university of michigan or university of southern california because the states aren't contiguous, but the physician could get a medical society, national society's perspective and have it be an affirmative defense. it's inconsistent, but the whole purpose of this law is inconsistency to give an advantage to those who have much and who do harm at the expense of those who have been harmed and have less. so we see this continual attack on the poor, the injured. in the health care bill, we talk about less opportunity because of dem anything in medicaid for the poor and the disabled and seniors and pregnant women to get health care. here we're talking about people who have been injured, actually in fact injured, and we're saying that medical society's rule should be an affirmative defense no matter where they are. we limit the experts you can have, and we limit the damages you can collect. and this isn't to some specious group. this is to people who have actually been injured and the juries in their home districts have found them to be plaintiffs who prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant tort fees, nursing homes or medical device company br