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 was really pleased to hear the Speaker say he did not have an objection to it, and was wondering, since it appears to have been cleared and so noncontroversial, could we get it out and could we get it passed?
But that ``it'' cost a half a million dollars and we cannot see it. This morning's Washington Post has a clarification of what the Speaker said about the ``it'' in it. And I hope that everybody reads it, because while the Speaker said one…
Editorials all over America are joining those of us who keep calling for the release of whatever it is that was produced by the outside counsel for over a half a million dollars of tax money on Speaker Gingrich's violations of the ethics…
I find that fairly astonishing, that they tell us we can go outside and talk about it, but we cannot talk about it on the floor.
Other voices in this conversation
