In 2024, the United States witnessed a series of tragic hangings that have once again brought to light the deep-seated racial animosity towards Black people in America. These incidents are not just isolated acts of violence but are reflective of a broader, systemic issue that continues to plague the nation. The names of the victims and the circumstances surrounding their deaths serve as a stark reminder of the work that still needs to be done to achieve true racial equality.
Victims of 2024
Among the victims of these heinous acts were:
Willie James Pye: Executed on March 20, 2024, in Georgia.
Keith Edmund Gavin: Executed on July 18, 2024, in Alabama.
Freddie Eugene Owens: Executed on September 20, 2024, in South Carolina.
Emmanuel Antonio Littlejohn: Executed on September 26, 2024, in Oklahoma.
Garcia Glen White: Executed on October 1, 2024, in Texas.
Richard Bernard Moore: Executed on November 1, 2024, in South Carolina.
These individuals were among the 21 people executed in the United States in 2024, with a significant number being Black men. The racial disparities in the application of the death penalty are glaring, with Black individuals disproportionately represented on death row and among those executed.
Racial Animosity and Its Impact
The racial animosity towards Black people in America is not a new phenomenon. It is deeply rooted in the country’s history, from the era of slavery to the Jim Crow laws, and continues to manifest in various forms today. The hangings of 2024 are a grim reminder of this ongoing issue. These acts of violence are not just about the individuals who were executed but are indicative of a broader societal problem.
The impact of such racial violence on the Black community is profound. It perpetuates a cycle of fear, trauma, and mistrust towards the justice system and society at large. The emotional and psychological toll on the families and communities of the victims is immeasurable. Moreover, these incidents highlight the urgent need for systemic reforms to address racial disparities in the criminal justice system.
Statistical Analysis and Future Outlook
The statistics surrounding racial violence and the death penalty in the United States paint a troubling picture. According to data, Black individuals make up approximately 12.47% of the US population but are disproportionately represented among those executed. This disparity is a clear indication of the racial biases that exist within the justice system.
Looking ahead to 2025, the likelihood of continued racial violence remains high unless significant changes are made. The systemic issues that contribute to racial disparities in the application of the death penalty and other forms of violence must be addressed. This includes comprehensive reforms in policing, sentencing, and the overall criminal justice system.
Conclusion
The hangings of 2024 serve as a stark reminder of the racial animosity that continues to exist in America. The names of the victims and the circumstances of their deaths highlight the urgent need for systemic reforms to address racial disparities and ensure justice for all. As we move forward, it is crucial to acknowledge these issues and work towards creating a society where racial violence is no longer a reality.
In recent years, several high-profile incidents have highlighted the persistent issue of racial discrimination in the banking industry. Black customers have reported being denied basic financial services, such as cashing checks, by major banks like PNC Bank, Chase Bank, and Bank of America. These incidents not only underscore the systemic bias that exists within these institutions but also have profound effects on the Black community.
PNC Bank: The Case of Kiara Young
Kiara Young, an accountant from Detroit, Michigan, experienced a humiliating encounter at a PNC Bank branch in Commerce Township. After selling her car to a dealership, Young attempted to cash a $10,500 check issued by the dealership, which held an account with PNC Bank. Despite having proper identification and agreeing to pay the required processing fee, Young was denied service without a valid explanation2.
Young’s experience is a stark reminder of the challenges Black customers face when attempting to conduct routine banking transactions. The refusal to cash her check, despite it being legitimate and issued by a PNC account holder, led Young to file a lawsuit against the bank, alleging racial discrimination2. The incident left her feeling embarrassed and humiliated, highlighting the emotional toll such discriminatory practices can have on individuals.
Chase Bank: Discrimination Against a Black Doctor
In another troubling case, a Black doctor in Texas, Dr. Susan Smith, faced discrimination at a Chase Bank branch. Dr. Smith attempted to open a bank account with a $16,000 check from her employer. Despite her credentials and the legitimacy of the check, she was denied service and humiliated in the process. This incident led Dr. Smith to file a federal lawsuit against Chase Bank, alleging racial discrimination.
Bank of America: The Ryan Coogler Incident
Filmmaker Ryan Coogler, known for directing “Black Panther,” experienced a similar ordeal at a Bank of America branch. Coogler was handcuffed and detained while attempting to withdraw cash from his own account. The bank staff mistook him for a threat due to his race, despite him providing all necessary identification and account information. This incident not only highlights the racial bias that exists within financial institutions but also the potential dangers Black customers face when simply trying to access their own money.
The Impact on the Black Community
These incidents are not isolated; they reflect a broader pattern of discrimination that Black customers face in the banking industry. The refusal to cash checks or provide basic financial services can have significant financial and emotional impacts on individuals and the community as a whole. For professionals like Kiara Young and Dr. Susan Smith, such experiences undermine their financial stability and professional credibility.
Moreover, these discriminatory practices contribute to a lack of trust in financial institutions among the Black community. When banks fail to provide equal treatment, it perpetuates economic disparities and hinders the financial growth of Black individuals and businesses. The emotional toll of such experiences can also lead to increased stress and mental health issues, further exacerbating the challenges faced by the Black community.
Conclusion
The incidents involving PNC Bank, Chase Bank, and Bank of America serve as a stark reminder of the systemic racial bias that persists in the banking industry. As these cases continue to unfold in the legal system, they highlight the urgent need for financial institutions to address and eliminate discriminatory practices. Ensuring equal treatment for all customers, regardless of race, is not only a moral imperative but also essential for fostering trust and promoting economic equity.
In a major stride for HIV prevention, the Biden administration announced recently that long-acting injectable PrEP, sold as Apretude by ViiV Healthcare, will now be covered without cost-sharing under the Affordable Care Act (ACA). This policy shift is significant in making HIV prevention tools more accessible. However, for many Black Americans and those living in rural areas, barriers to healthcare persist, limiting the full potential of this policy change.
The Disparity in Access to PrEP
While this new policy represents progress, the reality is that Black people—who are disproportionately affected by HIV—are still underrepresented among those using PrEP. Despite making up over 40% of new HIV diagnoses in the U.S., only about 11% of PrEP users are Black, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). These numbers reveal the systemic barriers that exist: financial challenges, healthcare access gaps, and lingering stigma that keep many from obtaining life-saving medication.
In States Like Georgia, Where Medicaid Has Yet to Expand, HIV Rates Remain Alarmingly High
In states like Georgia, where Medicaid has yet to expand under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), HIV infection rates remain among the highest in the nation. The consequences of this policy decision are staggering. According to the most recent CDC surveillance data from 2023, Georgia reported over 2,674 new HIV diagnoses, placing it at the forefront of the ongoing HIV epidemic in the United States.
Despite widespread advances in treatment, Georgia’s healthcare system continues to face significant challenges, particularly in achieving viral suppression among its population living with HIV. Roughly 72% of people living with HIV in the state have not reached viral suppression, a rate well above the national average of 58%. This failure not only heightens the risk of HIV transmission but also places Georgia’s most vulnerable populations in an untenable situation.
The city of Atlanta, in particular, bears the brunt of this crisis. Recent data from the CDC, the Georgia Department of Public Health, and AIDSVu place Atlanta as third in the nation for the highest number of people living with HIV, trailing only Miami and New York City. In specific communities, particularly those with large Black and Brown populations, infection rates are comparable to those seen in regions of sub-Saharan Africa. In some areas of Atlanta, the prevalence of HIV mirrors the situation in countries like South Africa or Eswatini, where access to healthcare resources remains limited and the virus continues to pose significant public health challenges.
In contrast, states like Louisiana, which expanded Medicaid in 2016, have seen significant improvements in their public health outcomes related to HIV. Louisiana’s experience demonstrates the impact that Medicaid expansion can have on populations affected by HIV. According to the Louisiana Department of Health, viral suppression rates in the state rose from 63% in 2016 to 82% by 2022, and new diagnoses dropped by 20%. Louisiana’s expansion allowed thousands more residents to access crucial services, including PrEP—pre-exposure prophylaxis, a life-saving medication that helps prevent HIV transmission.
However, in Georgia, thousands of residents remain uninsured and unable to afford these same preventative measures. The failure to adopt Medicaid expansion in the state has created a vacuum in the healthcare system, leaving vulnerable populations without the necessary tools to protect themselves or manage their conditions. This gap in coverage disproportionately affects Georgia’s Black and Brown communities, where socioeconomic factors exacerbate existing health disparities.
The lack of access to PrEP in Georgia is especially concerning. PrEP has been widely recognized as one of the most effective tools in preventing HIV transmission, but without access to affordable healthcare, many Georgians are unable to benefit from it. In states that have embraced Medicaid expansion, PrEP has been made more readily available to populations at risk, resulting in significant reductions in new HIV infections.
The contrast between Georgia and states like Louisiana underscores a broader public health failure. While Medicaid expansion has been proven to improve health outcomes and reduce the spread of HIV, Georgia remains one of the 10 states that have resisted expanding coverage. This resistance leaves the state’s residents at a higher risk of HIV transmission and prevents thousands of people from achieving viral suppression, perpetuating a cycle of preventable infections.
The urgency of this crisis cannot be overstated. Georgia’s decision not to expand Medicaid is contributing to an ongoing public health catastrophe. Without bold action from state leaders and policymakers, the state will continue to fall behind in addressing one of the most pressing healthcare issues of our time.
As the evidence from Louisiana shows, Medicaid expansion is not just a policy choice—it is a life-saving measure. By expanding access to healthcare, Georgia could prevent new infections, improve viral suppression rates, and offer a path forward for thousands of people living with HIV. The stakes are high, and the time for action is now.
The current situation in Georgia should serve as a wake-up call to policymakers and healthcare leaders across the country. As the state grapples with the consequences of inaction, the need for comprehensive healthcare reform becomes clearer with each passing day. Until Georgia expands Medicaid and prioritizes HIV prevention and care, it will continue to suffer the consequences of a public health system that leaves too many behind.
Breaking Barriers: The Role of PrEP in HIV Prevention
PrEP, or pre-exposure prophylaxis, is a critical tool in preventing the spread of HIV. For those at higher risk, particularly in marginalized communities, PrEP offers a way to stay HIV-negative. Yet, too few people who could benefit from this treatment are using it. Barriers such as cost, geographic location, and a lack of healthcare providers familiar with HIV prevention often make it difficult to access.
Take Darrell, a sex worker who faced significant barriers to accessing PrEP in his rural community. Before the Affordable Care Act mandated expanded access, Darrell, who knew he was at higher risk for HIV, couldn’t afford PrEP or find local clinics that offered it.
“I remember feeling like I had no options,” Darrell shares. “I was in an industry where the risk was high, but I didn’t have the resources to protect myself. Once I was able to get on PrEP, everything changed. I’m HIV-negative today, and I’m living my life without fear.”
Darrell’s story is not unique. Thousands of Black Americans, particularly in rural areas, face similar struggles. Even with the Biden administration’s new policy, ensuring access for everyone remains a significant challenge.
Rural America and the Gaps in Healthcare Access
The barriers to healthcare are particularly stark in rural communities.
In these areas, healthcare providers familiar with HIV prevention are few, and geographic isolation makes it harder for people to reach the services they need. For many, even if PrEP is available at no cost, they may still need to travel long distances to find a clinic or pharmacy that offers it.
This problem is compounded by many pharmacies in rural areas lacking the infrastructure to bill for Medicare Part B, which now covers injectable PrEP. The gap in services is a serious barrier to ensuring that rural residents, many of whom are Black or LGBTQ+, can benefit from the new policy.
States like Mississippi and Alabama—which have some of the highest rates of new HIV infections in the U.S.—are prime examples of the challenges rural populations face. In Mississippi, for example, less than 5% of those who could benefit from PrEP are currently using it, reflecting a critical need to address these access gaps.
Dr. Michael Saag from the University of Alabama at Birmingham’s 1917 Clinic highlights how stigma and long distances are key challenges: “People want to avoid being seen at clinics known for HIV care, so many end up traveling to other cities for privacy.” In Mississippi, Dr. Robert Brock of UMMC explains that patients may travel over 50 miles to find the nearest pharmacy or clinic capable of providing HIV treatment.
To address these gaps, programs like mobile testing units and expanded telemedicine have been instrumental in reducing the burden of travel and increasing access to care. Policy changes to better support rural pharmacies and clinics can also help ensure that residents in these underserved regions receive the care they need without the barriers of distance and stigma.
To be continued in Part Two…
“Miles Apart Confronting Stigma and Barriers in HIV Care for Rural America”
Dash Daggs
Community Activist | Business Consultant | Writer Director of Development & CommunicationPower Atlanta Inc.
“Empowering communities, one step at a time, for a future where every voice matters.” Email: poweredbydash@gmail.com
Please read this article because I know you know someone living with HIV. I want to thank Dash for writing this article and giving this update alluding to Public Health. This is so important.
In recent years, the discourse around Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) and Affirmative Action has intensified, particularly following significant legal and political shifts. The Supreme Court’s decision to end race-conscious admissions has sparked debates about the future of DEI initiatives and their impact on non-White communities. This blog post delves into why the absence of Affirmative Action, even in the presence of DEI programs, can perpetuate systemic racism and adversely affect non-White individuals.
Psychological Impact: The lack of Affirmative Action can also have a psychological toll on non-White individuals, who may feel that their struggles and the historical context of their marginalization are being ignored. This can lead to decreased morale and a sense of alienation3.
The Role of DEI in the Absence of Affirmative Action
Bias Training and Education: DEI programs can educate individuals about unconscious biases and promote more inclusive behaviors.
Mentorship and Support Networks: Establishing mentorship programs and support networks can help non-White individuals navigate environments that may still be biased against them.
Policy Advocacy: DEI initiatives can advocate for policies that promote equity and inclusion, even in the absence of Affirmative Action.
Conclusion
The elimination of Affirmative Action, even with robust DEI programs, can perpetuate systemic racism and negatively impact non-White communities. While DEI initiatives are essential for fostering an inclusive environment, they must be complemented by policies like Affirmative Action that directly address historical and systemic inequities. To create a truly equitable society, it is crucial to understand the distinct roles of DEI and Affirmative Action and advocate for their coexistence.
On PBS, Jamie Dimon described the Buffett Rule as a good idea for clamping down on US debt.
It says richer households shouldn’t pay taxes on a smaller share of income than middle-class ones.
He argued that if the US followed this, it could continue spending while still reducing debt.
JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon has put forth a solution to unrestrained US debt: Tax the rich at the same rate as middle-class people, or at a higher rate.
The bank executive told “PBS News Hour” in August that the country could clamp down on runaway borrowing without eliminating spending. Dimon said he expects that reducing the debt while still investing in the right initiatives is “doable.”
“I would spend the money that helps make it a better country, so some of this is infrastructure, earned-income tax credits, military,” he said. “I would have a competitive national tax system, and then I would maximize growth.”
Dimon added, “And then you’ll have a little bit of a deficit, and you would maybe just raise taxes a little bit — like the Warren Buffett type of rule, I would do that.”
This rule posits that no household making above $1 million a year should pay taxes on a lower share of their income than middle-class earners. It earned its name from the billionaire investor Warren Buffett, who famously criticized the fact that his secretary paid a higher tax rate than he did.
Calls for wealthier Americans to pay higher taxes have grown louder in the past year as economists have searched for answers to the federal government’s skyrocketing debt.
Anxiety has grown as the government’s debt pile has ballooned to a record $35 trillion. The Congressional Budget Office has projected that it could make up 6% of US GDP by the end of this year, which would far outpace the 50-year average of 3.7%.
Otherwise, higher borrowing costs mean Washington will have less to spend on social initiatives. A recent report from the Peter G. Peterson Foundation pointed out that the Congressional Budget Office has estimated that by 2054, interest payments on the debt will triple Washington’s historical spending on research and development, infrastructure, and education.
Dimon has been among Wall Street’s most consistent voices to raise the alarm, frequently saying runaway borrowing will amplify inflation and interest-rate pressures through the coming decade.
Not everyone shares Dimon’s optimism that tax hikes alone can solve this problem. Though some commentators have pushed for tax-hike proposals that embrace all income levels, others have urged both Democrats and Republicans to consider spending cuts as well.
However, speaking with PBS, Dimon argued that the US should continue to spend money that helps maintain its economic strength and creates a more equitable income environment.
The Affordable Care Act (ACA), often referred to as Obamacare, has been a cornerstone of American healthcare since its inception. It has provided millions of Americans with access to affordable health insurance, significantly reducing the number of uninsured individuals. But what would happen if the ACA were suddenly repealed, leaving over 30 million people without healthcare coverage? The consequences would be dire and far-reaching.
The Immediate Impact: 30+ Million Without Healthcare
The Importance of State Participation in the ACA Exchange
One of the key components of the ACA is the health insurance exchange, where individuals can purchase affordable health plans. However, not all states have fully embraced the exchange, leaving many residents without access to affordable coverage. It is crucial for every state to participate in the ACA exchange to ensure that all Americans have access to healthcare.
The potential repeal of the ACA highlights the importance of maintaining and expanding access to healthcare. It is essential for policymakers to recognize the devastating impact that losing the ACA would have on millions of Americans. Ensuring that every state participates in the ACA exchange is a critical step in providing comprehensive healthcare coverage for all.
Healthcare is a fundamental human right, and it is the responsibility of our leaders to protect and expand access to it. By working together, we can ensure that no American is left without the care they need and deserve.
What are your thoughts on the potential repeal of the ACA? How do you think it would impact your community? Share your thoughts and join the conversation.
The Secret Service is tasked with the critical responsibility of protecting the President of the United States and former presidents. However, recent incidents have raised concerns about potential lapses in their security protocols, particularly involving former President Barack Obama. These events highlight the importance of unwavering vigilance and the potential consequences of security breaches.
The White House Breach: A Hypothetical Scenario
Imagine a scenario where an intruder manages to breach the White House security perimeter. This hypothetical situation could have dire consequences. The White House, despite its robust security measures, is not impervious to threats. An intruder gaining access to the residence could pose a significant risk to the President and their family.
In such a scenario, the intruder could potentially reach sensitive areas, compromising not only the safety of the President but also national security. The Secret Service’s rapid response would be crucial in neutralizing the threat and ensuring the President’s safety. However, any delay or lapse in their response could lead to catastrophic outcomes.
Had the guard been an actual threat, the outcome could have been drastically different. The proximity to the former President without immediate intervention from the Secret Service could have resulted in a dangerous situation. This incident underscores the importance of comprehensive and foolproof security measures to protect high-profile figures like President Obama.
Moving Forward
The Secret Service must continuously evaluate and enhance their security protocols to prevent such lapses. The safety of current and former presidents is paramount, and any breach, no matter how minor, must be addressed with utmost seriousness. Ensuring that every potential threat is swiftly neutralized is essential to maintaining the integrity of presidential security.
As we reflect on these incidents, it is a reminder of the ever-present risks faced by those in the highest offices and the critical role of the Secret Service in safeguarding their lives. Continuous improvement and vigilance are key to preventing future breaches and ensuring the safety of our leaders.
What are your thoughts on the recent security concerns? Do you think the Secret Service needs to make significant changes to their protocols?
Crime rates in America have always been a topic of significant interest and concern. With recent data shedding light on the current trends, it’s essential to understand where crime rates are higher and how they have evolved over time.
Crime rates vary significantly across different regions and cities in the U.S. For instance, urban areas tend to have higher crime rates compared to rural areas. Major cities like Chicago, Los Angeles, and New York have historically reported higher instances of violent crimes. However, recent data indicates that some of these cities have also experienced declines in certain types of crime.
High Crime Areas
Certain areas continue to struggle with higher crime rates. For example:
Chicago: Despite overall improvements, Chicago still faces challenges with gun violence and homicides.
Baltimore: Known for its high rates of violent crime, particularly homicides.
St. Louis: Often cited for having one of the highest murder rates per capita in the country.
Several factors influence crime rates, including economic conditions, law enforcement practices, community programs, and social dynamics. For instance, areas with higher poverty rates often see higher crime rates. Conversely, effective community policing and social intervention programs can contribute to reducing crime.
Looking Ahead
As we move forward, it’s crucial to continue monitoring these trends and implementing strategies that address the root causes of crime. Community engagement, economic development, and effective law enforcement are key components in creating safer environments.
Understanding the nuances of crime rates and their trends helps in formulating policies and interventions that can make a real difference. By staying informed and proactive, we can work towards a safer and more secure America.
The pro-Trump majority on the battleground state’s election board approved the move, which critics from both parties warn could lead to delays in reporting results.
The Georgia State Election Board on Friday voted 3-2 to require counties to hand-count ballots cast on Election Day, a move that could drastically lengthen the amount of time to tally results in a critical battleground state.
The move, which will require poll workers to open up ballot boxes and count the number of ballots by hand at the end of the night, was approved by three board members who’ve been praised by former President Donald Trump, and was opposed by Democrats in the state, as well as by the Republican secretary of state and attorney general.
“I want to make on the record that we’ll be going against the advice of our legal counsel by voting in the affirmative,” the Georgia election board’s chair, John Fervier, said before the motion passed. Fervier, who was appointed by Georgia GOP Gov. Brian Kemp, and Sara Tindall Ghazal, the lone Democratic appointee on the panel, voted against the new rules.
Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger had previously warned the new rule could cause “chaos.”
“We consider these major changes to the election process,” Raffensperger told NBC News on Thursday. “I guess we have several concerns. Number one is the actual counting of the number of ballots that you have at the precinct. That’s going to take time. Everything that we’ve done for the last six years has to speed up the process to give the voters the results quicker, and all of a sudden now they’re adding an element that it’s actually going to take longer.”
In a statement after Friday’s vote, Raffensperger said, “Attorney General Chris Carr has stated that these rules would not withstand a legal challenge, and I have worked every day to strengthen Georgia’s election law to ensure our elections remain safe, secure, and free.”
In a letter to the board Friday ahead of the vote, Senior Assistant Attorney General Elizabeth Young said her office doesn’t typically weigh in on amendments to election administration, but was making an exception because “the proposed rules, if passed, very likely exceed the Board’s statutory authority and in some instances appear to conflict with the statutes governing the conduct of elections.”
She also argued, “As a general matter, the passage of any rules concerning the conduct of elections are disfavored when implemented as close to an election as the rules on the September 20 agenda.”
One of the board members who voted in favor of the new rule, Janelle King, suggested Raffensperger’s concerns were overblown.
“I do not have those concerns at all,” King told NBC News.
“I think it’s actually going to be the reverse,” she said, because “we won’t have a situation where we have any candidates saying that they think the count is off or they want an audit because something went wrong. We would have caught it at an early stage.”
Hand-counting ballots has captured the attention of many on the right in recent years in response to baseless claims about hacked voting machines, despite ample evidence that counting by hand is more expensive and less accurate than using ballot tabulators.
Last year, officials in Mohave County, Arizona, tested out hand-counting the votes. They found it took staffers three minutes to count a single ballot, and that the staffers made routine errors.
Georgia’s rule only requires election workers to count the number of ballots — not every vote on the ballot — but election officials are still worried about the impact.
Charlotte Sosebee, the elections director in Clarke County, Georgia, said counting ballots late at night could pose unforeseen problems, such as poll workers not agreeing on the number of ballots during a count.
“If we do this, are they really going to trust the process? I mean, what’s next?” she told NBC News.
Anticipating that the rule would pass, Sosebee said she had already trained her poll workers on it. But the additional working hours needed to pay the poll workers wasn’t in the budget, so the county needs to spend more to cover the costs.
In August, the same Georgia board members passed other new rules that would allow county election board members to conduct “reasonable” inquiries before they certify results. Critics say that could throw the election into chaos because “reasonable inquiry” isn’t defined, and an individual board member could block certification for any reason.
The Democratic National Committee, the Democratic Party of Georgia and several individuals filed suit challenging those rules last month.
Speaking of the trio of board members who voted for them at a rally last month, Trump said, “They’re on fire. They’re doing a great job.”
“Janice Johnston, Rick Jeffares and Janelle King, three people are all pit bulls fighting for honesty, transparency and victory,” he said then.
I found this story interesting because there are so many people that are not following this election. There are some that are and realize that this election is life or death. Of all places Georgia is trying to buck the system and breach the trust of the people. They are purposefully trying to hold up the results and steal the election. Please let me know what you think and please follow and subscribe to my Blog
Health care inequities have long been a significant issue affecting the Black community in the United States. These disparities not only impact the quality of life but also lead to substantial economic losses and a shorter life expectancy for Black individuals. This blog post delves into the multifaceted effects of these inequities, supported by statistical data and historical context.
One of the most stark indicators of health care inequities is the difference in life expectancy between Black and White individuals. On average, Black people live nearly five years less than their White counterparts (72.8 years vs. 77.5 years). This gap is a direct result of the cumulative effects of health disparities, including higher rates of infant mortality, maternal mortality, and chronic diseases.
For example, Black infants have a mortality rate more than twice that of White infants (10.6 per 1,000 live births vs. 4.4 per 1,000 live births). Additionally, Black women are nearly three times more likely to die from pregnancy-related causes than White women (39.9 vs. 14.1 per 100,000 live births). These statistics highlight the urgent need for systemic changes in the health care system to address these disparities.
Conclusion
The impact of health care inequities on Black people is profound and far-reaching. These disparities affect the quality of life, lead to significant economic losses, and result in a shorter life expectancy. Addressing these issues requires a concerted effort to dismantle systemic racism in the health care system, improve access to quality care, and rebuild trust within the Black community. Only through such efforts can we hope to achieve health equity and improve the overall well-being of Black individuals.
Changing Trends and Times 