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.

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.

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?

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.”

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.

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.

This is arbitrary and capricious baiting … nothing more.

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).

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?