster.
They’re even better if you only count white men
Those numbers can go down even further if you exclude everyone who isn’t a millionaire.
No, no they cannot.
Nope. I think once you exclude women, the maternal death rates will hit their minimum.
Trans men?
As if they’d be counted appropriately.
True. They’d not give them any recognition.
Yeah, now we’re talking.
NaN gang represent
Truly, the only demographic that matters, in cases like these. /s
Dont rope the rest of us white dudes into some rant like that just because theres a spoiled apple in the bunch doesnt make the rest of us bad. Fuck that senator what a piece of shit
just because theres a spoiled apple in the bunch doesnt make the rest of us bad
Maybe pick an analogy other than the one that does imply the rest of us are also bad
The joke is just that there isn’t a lot of maternal deaths among men
Dudes a piece of shit still, but the article is 3 years old.
We wouldn’t want people to forget what a racist Sen Bill Cassidy is.
I hope this article makes the rounds again next year, right around the time he is up for reelection.
I’m sure those rates are way better now. Because of all the beautiful winning.
but the article is 3 years old.
So you think he has learned from his mistakes and improved his atrocious stance?
Im impressed that you managed to read the second half of my comment without reading the first. The whole comment is a dozen words, so thats a real feat.
I did read it, I just found questionable as it seems you are dismissing this as too old to care
Cassidy is still a Senator and a piece of shit, so what does it matter if the racist thing he said is 3 years old?
I literally said hes still a piece of shit, so that should answer your first question. As to “how is this not relevant?”
The article is talking about what might happen if Roe is overturned by the supreme court, and what that might mean down the line. That happened already. We are out of “might” and are several years down the line.
Lets talk about what’s currently happening, now. Discussing a speculative article about changes that “may occur in the future” is pretty odd when we are 3 years in the future and can literally tell the article what happened.
I mean, you could have just said all that… we are not mind readers, you know?
Ah, I have a modest proposal. Let’s count 60% of maternal deaths from black women. /s
I might be wrong, Frank, but my reading of the text says that freed slaves fall under “the whole Number of free Persons” and thus count as 1, not three fifths.
The three fifths compromise just said slave states shouldn’t get to count slave population to get more representatives. The non-slave states wanted them not to count at all, since they don’t get representation regardless. It’s wild to me that we think of the “three fifths of all other persons” thing as the bad part, rather than the “rich assholes who owned people got more representation than those who didn’t own people because the people they owned counted toward their representative allotments.” After all, the slave owners wanted slaves to count as a full person. The problem, as always, was slavery.
I read this in Dennis’s voice
I don’t think it’s that “three fifths” is the only bad part per se, it just gets referenced a lot because it is a really indefensible example of how enslaved people were considered less than a person. So much so that here it is codified as a fraction of a person. Very in your face sort of language.
I think although very vivid language it is quite defensible for the reasons Kuni mentioned: in the only context where slaves were actually defined as 3/5 of a person, all they could do was allow their masters to extract extra value through representation from them, as they did not get representation for being counted towards House representation.
A government can’t possibly serve the whole population. /s
We’ll call it the…60% Compromise. Got a nice ring to it.
With gerrymandering that number is often much lower these days, so we’ve ended up even worse than the 3/5
As expected racist pieces of shit.
May 20, 2022
Here’s an article about it that can actually be read.
He continued: “Now, I say that not to minimize the issue but to focus the issue as to where it would be. For whatever reason, people of color have a higher incidence of maternal mortality.”
Maybe you should look into that, Senator.
Oh, it’s probably just genetic, just like how black and Hispanic men are uniquely genetically qualified to labor in the fields … /S
And our mass shooting events are pretty low when you don’t count bigoted white men.
So you’re going to do something to lower the maternal death rate for black women, right?
/padme.jpg
In an interview with Politico, the following words came out of Cassidy’s mouth: “About a third of our population is African American; African Americans have a higher incidence of maternal mortality. So, if you correct our population for race, we’re not as much of an outlier as it’d otherwise appear. Now, I say that not to minimize the issue but to focus the issue as to where it would be. For whatever reason, people of color have a higher incidence of maternal mortality.”
Scum POS. I’m sure he will start fixing the issue instead contributing to it.
I think he’s pointing out that this is a federal race-connected issue, not a local state issue. As in other states have similar stats if you group the numbers by race.
If that is correct, that’s a fair assessment. He should obviously work with the rest of Congress to solve that national issue, though, and he should really spearhead it if it affects his state more.
If only states were capable of doing things to improve the lives of their residents above what the nation as a whole can do. Clearly it’s impossible. Woe be this poor powerless state politician.
Your justification doesn’t hold within its own logic. And doesn’t address how blatantly racist the statement itself is.
Solving it in his state is certainly a good way of spearheading a national solution.
As for you considering the statement racist: I was expecting a lot worse based on the headline. I don’t think grouping by race when looking at health statistics is inherently racist. Race can be relevant to health outcomes, among other reasons due to racism, and so one should be allowed to discuss that.
Deciding to ignore the problem because it predominantly affects a certain race is racist, but that wasn’t what was stated in the quote earlier in this thread, despite the headline suggesting it was.
Except adjusting for race is not appropriate. They are a significant portion of his constituent population. It may help explain a factor as to why it’s higher in his state. But I’ll bet being in a red state is also a factor given things like doctors fleeing, budget cuts, etc.
Additionally, such stats are prone to reflecting biases in the system rather than actual medically relevant information. Do black women have worse outcomes because of biological reasons, or because they are treated worse. This is one of those stats you have to be careful with because a nontrivial amount of time, it’s damn near proof of racism.
A Louisiana Senator saying something racist? Not News worthy.
