13 Comments so far

1. mrsdarwin on July 31, 2008 9:44 am

   Hey, if he were doing abortions in Canada, they’d give him the Order of Canada.

2. mouldfan on July 31, 2008 11:46 am

   Come on Cranky, you know better than that. What medical procedures Dr. Coburn is performing has nothing to do with this. Dr. Frist didn’t perform heart surgery while he was a Senator because the chamber rules forbid such voluntary practices. How is Coburn different? He’s not and, moreover, he knows it because when he was elected he asked for a waiver and was denied. The investigation stems from the fact that he is knowingly violating Senate rules, not because he’s delivering babies.

   If you want to argue the rule is stupid, fine, I’d probably even agree, but to suggest that he’d get different treatment if he was performing abortions is, in my opinion, stooping a bit low for you.

3. CrankyWife on July 31, 2008 12:28 pm

   mouldy, could you explain the rule? I thought senator was not originally conceived of as a full time job. Is it now against the rules to have another profession?

4. mouldfan on July 31, 2008 1:49 pm

   Crankywife,

   In essence, yes, Members are prohibited from earning “outside income” or engaging in practices that create a potential “conflict of interest.” These restrictions mirror the general restrictions on all federal employees, but have been interpreted by the House and the Senate over the years in a fairly permissive way. When Dr. Coburn was a Member of the House, they interpreted their Chamber rules to permit him to perform limited medical practice (I’m not sure if it was voluntary or not, but I do seem to recall he wasn’t making a profit). The Senate has taken a different view of their Chambers rule, which is their perogrative. As I said before, Coburn knew this because his petition to continue what he had been doing while a Member of the House was rejected (by a GOP-led Senate Ethics Committee if I’m not mistaken). Thus, while it’s nice spin that Feddie and others are putting on this, it’s really about playing by the rules, not about whether he can deliver babies or not. As I said, I’m not 100% convinced that voluntary medical practice creates a “conflict of interest” such that it should be prohibited, but the Senate doesn’t agree with me. Other physicians have susupended practice while Members of the Senate, so why should Coburn be different?

5. Victor Morton on July 31, 2008 2:40 pm

   from earning “outside income”

   This is done gratis. So that’s prima facie completely irrelevant.

   or engaging in practices that create a potential “conflict of interest.”

   How does delivering babies do this, by any standard that doesn’t cover every activity ever known to man?

   Your only real argument that I can see is the incredibly weak one that the Senate has its reasons. But skeptics are calling it on its reasons and their rationality, and inferring ill conclusions from that prerogative being used so manifestly irrationally.

   And yes, Frist gave up his practice, but he was a heart surgeon — not the kind of thing a doctor can reasonably do gratis (and the malpractice insurance would be a bitch too).

6. Victor Morton on July 31, 2008 2:44 pm

   And one other thing … the Senate rule was interpreted as allowing Patrick Leahy to work in the latest BATMAN movie (nor is this unprecedented … I seem to recall a couple were in THE AMERICAN PRESIDENT).

   This is arbitrary and capricious baiting … nothing more.

7. mouldfan on July 31, 2008 3:12 pm

   First of all, I’m far from defending the Senate’s rule, or its interpretations. All I was pointing out was that Cranky, who I know to be a very well-informed reasonable person, was taking a rethorical leap in asserting that this has anything at all to do with abortion vs. delivering babies.

   That said, I don’t think it’s at all a stretch to conclude that the practice of medicine, law, or other professions, even for free, creates the potential for an impermissible conflict of interest. As Mr. Morton points out “the malpractice insurance would be a bitch too,” suggesting that, even when performing services voluntarily, there is still the potential for liability and hence the possibility, however remote, for a conflict. Distinguishing this from other activities, which when also done for free, such as appearing in a TV or movie, strikes me as fairly easy to do as well. Again I’m not saying that there isn’t a problem here, or that the Senate has gotten this correct, merely that it’s not about abortion, not in any way, shape, or form.

8. Victor Morton on July 31, 2008 7:00 pm

   Sorry, but these are still weak excuses.

   The general possibility of liability lawsuits (which I agree is theoretically real) is too powerful a basis to be confined to a couple of activities. That greater-than-zero chance can create a conflict of interest, particularly in the contexts of modern litigation habits, involved in any activity. You couldn’t go on a skiing vacation, say, because that has a greater-than-zero possibility of a liability suit over a broken leg. And whether you’d be the plaintiff or the defendant in a liability case doesn’t matter **for this purpose at hand**: a potential conflict of interest. It would merely change the particulars of on whose behalf the conflict of interest would come.

   And the theoretical possibility of a conflict of interest cannot sustain an ethics rule applied neutrally and without prejudice, because the theoretical possibilities involved in ANY activity generating a conflict are at least as great as the theoretical possibilities based on liability suits. To take the example on the table of Leahy’s role in the BATMAN movie — why wouldn’t that create a conflict of interest should Warner Brothers ever have a stake in an issue to come before the Senate? And to pick several current issues off the top of my head — copyright law, cable-TV and ISP-provider regs, China trade — that Warner Bros. has business before Congress is not theoretical in the least. In the context of the modern regulatory-welfare state, quite literally anything and everything creates a potential conflict of interest.

9. Victor Morton on July 31, 2008 7:04 pm

   Cranky, who I know to be a very well-informed reasonable person, was taking a rethorical leap in asserting that this has anything at all to do with abortion vs. delivering babies.

   Paul is making a leap, but not an unreasonable one since the possibility of the cited reasons being a neutral application of a rational rule is, as a matter of objective fact, zero.

   The way I would put it is: “the Dems and porkers have it in for Coburn, and this is a knee-in-the-groin. But if Coburn were aborting babies, the Dems would have to look the other way and find some other knee because the feminists in their base wouldn’t tolerate punishing an abortion provider.”

10. CrankyCon on July 31, 2008 7:55 pm

    I am now finally able to look at a computer monitor again after having had my eyes dilated at the eye doctor, so I wasn’t trying to evade mouldy’s response. In all seriousness, I think Victor has covered all the points and then some.

    The way I would put it is: “the Dems and porkers have it in for Coburn, and this is a knee-in-the-groin. But if Coburn were aborting babies, the Dems would have to look the other way and find some other knee because the feminists in their base wouldn’t tolerate punishing an abortion provider.”

    And that’s probably the way I should have put it. It’s hard to ignore the possibility that this is a way for the Dems to stick it to the one GOP Senator that is truly causing them consternation.

    Finally, I can’t help but think common sense should just prevail. Is this really something that the Senate wants to pursue?

11. crankyprof on August 1, 2008 8:03 am

    “Common sense” and “Senate” should not even appear on the same PAGE.

    If there’s an inconsistent position to be held, a contrary cause to champion, or political capital to be made by shilling like a snake oil salesmen, Congress is on it like a duck on a june bug.

    Providing the (much-vaunted and desired) free health care for women? Too damn bad — even though the Left’s screeching defense of Planned parenthood and the giving of buckets of fed cash to PP is, “But they don’t just provide abortions — they provide free health care to women!”

    Coburn irks the left, ergo he’s the target of a witch hunt. It’s despicable that they’d use the Ethics Committee to go after him, when they’ve hardly removed the beams from their own eyes in that regard.

12. Jay Anderson on August 1, 2008 8:04 am

    It’s all a set-up to make Obama look good. Obama gets to ride to Coburn’s rescue (accounts are that Obama and Coburn are fairly close) by condemning the ethics charges as absurd and calling for them to be dropped.

    

13. mouldfan on August 1, 2008 9:53 am

    Wow, usually I’m the resident cynic. The points about Coburn and the Dems would be relevant if, and only if, this was something new. The fact (pesky though they can be)remains, however, that this isn’t something new. Coburn sought a waiver of the application of the rule, I beleive, when he was a Sentor-elect, and again after he was sworn and took his seat. He was denied both times. Both time before he became the cause of consternation to the Democrats running the chamber.

    As I’ve said, I’m not really defending the Senate’s application of the rule. I don’t agree at all with Mr. Morton’s analysis, but I do think a reasonable case can be made that Coburn should be allowed to continue what he’s doing. We, however, aren’t the Senate and they have decided otherwise. Coburn’s censure, should it ever come (which is very doubtful) would be for failing to comply with a Ethics Committee ruling. Again, I only sought to question the, IMO, very tenious connection to abortion and abortion politics.