On the recordMarch 21, 2012
It's no surprise that I am disappointed with the content of this bill before us today. I join with my colleagues who have expressed their disappointment, but I'm also disappointed with the process behind it. Yesterday, for a totally bogus reason, the Rules Committee declared an amendment I offered out of order. They claimed it would add to the cost of the bill despite having no numbers. The amendment did not create some new regulation. It did not create new judicial proceedings. It did not set aside money for a new program. Let me tell you what it did do, Mr. Chairman. It would have made a terrible bill slightly better. It's simple. My amendment ensured that doctors who intentionally--not accidentally, but intentionally--harm their patients are not exempt from medical malpractice liability. If this Congress wishes to tell a child made blind by the negligence of his doctor that those in this Chamber know better than a jury, if my colleagues wish to pretend that the Seventh Amendment of the United States Constitution, guaranteeing a trial by jury, was somehow omitted from the Bill of Rights, I disagree, but so be it. The very least we can do is ensure that if a doctor intentionally abuses his patients that he will not evade justice. Surely, the sponsors of this bill did not intend to extend liability caps to a pediatrician who sexually abused a child or a dentist who raped his patients under sedation.…
