OPINION: Talk of the Town
Hats off to the Albuquerque Journal for its investigation of Senate Bill 176 on malpractice reform. This is why you should continue to subscribe to the Journal. Without them, we may never even have known of this bill. It turns out that the committee approving the bill for voting has simply ignored it long enough that it likely will not be voted on in this session. We residents have fewer and fewer doctors available to us and I frequently ask myself why I continue to live in this state where it takes several months to get to see a doctor or have a medical procedure.
The disturbing news was reported in the March 9 front-page article titled "A malpractice bill has yet to be heard in Senate committee" and reported how little the special interest groups, such as the New Mexico Trial Lawyers Association, need to spend to "buy" the votes of our legislators. According to the article, it donated $10,500 to the Democratic Committee Chair and a like amount was donated by individual lawyers and law firms. Contributions were made to the other Democratic committee members as well. This is a pittance compared to the millions of dollars that lawyers receive on medical malpractice suits. The lawyers get a steady flow of profits from the New Mexico malpractice law and we get fewer and fewer primary care doctors every year (a 30% reduction from 2017 to 2021). Malpractice reform is vital to New Mexico residents' health care.
It was shocking to learn how inexpensive it is to "buy votes." This is exacerbated by our legislators receiving no income (just per diem for expenses) for their service, setting them up to be swayed by outside influencers.
Jim Larson Albuquerque
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Chicago Tribune
12 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
Appeals court throws out massive civil fraud penalty against President Donald Trump
NEW YORK — A New York appeals court on Thursday threw out President Donald Trump's massive financial penalty while narrowly upholding a judge's finding that he engaged in fraud by exaggerating his wealth for decades. The ruling spares Trump from a potential half-billion-dollar fine but bans him and his two eldest sons from serving in corporate leadership for a few years. Trump claimed 'TOTAL VICTORY' in the case, which stemmed from a civil lawsuit brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James. 'They stole $550 million from me with a fake case and it was overturned,' Trump said, echoing his earlier social media post as he addressed police in Washington, D.C. 'They said this was a fake case. It was a terrible thing.' James, a Democrat, focused on the parts of the decision that went her way, saying in a statement that it 'affirmed the well-supported finding of the trial court: Donald Trump, his company, and two of his children are liable for fraud.' The ruling came seven months after Trump returned to the White House, his political fortunes unimpeded by the civil fraud judgment, a criminal conviction and other legal blows. A sharply divided panel of five judges in the state's mid-level Appellate Division couldn't agree on many issues raised in Trump's appeal, but a majority said the monetary penalty was 'excessive.' A lower-court judge, Arthur Engoron, had ordered Trump last year to pay $355 million in penalties after finding that he flagrantly padded financial statements provided to lenders and insurers. With interest, the sum has topped $515 million. Additional penalties for executives at his company, the Trump Organization, including sons Eric and Donald Trump Jr., have brought the total to $527 million with interest. 'While harm certainly occurred, it was not the cataclysmic harm that can justify a nearly half billion-dollar award' to the state, Judges Dianne Renwick and Peter Moulton wrote in one of three opinions shaping the appeals court's ruling. They called the penalty 'an excessive fine that violates the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution.' Both were appointed by Democratic governors. Engoron's other punishments, upheld by the appeals court, have been on pause during Trump's appeal, and the president was able to hold off collection of the money by posting a $175 million bond. Donald Trump Jr. celebrated the decision by mocking James, who had periodically posted a running tally of the fraud penalty, with interest. Over a post from James in February 2024, when the tally was nearly $465 million, Trump Jr. wrote: 'I believe you mean $0.00. Thank you for your attention to this matter.' The five-judge panel, which split on the merits of the lawsuit and Engoron's fraud finding, dismissed the monetary penalty in its entirety while also leaving a pathway for an appeal to the state's highest court, the Court of Appeals. In the meantime, Trump and his co-defendants, the judges wrote, can seek to extend the pause to prevent any punishments from taking effect. While the Appellate Division dispatches most appeals in a few pages in a matter of weeks, the judges weighing Trump's case took nearly 11 months to rule after oral arguments last fall and issued 323 pages of concurring and dissenting opinions with no majority. Rather, some judges endorsed parts of their colleagues' findings while denouncing others, enabling the court to rule. Two judges wrote that they felt James' lawsuit was justifiable and that she had proven her case but the penalty was too severe. One wrote that James exceeded her legal authority in bringing the suit, saying that if any lenders felt cheated, they could have sued Trump themselves, and none did. Another wrote that Engoron erred by ruling before the trial that James had proven Trump engaged in fraud. In his portion of the ruling, Judge David Friedman, appointed by a Republican governor, was scathing in his criticism of James for bringing the lawsuit. 'Plainly, her ultimate goal was not 'market hygiene' … but political hygiene, ending with the derailment of President Trump's political career and the destruction of his real estate business,' Friedman wrote. 'The voters have obviously rendered a verdict on his political career. This bench today unanimously derails the effort to destroy his business.' Trump and his co-defendants denied wrongdoing. At the conclusion of the civil trial in January 2024, Trump said he was 'an innocent man' and the case was a 'fraud on me.' The Republican has repeatedly maintained the case and the verdict were political moves by James and Engoron, both Democrats. Trump's Justice Department has subpoenaed James for records related to the lawsuit, among other documents, as part of an investigation into whether she violated the president's civil rights. James' personal attorney Abbe D. Lowell has said investigating the fraud case is 'the most blatant and desperate example of this administration carrying out the president's political retribution campaign.' Trump and his lawyers said his financial statements weren't deceptive, since they came with disclaimers noting they weren't audited. The defense also noted bankers and insurers independently evaluated the numbers, and the loans were repaid. Despite such discrepancies as tripling the size of his Trump Tower penthouse, he said the financial statements were, if anything, lowball estimates of his fortune. During an appellate court hearing last September, Trump's lawyers argued that many of the case's allegations were too old and that James had misused a consumer protection law to sue Trump over private business transactions that were satisfactory to those involved. State attorneys said that while Trump insists no one was harmed by the financial statements, his exaggerations led lenders to make riskier loans and that honest borrowers lose out when others game their net worth numbers. The civil fraud case was just one of several legal obstacles for Trump as he campaigned, won and segued to a second term as president. On Jan. 10, he was sentenced in his criminal hush money case to what's known as an unconditional discharge, leaving his conviction on the books but sparing him jail, probation, a fine or other punishment. He is appealing the conviction. And in December, a federal appeals court upheld a jury's finding that Trump sexually abused writer E. Jean Carroll in the mid-1990s and later defamed her, affirming a $5 million judgment against him. The appeals court declined in June to reconsider. Trump still can try to get the Supreme Court to hear his appeal. Trump also is appealing a subsequent verdict that requires him to pay Carroll $83.3 million for additional defamation claims.
Axios
12 minutes ago
- Axios
Exclusive: Rep. Ilhan Omar condemns party's decision to throw out Fateh endorsement
Democratic U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar sharply condemned her party's move to overturn its endorsement in the Minneapolis mayoral race on Thursday, calling the reversal a "stain on our party" that will damage Democrats' ability to organize and win "this year, next year, and beyond." Why it matters: The statement, co-signed by over a dozen other local DFL elected officials, captures how the hotly debated decision is already deepening divisions between centrist DFLers and the democratic socialist-allied factions. Context: The statement was released just hours after a state Democratic party committee revoked the Minneapolis DFL Party's endorsement of Omar Fateh, a state senator who identifies as a democratic socialist, over incumbent Mayor Jacob Frey. Committee members cited major concerns with local party organizers' handling of the endorsing convention. What they're saying: The four-term congresswoman and other signers condemned thedecision as an " extremely dangerous precedent" that "will undermine the DFL endorsing process going forward and fails to center the will of delegates." "Right now, there is a clear tension between the progressive Democrats who are challenging the status quo and moderate Democrats," the statement reads, calling it "extremely disheartening" that the first Black mayoral candidate to be DFL-endorsed in Minneapolis in the last three decades had the endorsement revoked. Zoom in: The statement, first reported by Axios, was signed by Omar and seven members of Minneapolis' state legislative delegation, three Hennepin County commissioners, one school board member and five Minneapolis City Council members, most of whom have formally endorsed Fateh. Omar has clashed with Frey in the past but has not endorsed in this year's mayoral race. The intrigue: The statement also criticizes newly elected Minnesota DFL chair Richard Carlbom, saying the decision "runs counter to" his campaign promise to unite the DFL. "The DFL Party is a big-tent party and all factions should be fairly represented, not silenced," it reads. "...Undoubtedly, this appalling decision will leave many voters feeling discouraged and unwelcome from participating in our party." Reality check: Minneapolis DFL organizers admitted as part of the challenge process that their electronic voting system failed to capture all delegate votes during July's citywide convention. Between the lines: Omar is a prolific fundraiser who has transferred hundreds of thousands of dollars to the state party in recent years.
Yahoo
30 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Gov. Cox says he's ‘grateful' he didn't know about new law's impact on Senate president's relative
Gov. Spencer Cox speaks with members of the media during the governor's news conference broadcast by PBS Utah at the Eccles Broadcast Center in Salt Lake City on Thursday, August 21, 2025. (Pool photo by Rick Egan/The Salt Lake Tribune) An at times heated Utah Gov. Cox sparred with reporters Thursday over the fallout from reports that Utah Senate President Stuart Adams initiated passage of a law that later helped his 18-year-old granddaughter reach a plea deal in a criminal case involving sex with a 13-year-old. Cox said he didn't think an ethics investigation or a third-party review is warranted, saying 'there's nothing to investigate.' 'The facts are abundantly clear. It's been reported. I don't think anybody's denied that what happened, happened,' Cox said, adding he learned about the situation when The Salt Lake Tribune first reported it earlier this month. Cox argued the most pertinent question is whether Adams 'should have told me about it' or 'should he have leaned on me.' 'I can only imagine how people would have reacted if he had done that,' the governor said. 'Look, there have been times in my term as governor, when I've been so mad at Stuart Adams that I couldn't see straight on certain bills,' Cox said, without naming those instances. 'That has happened a couple of times. I can tell you this is not one of those times.' Cox said he believed Adams acted appropriately by not publicly weighing in on the bill or disclosing his relatives' involvement to other legislators other than his right-hand man, Senate Majority Leader Kirk Cullimore, R-Sandy. 'I think it was appropriate for the top person in the Senate not to weigh in on this bill, which is exactly what happened,' Cox said. In fact, Cox — who signed the bill after it passed last year — said he's 'very grateful that I had no idea that this was impacting someone in his family, in his granddaughter's family, because it may have changed the way I reacted to the bill.' Instead, he said he was able to focus only on the policy. The governor added that there's 'no controversy about whether people knew this was in the bill or not.' 'The only question I have is this is the right policy? And this is a really tough one, guys,' Cox said. 'This is a hard one. You have kids in high school being treated differently, depending on where their birthday falls during the year. And if their birthday falls in May instead of June, then they get treated the same as a 50-year-old who had a sexual relationship with a 13-year-old. And that's the question. Is that fair?' The Tribune reported that Adams, 'surprised by the severity of the charges' that were first filed against his relative, confided with Cullimore and asked him to look into the issue. The original charges included two counts of child rape and two counts of child sodomy, all first-degree felonies, with the possibility of 25 years to life in prison and requirements to register as a sex offender, the Tribune reported. Cullimore also said he consulted Cara Tangaro, the defense attorney representing Adams' granddaughter, for more information on the case and to help draft language that was later put into a sweeping criminal justice bill, SB213, during the Utah Legislature's 2024 session. That provision allowed lower-level charges to be filed against 18-year-olds still enrolled in high school, allowing them to be treated the same as 17-year-olds in similar cases. The bill was not retroactive, and Adams' relative was not charged with the lower penalties it created, but the new law was referenced in court hearings before the case was resolved with a plea deal. 'You saw the legislative change,' Tangaro told Judge Rita Cornish at sentencing, the Tribune reported. 'We all agree that's not retroactive, but the government did change their offer based on that.' Ultimately, Adams' 18-year-old relative took a plea deal that meant she would not serve additional time in jail, would serve four years on probation, and would not register as a sex offender, the Tribune reported. In the interview with and Deseret News, Adams said his granddaughter made a mistake, but he also argued she received appropriate penalties, saying she was arrested at her high school, spent eight days in jail, and spent more than 500 days under house arrest with an ankle monitor. 'What a humiliating event,' Adams told the outlets. 'Now we're heaping on her a scarlet letter on her forehead. It's wrong. The stories are wrong. … She's been convicted and tried, and now we're doing it again in the media and it's wrong.' The 13-year-old victim's mother, however, told the Tribune she felt like she was 'punched in the gut' after she learned about the law change, and she felt as though her child was an afterthought both in the policy debate and the criminal case. 'I feel like a law is the law, regardless of who you are, but that wasn't what was going on here,' the mother told the Tribune. 'I feel like [the 18-year-old] just got special treatment …and nobody was going to say anything about it.' In wake of the Tribune story, calls for Adams' resignation have come from some Democrats, including Sen. Nate Blouin, D-Millcreek, and Utah Democratic Party Chair Brian King. They've also come from some corners of the right, with roughly 100 mostly conservative people rallying at the Utah Capitol in Salt Lake City over the weekend to call for Adams to resign. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX Adams has rejected those calls and has denied any wrongdoing, telling and Deseret News that he didn't tell legislators about the case involving his granddaughter in an effort to keep the process fair. In an interview with the outlets, Adams and Cullimore also argued that the bill's process was proper and not unusual. 'There's nothing unusual about how this bill came about,' Adams told the outlets. 'Every bill that we run has some type of connection to a constituent, to a lobbyist, to an industry leader, to a personal experience a legislator has.' Other Republican lawmakers, including Sen. Todd Weiler, R-Woods Cross, have defended Adams and the process that led to the bill's passage. He told and Deseret News that he didn't know about the connection to Adams' granddaughter when the bill was debated, and that's how it should be. At least one Republican legislator, however — the House sponsor of the bill, then-House Majority Whip Karianne Lisonbee, R-Syracuse — has expressed concerns that that section of the omnibus criminal justice bill didn't go through the same vetting process as the rest of the bill. In a statement issued last week, House Speaker Mike Schultz, R-Hooper, said due to 'heightened attention on SB213, I believe it's important to reconvene stakeholders for further discussion to ensure we have arrived at the right policy.' 'I have spoken with President Adams, and he agrees,' Schultz said. 'We will convene a working group to conduct a comprehensive review of state policy in this area to ensure our laws protect public safety, uphold accountability, and serve the best interests of all Utahns.' Cox on Thursday left the door open to changes to the law, saying when he signed the bill it was a 'close call.' 'Maybe it's not the right policy. Maybe now that we have an opportunity to reflect on it, maybe it doesn't go far enough or it goes too far, and that's what we do. That's the process,' Cox said. The governor again defended Adams' role in the bill. While he brought it to Cullimore to address, he didn't publicly debate it or tell legislators about his connection to the issue. 'Every single legislator has experiences in their life where they see something that they feel may be unjust, and that influences the way they bring legislation to the table,' Cox said. 'Again, I have lots of reasons to get upset with Stuart Adams. This was not one of them. I'm really grateful he never talked to me about it.' SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE Play Farm Merge Valley
