Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
San Francisco Blatantly Ignores the Equal Protection Clause. Why?
Mayor London Breed has announced the Abundant Birth Project which intends to give pregnant people a $1,000/month supplement if they are Black or Pacific Islander. Provision of these sort of benefits is usually done by some proxy, like being poor, etc., and is allowed to have a disparate impact between the races. But here there is no proxy, just an outright provision of benefits depend on race.
I heard the Mayor about a month ago state that she was going to defund the police department to some extent and direct the money to the Black community. I thought that she just made a Kinsley gaffe, revealing that she is racist against non-Black people, but of course she is, who cares? You got a problem with that?
I thought the City Attorney would explain the 14th Amendment to the Constitution to her and clean up her final proposal, but no!
This is not legal scholar theory, it is pretty much Black Letter Law. How did this happen and why did this happen? My theory is that San Francisco is giving an obscene gesture to non-Black people, saying this is the new woke reality and get used to it. The Constitution is optional. She is daring the Federal Justice Department to sue, which is unlikely under a Harris/Biden Administration. Heaven forbid that a pregnant person with standing should sue for violation of their civil rights. She (or he) would find herself fired, evicted, with a vandalized car, and eventually assaulted. Canceled, in other words. That’s a lot for a pregnant woman to take on.
So what do you think happened here?
Published in General
Well I identify as such so it’s rank bigotry not to give me a check.
Well sure you can also “identify as” female and pregnant, my point was you don’t want to leave those off from identifying as a black Pacific Islander. Cuz you don’t get the money just from that.
Well lately it seems the government is giving out checks to everybody that is not me so why not you too?
To ask that is a violation of HIPAA. You have to take my word for it.
That’s the ticket.
And the left apparently now believes that men can be pregnant, so…
Some of us certainly look it.
Because they can? Because they can count on a spontaneous mob reaction once anybody who sues or even complains is doxxed?
Oh, I see how you are, Mayor Breed. Bigoted against Latina women. Apparently Latina babies are not worth the money.
divide et impera, remember.
If you buy into top down tax payer funded support for problems caused by top down tax payer funded programs, what is the alternative?
Don’t worry. We do have some politically engaged Republicans and Libertarians in town. They are willing to write various objections to the left wing proposals put on the ballot, and even to run for office. Perhaps Dr. Terence Faulkner is on this. Or Starchild.
On second thought, we can probably just kiss that money bye-bye.
Many ideas are bad, but some are just stupid.
As several other commenters here have pointed out, there is no legal definition of race. That’s because there cannot be a legal definition of race other than either (1) a person looks like a member of a certain race, in the opinion of an official who has been invested with the authority to make such a decision, or (2) a person self-identifies as a member of a certain race. Other attempts to legally define race – and there were many before the civil rights movement – were typically figleaves for the first of these two possibilities.
Also, has San Francisco considered the public relations implications of a woman (excuse me, I mean “person”) who accepts up to $9000 in pregnancy subsidies and then aborts the baby? And what about the effect on pregnancy prevention efforts once the pregnancy subsidy program is eventually heralded as a success, and the discussion turns to opening it up to all qualified women?
I’d imagine San Fran will produce stats showing problems associated with pregnancies/births among these two groups, and argue that there is a “compelling state interest” in providing a “narrowly tailored,” relatively small subsidy in an effort to mitigate the issues. I’m not necessarily endorsing that view, but, if proven, it would defeat an equal protection challenge.
HEY, I resemble that remark!
But seriously, “pregnant PEOPLE“?!?!?!?!?!
Won’t they set aside money for…
pregnant pauses
Heads up! I am now going to be crass and boorish!
A woman would have to do a cost-benefit, right? An earlier abortion costs less…is probably more likely to be paid for by insurance…would involve less of the troublesome “omigod, are you having a baby!” conversations with bystanders, and once the abortion happens, one could “re-up” and get back on the gravy train pretty quickly.
If a 20 week abortion costs 600$, the profit would be 3400$. A thirty six week abortion costs more like ten grand, plus travel and hotel costs. And it’s more dangerous.
But this is a disgusting conversation to be having, isn’t it? How cynical we’ve become, my friends!
I’m already female, and I could probably feel pregnant if I tried hard. Can I identify as pre-menopausal?
Do women – especially “poor” women – ever really pay for abortions any more? If they do, it’s not from lack of trying on the left.