RSS
Home
Tort or Abort Reform?
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
A curious reader inquired whether or not we were aware that a connection existed between abortion activists and proponents of so-called “tort reform” in Oklahoma
A quick look at the record seems to indicate that there is a connection, but nobody up until now bothered to connect the dots.
It’s well known that the state’s medical association and prominent doctors have long sought “tort reform.” You may remember that in 2007, they were very close to getting it done. But another bill of interest to docs was making its way through the legislature that same year: SB 714 by Sen. Jim Williamson, R-Tulsa, which would virtually halted taxpayer-funded abortions.
News accounts indicate that the medical bureaucracy opposed SB 714, but a group of the pro-life doctors, including the state’s most prominent ob-gyn, urged state legislators to pass the bill. The divide was clear: the pro-abortion forces wanted a green light for taxpayer-funded abortions in public facilities, and they aggressively opposed Sen. Williamson’s bill.
The bill passed both chambers and landed on Gov. Henry’s desk. Henry vetoed the bill and the stage was set for an override challenge. News reports indicate the pro-abortion/“tort reform” crowd spent much more political capital on keeping unlimited abortion privileges than on “tort reform.” The anti-SB 714 lobby, led by an Oklahoma City doctor named Eli Reshef, convinced a former supporter of SB 714 to move from the “yes” to the “no” column and Henry’s veto was upheld. Sen. Williamson introduced another bill similar to SB 714 which later passed and went into effect in November of that year, the basic difference being exceptions for rape, incest and the life of the mother in the final version.
But the doctor’s priority list was out in the open: a significant group of doctors wanted tax-payer funded abortion rights more than they wanted their precious “tort reform, something noted by conservative “tort reform” advocate Brandon Dutcher of the Oklahoma Council on Public Affairs.
Now fast forward two years: Senate Republicans hold the majority and new President Pro Tempore Glenn Coffee makes “tort reform” the centerpiece of his 2009 agenda. The doctors that were high profile in the fight for unlimited abortion had kept a low profile until the Pro Tem brought HB 1603 before a senate committee on March 31st. With literally hundreds of doctors supporting HB 1603, the doctor lobby suddenly went all stupid, and the highest-profile abortion advocate in Oklahoma was back in front of the cameras.
Tort, Or Abort Reform?
Capitol observers have joked that the most dangerous place to be in the world is between Dr. Reshef and a TV camera. Reshef is known as a ‘quote machine’ and once even likened the “tort reform” battle to “terrorism.” So now on April 1st, the media is awash with Reshef statements regarding the alleged hell-hole for doctors that is Oklahoma. It was foolish move by the state medical organization to give a doctor so publicly identified with abortion rights a platform on the civil justice debate, since many specialties not connected to abortion inside organized medicine are for HB 1603. To do so would be to invite just why abortion advocates are so passionate about so-called civil justice reform, and further it would not be a stretch to conclude that abortion doctors may have much more at stake than any other specialty.
But as is usual with the capitol press corps, they just didn’t get it. Incredibly, Reshef either lied or was ignorant about his own peer review process: he said, “Right now, I cannot sit with a group of doctors and say, ‘Dr. X didn’t do right, let’s educate him.’ Or better yet, “Dr. X has been messing up over and over, let’s get him out of our hospital.’ We cannot do so for fear of Dr. X suing us, No.1, and out of fear that that material will be used in a lawsuit.”
Now that’s compelling stuff, except that it’s wrong. Forget about the fact that the statement on its face is in conflict with the Hypocratic Oath; but rather the implied threat: we know the bad docs, but we aren’t going to lift a finger to protect patients unless you pass hard caps.
There is currently a statute providing for the peer review process Dr. Reshef talks about: 63 OS 1-1709.1. Doctors can do the exact process described below under the statute and it is confidential by statute. There is no provision in the existing statute which allows the reviewed doctor to sue the reviewing doctors. Currently, any documents resulting from peer review are discoverable in a med mal case against the reviewed doctor, but the information will only be admissible after the judge or jury finds him negligent. Even then, if it is admissible, the identities of other patients and the reviewing doctors remain confidential. In addition, the reviewing doctors cannot voluntarily or forcibly respond to discovery, testify in a deposition or at trial.
The amendments to this law in Coffee’s “tort reform” would only change that fact that the peer review documents are not even discoverable, let alone admissible. There is no immunity clause for the reviewing doctors from a lawsuit by the reviewed doctor, so clearly this is not a legitimate concern. So, the only thing that would change is that the process is more secretive than it already is. So there’s plenty of evidence that the peer review process is protected, but saying it ain’t so makes for good theatre, and darn effective political blackmail. And further undermining the boiler plate blather put forth by the pro-abortion crowd is this: there are far worse causes of physician shortcomings than high medical malpractice rates.
The Heritage Foundation’s Randy Pate argues that it is pro-abortion advocates who are ironically causing the most chaos when it comes to the physician shortage with their push to have the Obama Administration overturn the Bush’s ‘provider conscience rights’ rules. According to Pate, it’s the aging U.S. population, low Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement rates and especially the pro-abortion lobby that are the driving forces behind the doctor shortage, not just medical malpractice premiums, as the pro-abortion doctor lobby would have you believe.
Republicans used to be FOR free enterprise and smaller government and AGAINST government mandates, corporate welfare, price-fixing, abortion and abortion providers. We know now the heady Reagan days are long gone, and those Republicans who believe in the sanctity of the unborn have been shown the backseat in the GOP bus.
So the pro-abortion lobby has emerged as perhaps the most desperate of those who want this so-called civil justice reform in Oklahoma. Perhaps somebody should ask why, but sadly it appears the pro-life voices in Oklahoma have grown weak.
There are of course changes that could be made to the civil justice system in Oklahoma, but May is fast approaching and a crippled senate leader is desperately hoping to scratch out some semblance of victory for his agenda.
In a 2005 interview, Dr. Reshef compared the whole civil justice reform debate to ‘terrorism’ and he may actually really feel that way. But since 1973, nearly 50 million unborn babies have been aborted. I’m sure that if they could speak to him, they might have a very different definition of terrorism, but their cries cannot be heard. So it remains to be seen whether or not conservative Republicans and anti-abortion activists will ever find the courage to question the very troubling aspects of this Republican lawsuit reform idea that appears to have been drafted by Ted Kennedy or Barney Frank.
Thus far they haven’t, and so we may never know if “tort” reform is really a clandestine back-door attempt to bring “abort” reform to Oklahoma. Let’s hope at some point GOP members begin to follow the old adage that once referred to doctors: heal thyself.
