It’s confounding how much republicans claim to adore these defenseless bouncy babbies when they are forcing women to deliver them into a world where they are loathed by republicans the rest of their lives.
Professional liability coverage generally provides legal defense costs, regardless of the accused act or omission. So, while the coverage might not include the bounty itself, it should afford them a legal defense. Unless Idaho and the other “insane states” create kangaroo courts to hear “uncles” bemoan the loss of unborn babbies.
Malpractice coverage, including defense, is literally for "professional negligence", which excludes intentionality. As a medmal lawyer I have never seen it cover intentional acts in a lawsuit for damages, but I have seen newbies who alleged such have that tossed back at them. Performing an abortion prohibited by law or prescribing a drug prohibited by law would be intentional by definbition.
The policy may include coverage for administrative actions based on misconduct but these laws are not about such.
The insurer could also posibly tuck such matters into the exclusion of criminal acts from coverage because they violate the law even if the state is not charging them as such.
The insurer would be on the hook if the claim of statutory non-compliance was framed as negligence per se, but that is not how these laws are structured.
On the flip side, the legislatures that pass these laws know that doctors have coverage and so the goal of these laws is not the inconvenience of cases that can just be turned over to an insurer but a personal bankrupting of the provider. They also do not want insurers to stop offering any obgyn coverage at all in the state or to leave the state entirely since even non-obgyns could do these procedures or prescribe these drugs. It looks like they therefore created a claim that will be outside what malpractice insurance covers.
The silence of the insurers - whose only goal is to not pay out on any claim, and who can read legislative tea leaves and would either be lobbying madly or running from states that could embroil them in endless litigation and skyrocketing costs - suggests that they do not see risk for themselves either.
I will be glad to be wrong and to see doctors getting backed by powerful companies with lots of clout in the State House. I just have serious doubts that I will.
If they go after trans kids like they're planning it'll get a lot worse given the feddies are considering pulling funding from states who go this route.
If we had a responsible media they would make republicans explain how they can argue mask mandates violate their freedom out of one side of their mouth and turn around and try to lock people away for being different out of the other side.
When Romania banned abortion, the population increased, and crime surged roughly a generation after the ban took effect. Disaffected youth were a driving force behind Causescu's ouster and execution. So you could draw the conclusion that the totalitarians stepped on their own dicks when they banned abortion. (This is what the book Freakonomics argues.) Keep fucking around with abortion rights, American fascists. Find out what happens.
I don't have the mind of military strategy genius Donald Trump, but I'm pretty sure being able to provide meals should be pretty high on the priority list.
I don't think they care about women related or otherwise.
BTW - you might wonder why the medical malpractice insurers are not lobbying against these laws.
The answer is that they would not be affected. They insure against negligence but these lawsuits would allege intentional acts.
They will be able to tell a sued doctor that they are on their own.
Quite a one-two punch, huh?
But will they ever be able to locate the one with the coat hanger? /s
It’s confounding how much republicans claim to adore these defenseless bouncy babbies when they are forcing women to deliver them into a world where they are loathed by republicans the rest of their lives.
Professional liability coverage generally provides legal defense costs, regardless of the accused act or omission. So, while the coverage might not include the bounty itself, it should afford them a legal defense. Unless Idaho and the other “insane states” create kangaroo courts to hear “uncles” bemoan the loss of unborn babbies.
Dotter, go git yer bruther to knock ya up, thin go hab one o' thim aburtuns, 'en thin we'll sue thet doctor.
What could possibly go wrong?
This is so sick.
Malpractice coverage, including defense, is literally for "professional negligence", which excludes intentionality. As a medmal lawyer I have never seen it cover intentional acts in a lawsuit for damages, but I have seen newbies who alleged such have that tossed back at them. Performing an abortion prohibited by law or prescribing a drug prohibited by law would be intentional by definbition.
The policy may include coverage for administrative actions based on misconduct but these laws are not about such.
The insurer could also posibly tuck such matters into the exclusion of criminal acts from coverage because they violate the law even if the state is not charging them as such.
The insurer would be on the hook if the claim of statutory non-compliance was framed as negligence per se, but that is not how these laws are structured.
On the flip side, the legislatures that pass these laws know that doctors have coverage and so the goal of these laws is not the inconvenience of cases that can just be turned over to an insurer but a personal bankrupting of the provider. They also do not want insurers to stop offering any obgyn coverage at all in the state or to leave the state entirely since even non-obgyns could do these procedures or prescribe these drugs. It looks like they therefore created a claim that will be outside what malpractice insurance covers.
The silence of the insurers - whose only goal is to not pay out on any claim, and who can read legislative tea leaves and would either be lobbying madly or running from states that could embroil them in endless litigation and skyrocketing costs - suggests that they do not see risk for themselves either.
I will be glad to be wrong and to see doctors getting backed by powerful companies with lots of clout in the State House. I just have serious doubts that I will.
If they go after trans kids like they're planning it'll get a lot worse given the feddies are considering pulling funding from states who go this route.
If we had a responsible media they would make republicans explain how they can argue mask mandates violate their freedom out of one side of their mouth and turn around and try to lock people away for being different out of the other side.
Who listens to those guys?
When Romania banned abortion, the population increased, and crime surged roughly a generation after the ban took effect. Disaffected youth were a driving force behind Causescu's ouster and execution. So you could draw the conclusion that the totalitarians stepped on their own dicks when they banned abortion. (This is what the book Freakonomics argues.) Keep fucking around with abortion rights, American fascists. Find out what happens.
A trifle more moist, is all.
"Accountable? What for?"
Idaho: every child an unhoused, underfed, neglected child!
I don't have the mind of military strategy genius Donald Trump, but I'm pretty sure being able to provide meals should be pretty high on the priority list.
This reeks of poor planning and desperation.