this law would supersede the traditional common law, and it would eliminate joint and several liability for noneconomic damages such as pain and suffering. So obviously, the loss of reproductive organs is considered a noneconomic damage, and in the past, pain and suffering for that has been recognized, because common law recognized human beings and their pain. So when we supersede that, when we repeal that, that is my point.
Discussing the implications of a law on common law and liability for noneconomic damages.
Share
More from Patricia Schroeder
I want to tell you, I really admire this woman astronaut. We put her up in space and we seem to forget to bring her back. This poor soul has been trapped up in space for a very long time. Now it appears that the hurricane is delaying…
I was very troubled by the Chair's ruling, and I am going to tell my colleagues why. My understanding is, what we are debating is the martial law rule which gives the Speaker the right to bring any resolution to the floor whenever he wants…
I wanted this body to hear what the gentlewoman said because that has been our position all along. We do not wish to hurt good mothers. That was the President's position. That is still our position. I was the one who went to the Committee…
last June I asked the Secretary of Defense to answer a few questions about growing numbers of military personnel on loan to Members of Congress under questionable circumstances. To date, I have not received a reply. Now I know why. They…
Other voices in this conversation
