Tom Davis votes with Bush on Junk Science
By: Andrea Chamblee
Published On: 12/13/2006 1:57:31 PM
"Moderate" Tom Davis votes to require doctors to tell patients junk science, even when not appropriate for particular patients and even when not relevant to their situation.
Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act - Vote Failed (250-162, 20 Not Voting)
Under rules that need a two-thirds vote for passage, the House failed to pass this measure that would have required doctors to notify women seeking abortions after 20 weeks of gestation that the fetus feels pain.
Rep. Thomas Davis III voted YES......send e-mail.
Say thanks to to Boucher, Moran, and Scott for voting NO on the violation of the doctor-patient relationship with junk science.
---------------------------------------------------------
[Much more below the fold...]
Tax Relief and Health Care Act - Vote Passed (367-45, 21 Not Voting)
The House approved this bill that extends a number of tax credits and opens an area of the Gulf of Mexico to oil drilling.
Rep. Thomas Davis III voted YES......send e-mail.
Track votes of your representatives here.
Although both bills are bad for the country, this diary concentrates on the first one. The American Medical Association and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists opposed the bill for many reasons, including the fact that there is no evidence that fetuses feel pain in the first 20 weeks. The evidence is compelling that the nervous system is inadequate for at least 28 weeks. Depending on the patient and the pregnancy, this period may be even longer. NYT reported and the Journal of the AMA published an extensive study in August 2005 to support the conclusion that "connections in the brain are unlikely to have developed enough for the fetus to feel pain before 29 weeks."
The real purpose of the bill is to inject scare tactics into the doctor-patient relationship. Furthermore, if the patient were to elect anesthesia for the fetus during the procedure, this would prevent most, if not all, clinics from performing the procedure at all; few if any clinics have the capability of administering anesthesia to a fetus.
The bill includes a script doctors must read to women, offering to deliver anesthesia directly to the fetus and stating, "The Congress of the United States has determined that at this stage of development, an unborn child has the physical structures necessary to experience pain."
You would have thought Bill Frist, Tom Davis and Tom DeLay learned about the perils of practicing medicine from the Capitol Building, when they got Terri Schaivo's diagnosis all wrong!
The bill requires HHS to write an "Unborn Child Pain Awareness Brochure."
Who at HHS is qualified to write medical counseling brochures? Mark McClellan?
The idea was not to pass this legislation. There was no time for the Senate to weigh in. For the "Do Nothing" Congress and its leader Republican Tom Davis, the idea was to draw a line in the sand and get Iraq out of the headlines, while ignoring soldiers, global warming, Iran, immigration, and health care.
Davis didn't have far to drift right in preparation for his Senate race, but he's started already. This vote was not for you or for the VA-11 after his name. This vote was for the VA-SEN title.
Time Mag also did a story on the junk science that supports this Act.
Comments
No big surprise Davis votes with Bush again (Andrea Chamblee - 12/13/2006 1:58:52 PM)
The surprise is, that he votes with Bush
over 95% of the time and never has to admit it.
Do you have a link for the "junk science" assertion? (Rob - 12/13/2006 2:01:32 PM)
Journal of the American Medical Assn (Andrea Chamblee - 12/13/2006 2:29:18 PM)
The study is discussed in the AMA journal
here. The purpose of the bill is to make patients feel (more) terrible, and to require clinics that can't provide fetal anesthesia to close - that's almost ALL of them. The AMA and the Obstetricians (ACOG) opposed the bill.
Davis willing to define pregnancy long before doctors do (Andrea Chamblee - 12/13/2006 2:55:44 PM)
WaPo: Even the bill's definition of pregnancy -- beginning at the moment of fertilization, rather than at implantation in the uterus -- is problematic ..."
But more than half of fertilized eggs don't ever implant. "Estimations of chemical pregnancies or unrecognized pregnancies that are lost can be as high as 50-75%, but many of these are unknown since they often happen before a woman has missed a period or is aware she is pregnant."
Tom Davis said he didn't have to understand the full implications of votes like the marriage amendment and the Military Commissions bill because he's not a lawyer." But he's willing to make medical decisions? I guess this isn't a surprise to the Schiavo family.
As an aside, I have been meaning to tell StarMalachite that Davis lied again. He is a lawyer.
Andrea- (Rob - 12/13/2006 4:51:36 PM)
Do you mind threading into the diary itself why this and the JAMA support for why this bill is "junk science"? I'd like to promote this if your comments can make it into the body.
So much for a short/quick diary. Done! n/t (Andrea Chamblee - 12/13/2006 6:08:09 PM)
thanks! (Rob - 12/13/2006 6:30:27 PM)
I'll promote this after the live blog is over.
Keep peeping on Tom (Kindler - 12/13/2006 10:25:04 PM)
Andrea, thanks for keeping the pressure on Tom Davis.
The election may be over, but in the meantime, the Democratic majority of his district needs to demand that he represent us and our values.
Another reason (libra - 12/13/2006 10:27:58 PM)
this law would not have been applicable, even if it had passed: nobody knows the dosage of painkillers that are safe for the foetus. So, chances are, instead of sparing the foetus pain (supposing it could feel it), the painkiller would have killed it. You might think it makes no difference, since it would have been killed anyway, but, legally it woukld have, and I can see cases up the kazoo lining up.
As Andrea said -- it was a strawman law, proposed just for a bit of posturing.
Exactly right (Andrea Chamblee - 12/13/2006 11:43:26 PM)
In a
story right out of forcible abortions in China, a neighbor of mine got pregnant at 26+ years old. She had been told since she was 13 that her cancer gave her 6 months to live. She and her husband were determined to keep the baby and she stopped taking her medicine. Her remission ended and when her cancer returned she was hospitalized during the 2d trimester for her high-risk pregnancy. Unfortunately, it was George Washington Hospital. The hospital appointed a guardian for her fetus - not for her - and he sued the mother to end the pregancy. He said it was for good of the child, since Mom was as good as dead, he said, to give the fetus a "better chance" in Neonatal ICU rather than in her declining body. The wacked-out judge weighed the value of her life and the unborn baby's and agreed. The fetus was removed over the objections of her, her husband, and her doctor. The anesthesia killed Mom, AND the baby.
Footnote is that the ACLU represented her, and she "won" on appeal.
An abortion is defined as removal of the fetus in a manner that produces death. For anyone who says giving up the right of privacy will never result in forcible abortions, this shows it already has.
If pregnant women get the right to medical privacy, bodily integrity and self-determination, everybody will want it. (What will we say to the innocent people in Guantanamo and subject to extraordinary rendition?)
Also this is the guy who thought earmarks were so great (demnan - 12/14/2006 1:16:54 PM)
Well now with a less corrupt Congress there will be no earmarks. We'll all pay the price of hours on the road. Tell everyone you know, "Should have voted for Andy".
Davis loved earmarks for contributors, not residents (Andrea Chamblee - 12/14/2006 4:20:23 PM)
His constituents
paid the earmarks. Virginia is a donor state, getting back in transportation and other programs less than it pays out. His own district in NoVa gets back even less than it pays out.
Here's a recent example of Transportation earmarks from 2005:
Value of Earmarks (in final conference agreement) $24,215,018, 641
from http://www.taxpayer....
If you can compare VA to the USA you'll get 2.3% of earmark value that went to VA, even though it is the 12th most populous state (http://quickfacts.ce...)
$103 million more should have gone to VA based solely on population (2.5%).
http://quickfacts.ce...
Let me be the bad guy (DanG - 12/14/2006 12:26:09 AM)
I'll say that I support the principle that these men voted in favor of. That is all.
In this case the principle Davis voted for is Malpractice (Andrea Chamblee - 12/14/2006 10:54:24 AM)
No one is saying abortions are fun -
be the first person on your block to get one! But this vote does not prevent unwanted pregnancies. It does not empower people to make informed decisions. It does not hold politicians accountable for their true position on reproductive rights. This principle
requires doctors to give false information to patients. If they gave this information without the law, they would be gulty of malpractice.
This is not the first time the anti-Scientists tried to misinform patients. The administration tried to misuse the Public Health Service to misinform patients that the procedure was linked to breast cancer. The page with evidence that there was no link was removed from the NIH website; scientists put the information back up here. The page cached here says "Large, well-designed studies have consistently shown no link between abortion ... and breast cancer." See all the changes politicians made to the science here.
The principle of this act is to legislate malpractice. It also is part of the Republican War on Science: it's one thing the emphasize the science on your side and it's another to Make Stuff Up.
That doesn't make you the bad guy, btw (Andrea Chamblee - 12/14/2006 12:14:19 PM)
In my haste I should have added that and I didn't. I'm sure we all wish every child is wanted, every mother and child is healthy, and all patients are fully informed. Just because the Parties try to put us at each other's throats doesn't mean we should be there. We have more in common that they want us to appreciate.
2008 (DukieDem - 12/15/2006 1:46:55 PM)
With the increasing likelihood that Warner will run for re-election and Davis will be stuck in the 11th, does anyone up there have a pulse on if Davis will face any top-tier challengers?
If little known and underfunded Andy Hurst can get 44%, then it would seem a candidate with resources could really make the race interesting.
At Davis's heels in 2008 (Andrea Chamblee - 12/16/2006 5:59:53 PM)
Byrne and Connally are interested. Hurst went right back to work and hasn't had a chance to take a breath to consider. For him, a challenge to Davis was a moral imperative and he took on that crook when no one else would commit the passion and energy. He may be willing to help behind the scenes for someone else with the real fortitude to step up to Davis, or may run if no one else will. No other names are coming up.