There is at least one judge in Louisiana with some sense and respect for the law. NPR reports that U.S. District Judge Ralph Tyson has placed a temporary restraining order on the requirement that any woman seeking an abortion be forced to have an ultrasound first, and view the results of that ultrasound before having an abortion.

This is good news not only for women in Louisiana, but for women in other states where similar laws have been passed. While the key will be finding a judge willing to actually evaluate the facts in light of the Constitution, this is certainly a step forward.

The right wing has spent a lot of time working to get laws passed (mostly in Southern states) that are clearly discriminatory to women, violate their rights, and are just a stalking horse for an excuse to try and overturn Roe vs. Wade.

The assault on women's reproductive rights has been relentless in 2010.

Louisiana (temporary restraining order granted):

One of the new laws would block abortion doctors from participation in a state-run medical malpractice fund. The other would require women about to undergo abortions to first have an ultrasound examination and receive a photograph of the ultrasound image.

Guttmacher Institute Study:

Legislators in eight states introduced measures to require that ultrasound services be offered to a woman seeking an abortion. Missouri was the only state in which a measure was approved, and the governor is widely expected to allow it to go into effect without his signature. Three other states currently require providers to offer ultrasound services to women (see Requirements for Ultrasound).

Measures enacted this year in Utah and West Virginia place requirements on a provider who is performing an ultrasound in preparation for an abortion. The Utah law requires the provider to offer to show and describe the image to the woman. The new law in West Virginia is similar but explicitly allows the woman to choose whether or not to view the image. These two new laws bring to 10 the number of states with such provisions.

Finally, legislatures in three states—Oklahoma, Florida and Louisiana—moved to enact or strengthen requirements mandating that women seeking an abortion first obtain an ultrasound. Oklahoma adopted the most stringent measure. It would require abortion providers to perform an ultrasound on every woman obtaining an abortion, display the image to her and provide a verbal description; the woman would be entitled to “avert her eyes” if she did not want to view the screen. The measure is identical to one passed in 2008 that was overturned by a state court on procedural grounds. The new law, written to avoid the procedural issues, was nonetheless challenged immediately upon enactment, and enforcement is currently blocked pending the outcome of the litigation.

And of course, let's not forget the assault on the Affordable Care Act:

Meanwhile, legislators in 14 states (including states that already have laws applying to all private plans) introduced measures that would limit coverage of abortion through the insurance exchanges that will be set up under health care reform by 2014. Legislation has been enacted in four states. Arizona’s new law permits coverage only in cases of threats to the woman’s life or health, while Mississippi’s permits coverage only in cases of life endangerment, rape or incest. Laws in Louisiana and Tennessee prohibit all coverage of abortion, with no exceptions. Legislation approved by the legislature in Missouri is awaiting action by the governor, and measures in Florida and Oklahoma have been vetoed.

Just one more reason to keep the wingers out of Congress and by extension, out of women's reproductive systems.

Please discuss as the President announces his final plan for health-care reform.

Some excerpts, sent in advance:

“I don’t believe we should give government bureaucrats or insurance company bureaucrats more control over health care in America. I believe it’s time to give the American people more control over their own health insurance. I don’t believe we can afford to leave life-and-death decisions about health care to the discretion of insurance company executives alone. I believe that doctors and nurses like the ones in this room should be free to decide what’s best for their patients.

The proposal I’ve put forward gives Americans more control over their health care by holding insurance companies more accountable. It builds on the current system where most Americans get their health insurance from their employer. If you like your plan, you can keep your plan. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. Because I can tell you that as the father of two young girls, I wouldn’t want any plan that interferes with the relationship between a family and their doctor.”

***

“So this is our proposal. This is where we’ve ended up. It’s an approach that has been debated and changed and I believe improved over the last year. It incorporates the best ideas from Democrats and Republicans – including some of the ideas that Republicans offered during the health care summit, like funding state grants on medical malpractice reform and curbing waste, fraud, and abuse in the health care system. My proposal also gets rid of many of the provisions that had no place in health care reform – provisions that were more about winning individual votes in Congress than improving health care for all Americans.”

***

“At stake right now is not just our ability to solve this problem, but our ability to solve any problem. The American people want to know if it’s still possible for Washington to look out for their interests and their future. They are waiting for us to act. They are waiting for us to lead. And as long as I hold this office, I intend to provide that leadership. I don’t know how this plays politically, but I know it’s right. And so I ask Congress to finish its work, and I look forward to signing this reform into law.”

The White House has put the proposal up for you to read.

DOWNLOADS: (2379)

PLAYS: (2138)

Embed

What a week. We've already seen Blue Dogs take women to the back of the bus (or was it the alley?) with Stupak's impressively Stupid Amendment. Now we're hearing that those who supposedly worry about "too much spending" when it comes to health care--you know, the meatloaf-brains who rejected the public option, which would create competition and actually bring down costs--are now blathering on about embracing "tort reform."

Because you'd really want to take away the rights of victims in a democracy to lower the health care costs by...wait for it...wait for it... ".5%" (according to the CBO).

All you really need to know is that Blue Dogs/GOPers (is there any difference?) are those in favor of this counterproductive course of action, yet if you do indeed need more, watch the heart wrenching videos recounting the tragic results of medical malpractice. To learn more about the 98,000 lives lost due to medical error each year--or 268 every day--go to 98,000 reasons, a website set up by the American Association for Justice. Once there send a message to your Senator: Remind them you won't have your rights further stripped away so they can scarf down more caviar with their contributors at Big Insurance.

More videos below the fold:

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (1762)

PLAYS: (1619)

Embed

In recent days, Republican leaders have scored a series of political victories in their eternal quest for tort reform. Last week, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) told Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) that an onerous package of malpractice curbs he championed could save the government an estimated $54 billion over 10 years. That came on the heels of President Obama's latest offer to support limited tort reform as an olive branch to recalcitrant Republicans balking at his health care proposals, including funding for a $25 million pilot program.

But largely overlooked in the heated discussions of damage award caps, special health courts, expert panels and national compensation schedules is the inescapable truth that the medical malpractice system has only a negligible impact on overall American health care costs. Republican horror stories of a torrent of baseless malpractice suits producing "jackpot justice" that fuels rising premiums for physicians and patients alike while driving doctors from practice simply don't comport with reality. The overstated, overblown, over the top and often outright false GOP claims suggest that the Republicans' real target is not the flawed American malpractice system, but instead the nation's trial lawyers whose campaign contributions help bankroll the Democratic Party.

Here, then, is a look at Republican Malpractice Myths:

1. An Explosion of Malpractice Litigation
2. A System Plagued by Frivolous Lawsuits
3. Rising Damage Awards Key to Higher Malpractice Premiums
4. Rising Malpractice Insurance Rates Driving Doctors from Practice
5. Medical Malpractice Reform Would Save U.S. $200 Billion Annually
6. Defensive Medicine Costs $200 Billion a Year

For the details and data behind each, continue reading.

Continue reading »

Health care costs are exploding. A robust public option would create competition that would lower costs, and increase access to life-saving medicine.

But wait! I have an idea! Let's eliminate the public option, and for good measure, take away the rights of the victims of medical malpractice by passing "tort reform." Even though, it um, doesn't work. You know, if by work, you mean lower health-care costs and do anything to help regular people afford health insurance.

But if you've been trained by "Permanent Majority" Rove, and your real purpose is to 1) Keep your corporate slop-providers happy 2) Punish a group that often gives donations to Democrats (lawyers) and 3) Pretend you actually care a whit about people who don't get Yacht Shoe Weekly, then bingo! You have your made up issue.

Thankfully, the American Association for Justice has begun a campaign to tell the truth about this issue, about the 98,000 people who lose their lives each year due to preventable medical error:

The American Association for Justice announced today it is launching what it called the first phase of a nationwide ad campaign "to educate lawmakers about the epidemic of preventable medical errors and how tort law changes won't lower costs or cover the uninsured."

The ads, running in Washington publications and on online news sites, say the estimated 98,000 deaths from preventable medical errors is "like two 737s crashing every day for a whole year."

But the ad concludes:"Would we blame the passengers or the airlines?"

Well, we know who Republicans and Blue Dogs would blame. The passengers. The pilots. The unions. Gay Marriage. Stem-cell research. But never the big corporations who make the planes.

Thankfully, we know better.

Disclosure: I'm damn spankin' proud to be working with the American Association for Justice to protect patients' rights.

When he said: WaPo

"I question it based on a review of the video footage which I spent an hour or so looking at last night in my office," he said in a lengthy speech in which he quoted medical texts and standards. "She certainly seems to respond to visual stimuli."

How can any doctor make a diagnosis looking at old video footage? A doctor has to "see" the patient in person in order to render an opinion. Except of course for political gain. I found Medical Malpractice attorneys in Tennessee. A call is in the making. Let's see what happens.