Opinion disingenuous

On May 28, readers may have seen a guest opinion supporting Issue 1, a proposed amendment for tort reform, better understood as the limitation of class-action lawsuits.

My overall response can be reduced to a charge of hysterical tone and disingenuous language. Such phrases as “business owners and job creators” (heroic), “ambulance-chasing lawyers” and “out-of-state ambulance chasers” (slanderous, derogatory), and “frivolous lawsuits” (how many out of all lawsuits are these?) reveal the author’s stark biases and manipulation of real circumstances. Overall, the article suggests that lawsuits cost citizens money or jobs.

There is nothing inherent in tort law that limits a “job creator” from creating jobs. On the other hand, an upfront assurance that the employer cannot be sued by employees will free that creator from some measure of concern for the welfare of employees, and thus, the author implies, result in creation of even more jobs. Those who value citizens’ access to class-action law are interested in the quality, safety, and social integrity of any job (or service), not just the number available.

Likewise, there is nothing in tort law that keeps doctors from practicing in small and rural communities, but the guest opinion insists, without substantiation, that the lack of good medical care anywhere is a product of lawsuits. However, if courts are fair, good practice in general need not be afraid; access to class-action is a shield between patients and the alltoo-real potential of shoddy practice.

If you value the traditional notion of America as a relatively classless society, then you cannot desire the unbound elevation of privilege in industry of any kind. As we learn again to discern tyrants from leaders, we should also reject the privileges of magnates and uphold the rights of individuals. Only in that direction does the goal of equality lie. Before voting, think more than once about tort reform and Issue 1. SHEARLE FURNISH

Little Rock