Disclosure: I'm proud to be working with the American Association for Justice to protect patients' rights.

"Tort Reform" has long been a bugaboo of the right wing. A hugely successful one. More than 46 states have enacted some form of it -- every one seriously diminishing our legal rights to seek redress in a civil court. Now it's being thrown into the mix of the health care debate.

As a Texan, I fought the 2003 state constitutional amendment that gutted patients' rights. Now it's utterly evident that Texas "Tort Reform" did nothing to cut medical costs.

AAJ President Anthony Tarricone blogged yesterday on the Seminal:

As part of a "grand bargain" to create a bipartisan health care bill, some have said tort reform should be included. For most people, the term "tort reform" is empty and meaningless. But here's what it means: taking away the legal rights of patients, injured through no fault of their own, and preventing them from obtaining legal recourse. And it isn't fact-driven or grounded in reality; rather, it's just part of the Washington sideshow to distract from what really plagues our country's health care system.

Look at what the actual data says: 98,000 people dead every year from preventable medical errors, at a cost of $29 billion. Countless more are seriously injured with astronomical costs. The Congressional Budget Office and Government Accountability Office have looked at tort reform multiple times, and said it will save practically no money. They also found no evidence of so-called "defensive medicine," finding that doctors run more tests because of the fee-for-service structure, or because of the benefits extra tests have on patient care.

Additionally, a 2006 study from Harvard found that 97% of cases were meritorious, totally debunking the idea that frivolous lawsuits plague our courts. And while 46 states have enacted some kind of tort reform, health care costs have continued to skyrocket, while injured patients often can't seek justice.

The AAJ has launched a new web site: 98,000 Reasons which punches enough holes in the case for trading away patients' rights as part of the health care reform that anyone can see through the B.S.