Connect with us

Activism

Golden State Warriors’ Draymond Green Takes Defense Skills to New Arena

Published

on

     Draymond Green, 30, has won three National Basketball Association (NBA) Championships with the San Francisco-based Golden State Warriors and is known to be an agitator on the court. 

     Now, the three-time NBA All-Defensive First Team selection has mounted an attack off the hardwood in another arena: Politics. Green is speaking out, online and off, expressing his displeasure for Assembly Bill (AB) 1998, the “Dental Practice Act,” which is authored by Assemblymember Evan Low (D-Campbell). 

Assemblymember Evan Low (D- Silicon Valley) on the floor California State Assembly June 10, 2020. (photo by Antonio Ray Harvey)

    If passed by the California Senate, AB 1998 would make it more difficult to access teledentistry services by requiring an in-person visit to a dentist. 

   The bill would also prohibit internet companies from offering direct-to-consumer products like clear aligners or other orthodontics to Californians until legislation is passed that establishes parameters for how teleorthodontic companies may operate. 

     Last week, Green fired off a series of tweets directed at AB 1998 and Low. At a Business and Professions Committee hearing on AB 1998 held in May, Low had opened up his presentation to the members of the committee with a salvo declaring that teledentistry and telehealth are “telecrap.” 

   “This will disproportionately hurt communities of color; not everyone can go to health-care providers,” Low said. “The reality is that subpar treatment can do real harm, the risk is too high.” 

     But Green says that he is standing up for disadvantaged African Americans who can’t afford to just drop into a dentist’s office to get X-rays and clearance before they can purchase dental products they need from companies like SDC.  But his objection is also personal.

    Two days before his Twitter rant, he sent a two-page letter to several California politicians explaining the hardship he once experienced trying to get affordable dental care. 

    In it, the athlete said his mother struggled to pay $7,000 for the metal braces he wore between his eighth- and 12th-grade years. He also wrote that he broke his retainers when he arrived at Michigan University and couldn’t leave to fix them because of the strict demands of his basketball schedule. 

   Because of “crooked teeth,” he wrote, smiling wasn’t a gesture of his for many years. 

   He also shared personal stories of how affordable direct-mail dental products helped him fix his teeth and regain his confidence. “After seven years of hiding my smile, I made a decision that I was going to finally fix my teeth again. Only this time I decided that I would try invisible aligners. I came across a teledentistry platform with licensed dentists by the name of SmileDirectClub,” Green stated in the letter. 

    Limiting access to such products to others seemed unfair to Green.

   “Do you want to tell them they’re not worthy of a good smile? They’re not worthy of confidence, employment opportunities, and so many other benefits, a good smile brings? @Evan_Low,” Green tweeted. 

     However, Green’s political pushback against AB 1998 may also be rooted in more than one stake the athlete has in teledentistry. Green has a financial investment in the SmileDirectClub (SDC), a global leader in the online dental care industry. In September 2019, Forbes reported that Green started investing in SDC four years earlier in 2015 at a $150 million valuation. The financial publication also mentioned that Green could make 40 times more from his investment. SDC began trading publicly on Sept. 12, 2019, according to Forbes. 

    But Green ascribes the issue of profits more to the idea of protecting dentists.

    “The only issue of profits here is you giving more to dentists, while, once again, underserved communities are shut out. Sounds like you’d prefer if I shut up and dribble @Evan_Low,” Green tweeted on July 10, the day Low’s comment surfaced in the media. 

   In his letter, Green asserted that because Assemblymember Low’s constituents are among the richest Californians, and that maybe Low is unaware of how his legislation might hurt poor Californians. 

    “If there is something I’m missing as to why you would consider adopting a bill that would take away doctor discretion to subject a patient to radiation, that would also limit access and significantly increase the cost of dental care then let’s set up a call to discuss,” he offered. “This is California. We’re supposed to be leading on these issues. Instead, this bill is a step in the wrong direction.”

     Low’s district covers parts of the South Bay and Silicon Valley. Home to a number of tech companies, the area is more than 50% white and under 3% African American. Latinos account for about 17%. 

    But Low believes the teledentistry industry takes advantage of poor communities. “This will disproportionately hurt communities of color; not everyone can go to health-care providers,” Low said. “The reality is that subpar treatment can do real harm, the risk is too high.”

    Green told recipients of his letter that the California State National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and the California Black Chamber of Commerce are all opposed to AB 1998. 

     In March, California State NAACP President Alice Huffman asked the Legislature to knock down any bill that would create an obstacle to affordable dental care. 

     Huffman said SDC’s teledentistry platform for clear aligner therapy treatments has helped more than 100,000 Californians, including African Americans. 

     “Now, more than ever, the African American community needs as many options as possible to close the disparity gap for oral health care. African Americans and other people of color have the right to affordable, quality health care treatment,” Huffman said. 

By Antonio Ray Harvey | California Black Media 

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Activism

Oakland Post: Week of May 21 – 27, 2025

The printed Weekly Edition of the Oakland Post: Week of May 21 – 27, 2025

Published

on

To enlarge your view of this issue, use the slider, magnifying glass icon or full page icon in the lower right corner of the browser window.

Continue Reading

Activism

OPINION: Your Voice and Vote Impact the Quality of Your Health Care

One of the most dangerous developments we’re seeing now? Deep federal cuts are being proposed to Medicaid, the life-saving health insurance program that covers nearly 80 million lower-income individuals nationwide. That is approximately 15 million Californians and about 1 million of the state’s nearly 3 million Black Californians who are at risk of losing their healthcare. 

Published

on

Rhonda M. Smith.
Rhonda M. Smith.

By Rhonda M. Smith, Special to California Black Media Partners

Shortly after last year’s election, I hopped into a Lyft and struck up a conversation with the driver. As we talked, the topic inevitably turned to politics. He confidently told me that he didn’t vote — not because he supported Donald Trump, but because he didn’t like Kamala Harris’ résumé. When I asked what exactly he didn’t like, he couldn’t specifically articulate his dislike or point to anything specific. In his words, he “just didn’t like her résumé.”

That moment really hit hard for me. As a Black woman, I’ve lived through enough election cycles to recognize how often uncertainty, misinformation, or political apathy keep people from voting, especially Black voters whose voices are historically left out of the conversation and whose health, economic security, and opportunities are directly impacted by the individual elected to office, and the legislative branches and political parties that push forth their agenda.

That conversation with the Lyft driver reflects a troubling surge in fear-driven politics across our country. We’ve seen White House executive orders gut federal programs meant to help our most vulnerable populations and policies that systematically exclude or harm Black and underserved communities.

One of the most dangerous developments we’re seeing now? Deep federal cuts are being proposed to Medicaid, the life-saving health insurance program that covers nearly 80 million lower-income individuals nationwide. That is approximately 15 million Californians and about 1 million of the state’s nearly 3 million Black Californians who are at risk of losing their healthcare.

Medicaid, called Medi-Cal in California, doesn’t just cover care. It protects individuals and families from medical debt, keeps rural hospitals open, creates jobs, and helps our communities thrive. Simply put; Medicaid is a lifeline for 1 in 5 Black Americans. For many, it’s the only thing standing between them and a medical emergency they can’t afford, especially with the skyrocketing costs of health care. The proposed cuts mean up to 7.2 million Black Americans could lose their healthcare coverage, making it harder for them to receive timely, life-saving care. Cuts to Medicaid would also result in fewer prenatal visits, delayed cancer screenings, unfilled prescriptions, and closures of community clinics. When healthcare is inaccessible or unaffordable, it doesn’t just harm individuals, it weakens entire communities and widens inequities.

The reality is Black Americans already face disproportionately higher rates of poorer health outcomes. Our life expectancy is nearly five years shorter in comparison to White Americans. Black pregnant people are 3.6 times more likely to die during pregnancy or postpartum than their white counterparts.

These policies don’t happen in a vacuum. They are determined by who holds power and who shows up to vote. Showing up amplifies our voices. Taking action and exercising our right to vote is how we express our power.

I urge you to start today. Call your representatives, on both sides of the aisle, and demand they protect Medicaid (Medi-Cal), the Affordable Care Act (Covered CA), and access to food assistance programs, maternal health resources, mental health services, and protect our basic freedoms and human rights. Stay informed, talk to your neighbors and register to vote.

About the Author

Rhonda M. Smith is the Executive Director of the California Black Health Network, a statewide nonprofit dedicated to advancing health equity for all Black Californians.

Continue Reading

Activism

OPINION: Supreme Court Case Highlights Clash Between Parental Rights and Progressive Indoctrination

At the center of this controversy are some parents from Montgomery County in Maryland, who assert a fundamental principle: the right to shield their children from exposure to sexual content that is inappropriate for their age, while also steering their moral and ethical upbringing in alignment with their faith. The local school board decided to introduce a curriculum that includes LGBTQ+ themes — often embracing controversial discussions of human sexuality and gender identity.

Published

on

Craig J. DeLuz. Courtesy of Craig J. DeLuz.
Craig J. DeLuz. Courtesy of Craig J. DeLuz.

By Craig J. DeLuz, Special to California Black Media Partners

In America’s schools, the tension between parental rights and learning curricula has created a contentious battlefield.

In this debate, it is essential to recognize that parents are, first and foremost, their children’s primary educators. When they send their children to school — public or private — they do not surrender their rights or responsibilities. Yet, the education establishment has been increasingly encroaching on this vital paradigm.

A case recently argued before the Supreme Court regarding Maryland parents’ rights to opt out of lessons that infringe upon their religious beliefs epitomizes this growing conflict. This case, Mahmoud v. Taylor, is not simply about retreating from progressive educational mandates. It is fundamentally a defense of First Amendment rights, a defense of parents’ rights to be parents.

At the center of this controversy are some parents from Montgomery County in Maryland, who assert a fundamental principle: the right to shield their children from exposure to sexual content that is inappropriate for their age, while also steering their moral and ethical upbringing in alignment with their faith. The local school board decided to introduce a curriculum that includes LGBTQ+ themes, often embracing controversial discussions of human sexuality and gender identity. The parents argue that the subject matter is age-inappropriate, and the school board does not give parents the option to withdraw their children when those lessons are taught.

This case raises profound questions about the role of public education in a democratic society. In their fervent quest for inclusivity, some educators seem to have overlooked an essential truth: that the promotion of inclusivity should never infringe upon parental rights and the deeply held convictions that guide families of different faith backgrounds.

This matter goes well beyond mere exposure. It veers into indoctrination when children are repeatedly confronted with concepts that clash with their family values. 

“I don’t think anybody can read that and say: well, this is just telling children that there are occasions when men marry other men,” noted Justice Samuel Alito. “It has a clear moral message, and it may be a good message. It’s just a message that a lot of religious people disagree with.”

Justice Amy Coney Barrett raised a crucial point, noting that it is one thing to merely expose students to diverse ideas; it is quite another to present certain viewpoints as indisputable truths. By framing an ideology with the certainty of “this is the right view of the world,” educators risk indoctrination rather than enlightenment. This distinction is not merely academic; it speaks to the very essence of cultivating a truly informed citizenry.

Even Justice Elena Kagan expressed concern regarding the exposure of young children to certain materials in Montgomery County.

“I, too, was struck by these young kids’ picture books and, on matters concerning sexuality, I suspect there are a lot of non-religious parents who weren’t all that thrilled about this,” she said.

Justice John Roberts aptly questioned the practicality of expecting young children to compartmentalize their beliefs in the classroom.

“It is unreasonable to expect five-year-olds, still forming their worldviews, to reconcile lessons that conflict fundamentally with the teachings they receive at home,” he said.

As was noted in my previous commentary, “The Hidden Truth In The Battle Over Books In American Schools”, what lies at the heart of these debates is a moral disconnect between the values held by the majority of Americans and those promoted by the educational establishment. While the majority rightly argue that material containing controversial content of a sexual nature should have no place in our children’s classrooms, the education establishment continues to tout the necessity of exposing children to such content under the guise of inclusivity. This disregards the legitimate values held by the wider community.

Highlighted in this case that is before the Supreme Court is a crucial truth: parents must resolutely maintain their right to direct their children’s education, according to their values. This struggle is not simply a skirmish; it reflects a broader movement aimed at reshaping education by privileging a state-sanctioned narrative while marginalizing dissenting voices.

It is imperative that we assert, without hesitation, that parents are — and must remain — the primary educators of their children.

When parents enroll a child in a school, it should in no way be interpreted as a relinquishment of parental authority or the moral guidance essential to their upbringing. We must stand firm in defending parental rights against the encroaching ideologies of the education establishment.

About the Author

Craig J. DeLuz has almost 30 years of experience in public policy and advocacy. He has served as a member of The Robla School District Board of Trustees for over 20 years. He also currently hosts a daily news and commentary show called “The RUNDOWN.” You can follow him on X at @CraigDeLuz.

Continue Reading

Subscribe to receive news and updates from the Oakland Post

* indicates required

CHECK OUT THE LATEST ISSUE OF THE OAKLAND POST

ADVERTISEMENT

WORK FROM HOME

Home-based business with potential monthly income of $10K+ per month. A proven training system and website provided to maximize business effectiveness. Perfect job to earn side and primary income. Contact Lynne for more details: Lynne4npusa@gmail.com 800-334-0540

Facebook

Trending

Copyright ©2021 Post News Group, Inc. All Rights Reserved.