LETTER TO THE EDITOR: ASBESTOS TRUST FUND HOLDS TOO MANY RISKS
April 14, 2005 07:37

"I read with great interest your recent discussion of the asbestos debate currently under way in Congress....As you know, tort 'reform' was an important plank in the Contract with America, and asbestos is the poster child for the failures of today's tort system. Real victims languish while trial lawyers reap huge profits and acquire controlling shares of corporate America. We must fix this problem, but the $140 billion trust fund being pushed by Sen. Arlen Specter offers few assurances against a de facto new government bureau that will require infusions of taxpayer dollars to serve an expanding population of victims, many of whom may never become ill. A lot has changed since the Republican revolution first swept through Congress. However, something that should not change is our principles. Republicans won in Congress with a vision of lower taxes, less government and more freedom. The Specter proposal - a new multibillion- dollar program for the Department of Labor, a trust fund supported by new taxes, and a policy agenda under the increasing control of trial lawyers - does not square with that vision. There are alternatives available, and Republicans in Congress would be wise to look to the Ohio model, which establishes medical criteria to ensure the courts are available to address the needs of victims who are truly ill. Returning the courts to real people with real grievances is a far better path to take than establishing a new federal program that increases the size and scope of government."

Dick Armey, Co-Chairman, FreedomWorks, Washington
The Wall Street Journal, 04/14/2005

http://www.monheit.com

A Food and Drug Administration advisory panel recommended that silicone gel breast implants made by Mentor Corp. be allowed back on the market for wider use - a surprise decision that came a day after the same panel rejected the application of a rival company. The panel voted 7 to 2 in favor of lifting the 13-year-old partial ban on the controversial implants, but it also recommended that the company be required to meet nine tough conditions. The vote, coming after the same panel rejected the application of Inamed Corp. by a 5 to 4 vote, gives the FDA a mixed recommendation as it grapples with the future of the devices, used for breast enlargement and reconstructive surgery. In 2003, the agency rejected an earlier advisory panel's recommendation to allow general use of silicone gel implants, and it could now decide to approve one company's device, both companies' devices or neither.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50947-2005Apr13.html