Yuma Sun

Church group’s opposition stuns ‘tort reform’ advocates

-

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. — So-called tort reform has been an easy sell in states controlled by Republican­s, and backers of a lawsuitlim­iting proposal on the ballot in Arkansas this fall expected little trouble winning passage until they ran into a surprising obstacle from a reliable conservati­ve ally.

A Christian group has begun rallying churches and abortion opponents against the measure, saying that limiting damage awards in lawsuits sets an arbitrary value on human life, contrary to anti-abortion beliefs, and conflicts with biblical principles of justice and helping the poor.

Proponents of the measure are stunned by the opposition and worried that it could stir dissension among conservati­ves who must work together on numerous issues.

“The biggest problem is not the damage” to the tort reform proposal, said Republican Rep. Bob Ballinger, a sponsor of that measure. “The biggest hurdle is the damage to the prolife cause.”

The religious argument also could offer tort reform opponents in other states a new weapon for fighting limits. The legal restrictio­ns have been making headway in recent years as the GOP has won control of roughly two-thirds of state legislatur­es.

Arkansas’ measure is an effort by an array of probusines­s groups, including the state Chamber of Commerce, to reinstate legal caps that have been chipped away over the years by court rulings.

The amendment would cap damages for noneconomi­c losses, such as pain and psychologi­cal distress, to $500,000 and punitive damages to $500,000 or three times the amount of compensato­ry damages awarded, whichever is higher. It also would cap attorneys’ contingenc­y fees at one third of the net amount recovered.

The proposal doesn’t cap economic damages, which go toward verifiable losses such as medical expenses as well as past and future wages. But the conservati­ve Family Council Action Committee argues that putting a cap on other damages devalues the lives of those with no income, such as the elderly and stay-at-home parents, who would receive little compensati­on for pain and suffering.

The Family Council, which championed Arkansas’ ban on gay marriages, is organizing meetings with church leaders to call for the measure’s rejection.

“The Bible is full of references to justice, and (the proposal) creates an environmen­t where the powerful can tip the scales of justice against everybody else, but especially the poor,” Jerry Cox, the Family Council’s head, said at a recent breakfast meeting with pastors.

Pastors were handed informatio­nal booklets emblazoned with the words “Don’t Put A Price Tag On Human Life.” Flyers left on each table offered attendees inserts for their church bulletins.

Rose Mimms, the head of Arkansas Right to Life, also spoke out against the measure, writing in a column on the conservati­ve website townhall.com that it “erodes our own pro-life efforts” in the state. The organizati­on has not taken an official position on the measure.

Industry groups backing the tort reform amendment questioned whether the Family Council’s actions were motivated by $150,000 in donations the group received from a Little Rock law firm. Trial lawyers are the leading opponents of the tort reform movement.

“They have sold their brand to trial lawyers to be able to promote this issue,” said Carl Vogelpohl, the campaign manager for Arkansans for Jobs and Justice, which is backing the tort reform proposal. Cox said the donation wasn’t a factor and that his group announced its position before receiving the money.

Using church meetings to rally opposition especially angered the measure’s supporters.

“When you go to church and you hear somebody speak up against something, generally, you’re thinking, ‘Well, I’m getting a 100 percent clear picture,’” said Republican Rep. Marcus Richmond, the House majority leader.

The nearly hourlong presentati­on to pastors by Cox and two other officials from his group alternated between a seminar and sermon, as they described the types of claims that could be constraine­d by the measure.

“Can I get an ‘amen?’” Cox asked at one point.

“Amen,” the audience repeated back in approval.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States