When right-wing priorities collide

August 2, 2005

Generally speaking, the GOP’s religious-right base will go along with Republican agenda items, even when they have nothing to do with the movement’s theocratic agenda. The James Dobson crowd wants action on abortion and gays, but when asked to toe the line on Social Security privatization, the war in Iraq, and other major initiatives that have no faith-based angle, the activists are good soldiers and fall in line.

But there’s an odd twist when it comes to Republican efforts to rewrite medical malpractice laws. The religious right will accept the party premise about capping damages, but they’re concerned that the legislation may protect the far-right’s enemies. In this case, that’s abortion providers.

…Ken Connor, chairman of the Center for a Just Society, told [Dobson’s] Family News in Focus that part of the impact of the health act is pro-abortion.

“If you have a young girl who goes in and dies as a consequence of neglect during the course of the abortion, the most her parents can recover for her death is $250,000 dollars,” he said. “This bill absolutely compromises on the sanctity of life and the dignity of the human person.”

He said it will be hard to cripple the abortion industry $250,000 thousand dollars at a time.

Funny things happen when right-wing priorities start to contradict each other.

The religious right accepts the bogus claim that lawsuits make health care more expensive — a myth that’s been debunked repeatedly — and they want to shield doctors from lawsuits. But not all doctors, only the ones they like. Those bad doctors who perform legal procedures like abortion, the right says, should be sued and forced to pay exorbitant penalties, regardless of its impact on the health care system.

The religious right, in other words, would prefer Republicans create a two-tiered system — one that limits damages against doctors, even those who are guilty of gross negligence and malpractice; and another that won’t limit damages against doctors who perform abortions. Because, as Ken Connor so eloquently put it, the right can’t “cripple the abortion industry $250,000 at a time.”

How in the world will Republican lawmakers edit their so-called tort reform efforts to make the far-right base happy? Beats me, I’m just glad Dems don’t have to deal with these guys.

My view of “tort reform” is the same as election term limits.
Just as a ballot box is the proper form of terms limits, so too is the jury chamber the proper form of limits on damages and tort suits. I believe legislative actions that usurp a power that is well within the hands of the people are manifestly against democracy

  • What do you know, I agree with Force Majure. Tort reform is a scam. And opposing part of it for abortion doctors makes the scam more obvious.

  • Hey CB, good post on the hypocricy in the Rethug party and their zealots. No surprise there.

    The surpise to many people is that we are well on our way to (at least) a two-tiered civil justice system in this country at the federal level, and even more so at the state level. [Most of us progressives already know the two-tiered CRIMINAL justice system: one for white folks (especially the rich ones), and another if you happen to be a person of color — but that is a topic for another day]

    In our CIVIL justice system, consider: (A) We are well on our way to providing an ablsoute immunity from civil liability for gun manufacturers. (B) Ditto for asbestos and MTBE (the gasoline additive methyl tertiary butyl ehter) manufactuers, and for contractors and mercenaries in Iraq. (C) The class action “reform” will make most manufacturers immune from civil liability due to the prohibitive cost of bringing a “local” action in the state court; even some state court actions will be impossible as many states have limited what is known as “long-arm jurisdiction” rules, preventing out-of-state manufacturers from being sued where the injury occurs from defective products — especially likely where almost 20% of commerce now occurs digitally or by telephone. (D) Most states have enacted limits on non-economic losses from personal injury actions (i.e., “pain and suffering,” loss of consortium, etc.).

    There’s more, but this is a start. We are getting there, where big business is let off the hook more and more for killing and maiming us with their products and practices. Our civil and Constitutional rights to seek recompense are being taken away from us without due process of law. Federal and state government agencies are scaling back their regulatory oversight of manufacturers and the workplace (OSHA, EPA, SEC, etc.), either scaled back directly by legislation or indirectly by starving the agencies of funding in budget or ideological wars). And when the killing and maiming does occur, there is a much more porous “safety net” to protect us, in the form of reduced Medicaid availability, stricter elegibility requirements for worker’s compensation disability benefits, shorter unemployment benefit periods and longer waits before payments start, fewer job retraining programs, etc.

    All in all, the Rethugs are taking us back to the pre-New Deal days, on a “drip…drip…drip” basis, with a few large splashes thrown in for good measure. I know it scares the hell out any progressive or Christian who has any real compassion for the less fortunate in our midst. Too bad there isn’t one damn Rethug who has that type of “compassion” and instead clings to the notion that “in an ownership society, it’s every man (and woman and child, too) for himself; if he fails, it’s his own fault.” For a Rethug, a “tax cut cures all” seems to be their only operating principle — and you get the tax cut only if you have lobbyists who can wine and dine the Rethugs in the manner to which they have become accustomed.

    Simply put, the Dem and Rethug philosophies of government’s role can be boiled down to the following:

    Dems: “Government must regulate business life, nad must stay out of our personal lives.”

    Rethugs” Government must regulate our personal lives, and must stay out of business life.”

    Yeah, that about covers it…

  • Nice catch. The malpractice stuff is interesting because it’s got so many facets. Republicans want it because it cuts lawyers fees and thus Democratic money. Republican policy strategists want it because it lets them pretend to be doing something on health care while doing nothing at all, particularly good politics because Americans are easier sold on simple, small solutions rather than large overhauls. The Christian right, as you say, hates it. Clinton and moderate Dems want to support it because it makes intuitive sense. Etc. It’s the sort of stupid policy-making that sounds good, does bad, and is totally fuckingu necessary fucking unnecessary.

    • Comments are closed.