Author Archive

“Repeat Caesareans Becoming Harder to Avoid”

“Women around the country are finding that more and more hospitals that once allowed vaginal birth after Caesarean, or VBAC (commonly pronounced VEE-back), are now banning it and insisting on repeat Caesareans. About 300,000 women a year have repeat Caesareans. The rate of vaginal births in women who have had Caesareans has fallen by more than half, from 28.3 percent in 1996 to 10.6 percent in 2003. …

“On a practical level, many women prefer vaginal birth because they recover more quickly and with less pain than they do from a Caesarean. In addition, each Caesarean increases the risk of complications in the next pregnancy, so women who want more than two or three children often hope to avoid the operation.

“Some doctors and hospitals freely acknowledge that fear of being sued has driven their decisions. Hospitals say they cannot comply with guidelines issued in 1999 by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, which call for a doctor to be available ‘immediately’ throughout active labor during such a birth, to perform an emergency Caesarean if needed. Previous guidelines had called for them to be ‘readily’ available.” (Denise Grady, New York Times, Nov. 29)(via Lone Star Times). We covered the issue Jul. 18, 2003.

Latest newsletter

The latest installment of our free periodic newsletter went out this afternoon to its c. 2300 subscribers, covering the last three or four weeks’ worth of postings in cryptic, occasionally droll style. It’s a great way to keep up with items you may have missed; when you’re finished, pass on the email to let a friend know about the site. Sign up today, right here.

MEMRI v. Juan Cole

It seems that getting involved in debates over Mideast politics counts as a high-risk activity, legally speaking. Aside from the defamation suits and threats of suits advanced by the Council for American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) (see Sept. 17, Nov. 24), the pro-Israel Middle East Media Research Institute has now threatened legal action against one of its ideological opposite numbers, University of Michigan professor and blogger Juan Cole. (Reason “Hit and Run”, Nov. 24; Cole blog, Nov. 24; Crooked Timber, Nov. 24). And Cole himself, it develops, has been known to menace his critics with threats of legal action (Martin Kramer, Nov. 25; Reason “Hit and Run”, Nov. 26). For more, see Mickey Kaus, Nov. 25 (scroll), and David Frum, Nov. 27.

U.K. mulls cameras in courts

“We don’t want our courts turned into U.S-style media circuses,” insists the Blair government’s Lord Chancellor. In that case, maybe the British would be better off emulating our federal courts, which generally (unlike state courts) disallow televising of proceedings and have mostly managed to avoid the popcorn-justice syndrome. (“Should Trials Play on the Telly?”, AP/Law.com, Nov. 16).

ADA filing mills defended

And now, by way of giving our opposite numbers their say: the disabled-rights magazine Ragged Edge is out with a pair of articles defending the accessibility filing mills that roam the land grinding out lawsuits against restaurants and other small businesses, with demands for legal fees an important part of the negotiations (see Jul. 9, Mar. 9, Jan. 14 and links from there). The main article gives us a mention (Mary Johnson, “The Lawsuit Dilemma”, Nov.). A shorter companion piece includes the following interesting comments:

With a lawsuit, the disabled person has [a] lawyer (and the lawyer will, in the end, be paid by the defendant). With a lawsuit, their attorney can hire an ADA consultant, who will also be paid by the defendant. The costs of preparing for negotiating, the costs of drafting settlement agreements, the costs of mediation (including paying the mediator) can all be paid by the defendant. With a lawsuit, there is money to pay for these things. Without a lawsuit, there is no money. …

By suing. we are in the driver’s seat. …

Nonprofit groups handling ADA compliance efforts can be funded through lawsuits. One of the more active disability rights plaintiff organizations in this country has been able [to] do its work because it receives donations from the lawyers who earn fees representing the organization’s members in ADA lawsuits.

(Fred Shotz, “Why Suing is Important”, Nov.)

Hooters sues its competition

Trial began last week in a lawsuit filed by Hooters of America against a rival “breastaurant” operator named WingHouse, which also relies on curvy waitresses to sell sports-bar food and drink to a clientele of young men. Hooters charges infringement of “trade dress” (undress?) and other sins, while WingHouse contends that the older chain is using the legal system to suppress competition. (Henry Pierson Curtis, “Hooters suit aims to clip upstart competitor’s wings”, South Florida Sun-Sentinel, Nov. 18; Kris Hundley, “Hooters defends wings-and-winks turf”, St. Petersburg Times, Nov. 18; “Hooters competitor in court, accused of stealing ideas”, AP/Daytona Beach News-Journal, Nov. 19)(via Reason “Hit and Run”). For more Hooters litigation, see Mar. 27, 2001; Mar. 24-26, 2000.

More on Pittsburgh RR crossing case

Reader Steve Headley advises us that there have been follow-ups to the case (publicized worldwide) of Patricia Frankhouser of Jeannette, Pa., who’s suing the Norfolk Southern railway over a broken finger and other injuries she suffered in an encounter with one of its freight trains; the suit, among its other contentions, claimed the railroad should have warned that walking along the tracks was dangerous and should have yielded the right of way (see Nov. 12). After the original reports in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review and Post-Gazette, and a Tribune-Review letter to the editor and editorial critical of the suit, attorney Harry F. Smail Jr. wrote in to the paper with his side of the story (Nov. 16). Smail argues that the case is meritorious because Frankhouser was earlier acquitted of charges of criminal trespass arising from being on the tracks. His response drew another critical letter to the editor (Nov. 17). (& update Feb. 20).

Attorney Smail, incidentally, has lately been involved in another colorful case, successfully representing a woman who passed a supposed $200 bill at a Fashion Bug; neither she nor the store clerk realized that there is no $200 denomination and that the bill was a joke replica with pictures and other references to President George W. Bush, Jr. (Bob Stiles, “Charges withdrawn against woman who used bogus bill”, Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Nov. 13; “Charges Dropped in Bogus Bush Bill Case”, The Guardian (UK), Nov. 15).

Church air called hazardous

Just when you thought it was safe to run inside and pray: “Air inside churches may be a bigger health risk than that beside major roads, research suggests.” Candles and incense are deemed likely culprits for the prevailing high levels of polycyclic hydrocarbons and particulates, the latter of which were found at 12 to 20 times permissible EU levels. (“Church air is ‘threat to health'”, BBC, Nov. 20). Libertarian Samizdata has a rather drastic suggestion for what to do about the new findings. Another possibility, of course, is that the official EU hazard limits are set at a super-cautious level that has little to do with the amount of risk most people would consider it reasonable to bear. More on the candle menace: Jun. 19, 2001 (EPA advisory); Nov. 4-5, 2002 (Calif. “right-to-know” suits against candle makers).