Score one for Dan Savage

When anti-abortion Democrat Bob Casey is sworn in next year as Pennsylvania's newest senator, he will no doubt thank all the usual supporters and his family for putting him in office. But the one man who really deserves some credit for Casey's election is a gay Seattle sex columnist.

If you recall, back in 2003, Casey's opponent, incumbent senator Rick Santorum gave a homophobic interview to the Associated Press, saying that "In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be." 

Outraged, Seattle Stranger columnist Dan Savage started a contest to define "santorum" as something sex-related and gross. He succeeded wildly, so now if you Google "santorum," the first site to pop up is this one. Casey, of course, won't be sending Savage a mash note (he actually returned Savage's campaign contribution last year), but he clearly owes him one.

So you're now wondering: what does all this have to do with tort reform? Not much, except that Santorum has been one of the Senate's biggest hypocrites on the issue. A rabid proponent of caps on medical malpractice damages, Santorum supported his wife's lawsuit against her chiropractor in 1999, in which she won a $350,000 jury verdict for her pain and suffering. So Savage's gay rights' victory just happened to be a big win for the civil justice system, too.

Comments

[DBR]

You noted: "Santorum supported his wife's lawsuit against her chiropractor in 1999, in which she won a $350,000 jury verdict for her pain and suffering"

Since factual reporting counts, even after the election is over and Santorum lost, I'm taking this opportunity to correct this erroneous assertion - AGAIN. Karen Santorum's jury award was NOT just for pain and suffering - it was for economic damages as well, which included home and child care while she recuperated, medical costs and future medical costs, etc....

There WAS NO designation in either the filed suit or the jury verdict specifying which portion of the request or award was for "pain and suffering." Plus, the award was reduced to $175,000 - again, with no specification about what percentage was for economic or non-economic damages.

Sen. Santorum never supported any legislation which would have limited ECONOMIC damages. And I find it particularly hypocritical that people who accuse "tort reformers" of trying to limit Americans' access to their day in court would apparently all agree that the wife of a Senator who supports tort reform should be denied HER day in court.

That's almost as ridiculous as denying my right to have the mastectomy that saved my life because I'm married to a surgeon who supports improving health care.