(PartiallyPolitics.com) – Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson of the Supreme Court has faced criticism after a misrepresentation regarding the mortality rates of Black infants in the care of White doctors. These assertions were part of her dissenting viewpoint on the Court’s ruling about affirmative action.
Jackson’s dissenting stance sought to highlight the importance of race-based admissions in providing opportunities for racial minorities, and in certain contexts, the potential to tip the balance between life and death. In the Fair Admissions v. Harvard case, she erroneously stated that the chances of survival for a high-risk Black newborn could be doubled with the presence of a Black physician. This was Jackson’s way of emphasizing that race-based admissions could play a role in fostering equity and potentially improving survival rates among disadvantaged groups.
The law firm responsible for the amicus brief, which was associated with this incorrect statement, made an attempt to elucidate the facts later in the week. The firm noted that the brief had suggested that for “high-risk Black newborns, having a Black doctor is equivalent to a lifesaving drug; it more than doubles the chances that the baby will survive.” This conclusion was drawn from a 2020 study investigating the mortality rates of newborns in Florida from 1992 to 2015.
The law firm affirmed that the study revealed a reduced mortality rate among Black newborns, in comparison to White newborns, when they were attended by a Black doctor. The findings suggested that racial harmony between the patient and the physician could contribute to lessening health disparities.
Copyright 2023, PartiallyPolitics.com
