Wednesday, December 12, 2007: Debate on farm bill amendments runs far afield

[15:04]
Since Gregg spoke in favor of the amendment and Boxer in opposition, Hutchison (TX) and Sununu (NH) have voiced their support while Leahy (VT) argued against adopting the amendment.

[14:37]
Barbara Boxer (CA) takes exception to the amendment. She wonders what bill the Senate is working on. I thought we were on a farm bill but I come to the floor and hear about pregnant women and babies, she says.

Boxer characterizes the Gregg amendment as “an attack on women.” Why are you using the farm bill to attack women? she asks.

Boxer says that OB-GYNs are her heroes, that doctors are her heroes but that doctors make mistakes. She relates an anecdote about a doctor butchering a delivery and then telling a mother that the baby is disabled because the mother’s DNA is tainted. And says, Mother, if you have any more kids, they’ll be disabled, too?

Boxer says, Should the mother just have to live with the mistakes of the physician? Or should we hold these physicians accountable? Anyone who votes for this amendment is saying to rural women, “You don’t matter.” They can say that this amendment is about trial lawyers, but it’s not. Don’t come here and say how wonderful you’re being to the women of America when you’re imposing a cap on how much they can get when they’re damaged, when they’re made sterile.

Boxer disputes the Texas statistics. She says it’s not true that more doctors have come to Texas in the wake of a Texas constitutional amendment capping non-economic damages.

I hope we have a very strong no vote and put this baby bed. I am just in disbelief that this is even before us, she says.

The Gregg amendment needs 60 votes to pass. Those are the terms of the deal that the party leaders worked out.

[14:29]
Judd Gregg (NH) was just talking about an amendment he is offering to the farm bill concerning frivolous lawsuits. You might wonder what frivolous lawsuits have to do with the farm bill. Gregg would tell you that OB-GYNs in rural areas are under attack from frivolous lawsuiteers. These frivolous lawsuits are driving OB-GYNs out of business in rural areas. Really, this amendment is very relevant and is aimed at helping women in rural areas. If we limit liability, all of the OB-GYNs that have left rural areas will return if this amendment is made law.

In reality, Gregg has a cabinet full of niche amendments that he shapes like Play-doh in order to argue that they are relevant to whatever piece of legislation moves through the Senate.

This amendment puts a cap on non-economic damages awarded in medical malpractice suits. It is somehow targeted at rural America. It would cap non-economic (i.e. punitive) damages at the greater of twice the economic damages or $250,000. Economic damages would include costs for things like additional medical care and loss of wages. Punitive damages are awarded for pain and suffering at the discretion of a jury as a means of heightening the impact of a plaintiff’s victory.

Gregg states that the amendment is modeled on the non-economic damages amendment that Texas voters made law in 2004. That amendment led to an increase in the number of OB-GYNs working in Texas, says Gregg.