More discrimination among expectant moms is a bad prescription

The controversy over California's maternal health initiative for Black expectant mothers strikes at a fundamental question: how do we address persistent racial disparities in healthcare without running afoul of equal protection principles? The article, published on The Hill, argues that race-based patient classification is itself a form of discrimination, even when intended to help. This is not a fringe view—it echoes concerns raised in recent Supreme Court rulings that have scrutinized race-conscious government programs, including in education and contracting. Yet the data driving California's approach is undeniable. Black women in the United States face maternal mortality rates roughly three times higher than white women, and Black infants die at more than twice the rate of white infants. These gaps persist even when controlling for income, education, and insurance status. Proponents of the California program argue that race-conscious care is necessary precisely because the system has historically failed Black patients, and that ignoring race in treatment protocols would perpetuate the very inequities the program seeks to correct. The author's constitutional argument—that individual treatment is the only legally sound and ethically correct approach—has merit in a society that aspires to colorblind governance. But critics of that position note that "individual treatment" has never been race-neutral in practice; implicit bias, systemic neglect, and historical mistreatment have made the healthcare experience markedly different for Black mothers. Treating everyone "the same" on paper can mean treating them unequally in reality. What makes this debate particularly fraught is that both sides claim the moral high ground. One side sees a compassionate, evidence-based effort to save lives and close a stubborn gap. The other sees a slippery slope toward racial classifications that undermine the principle that all patients deserve equal dignity under the law. The courts may ultimately settle the legal question, but the ethical and practical questions will linger. As the source article notes, the Constitution prescribes individual treatment—yet whether that prescription can heal a system with a deeply unequal history remains an open question. Readers should weigh the evidence on both sides: the documented disparities that motivated the California program, and the constitutional concerns raised by its critics. Both are real. The challenge is finding a path that honors both the letter of the law and the lives at stake.