Oppose Senate Bill 1125 Austin, TX

June 13, 2003

The Honorable Senator John Cornyn (R.-Texas)
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510

Faxed to: 202-224-0776

Dear Senator Cornyn:

I am writing to express my strong opposition to S. 1125, the so-called "Fairness in Asbestos Injury Resolution Act."

There are many reasons for opposing S.1125.

  • It would prevent all lawsuits against asbestos manufacturers for asbestos-related injury and illness.
  • It would set up a special "asbestos court" which would make decisions concerning asbestos-injury compensation that would not be subject to meaningful judicial or administrative review.
  • The asbestos court would operate as an adversarial body, but there would be no mechanism to insure that injured workers could obtain legal representation.
  • The asbestos court would be using medical criteria that are set by the bill, which would exclude many, if not most, of the cases of asbestos-caused illness from receiving any compensation at all.
  • The asbestos court would place an unnecessarily heavy evidentiary burden on injured workers, compelling them to produce decades-old evidence in order to prevail.
  • The asbestos court would use a schedule of compensation that sharply limits the amount of compensation that an asbestos victim would receive to amounts far below what most victims win in court.
  • The asbestos court would be funded at a level that is too low to compensate all asbestos victims, even at the bill's bargain-basement rates. Once the initial pool of money was exhausted, all remaining victims would have absolutely no recourse.

S.1125 is a bill that could have been written by lobbyists for the asbestos companies. Its introduction has short-circuited meaningful negotiations that were making good progress toward producing a plan for an asbestos compensation trust fund that would be fair to people who have been injured by asbestos while providing asbestos manufacturers and insurers with the certainty they need to put asbestos litigation behind them. S. 1125 should be defeated.

For the sake of thousands of asbestos victims today and in the future, please do not support bill S. 1125.

Regards,

Kaye Cunningham Yaghoobi
Austin, TX

ADDENDUM

June 16, 2003

Please support Sen. Patty Murray's (D.-Wash.) bill (S.1115), Ban Asbestos in America, which would once and for all ban the use of asbestos in a variety of consumer products. Murray argues that if Congress is going to set up a fund for asbestos victims, it should also prevent the possibility of any new asbestos exposures. "If we're going to be protecting companies (from future litigation), we should also be protecting future victims," said Murray.

cc: Faxed to Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R.-Utah) @ 202-224-6020

{ to read Mark Yaghoobi's medical profile, please click here }

  • Click here for more letters from asbestos cancer survivors taking action against inhumane asbestos trust/bail out bill (SB 1125)

June 16, 2003

The Honorable Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R.-Utah)
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510

Fax 202-224-6020

REFERENCE: Support Sen. Patty Murray's bill (S. 1115) "Ban Asbestos in America"

Dear Senator Hatch:

I am faxing your office a copy of my letter to my Texas State Senator, John Cornyn (R), asking him not to support the bill S. 1125, "Fairness in Asbestos Injury Resolution Act."

In addition, I am asking my Texas State Senator and You to support Senator Patty Murray's (D.-Wash.) bill S. 1115. "Ban Asbestos in America Act."

I don't understand why America, the greatest country in the world, has not banned this dangerous material. Many other countries have recognized its dangers and banned asbestos use years ago. If asbestos were banned, there would be no more exposures, no more deaths and no more excessive litigation. It seems so simple!

I take difference to your comment quoted in the June 12th issue of Roll Call, the newspaper of Capitol Hill, where you said, "That's a nice argument," Hatch said of Murray's fear that more people will be exposed to asbestos in brakes and roofing tar. "But on the other hand, there may be an argument that asbestos is a "valuable" product that can be handled responsibly."

I lost my dear husband because of this "valuable" product. He passed away November 1, 2000 due to Mesothelioma, an asbestos caused cancer. "Valuable?" Asbestos more "valuable" than human life? I see no "value" in it!

Please support Sen. Murray's bill! I hope and pray for the day that no family will have to endure the suffering that my family has had to face.

Sincerely,

Kaye Cunningham Yaghoobi

{ to read Mark Yaghoobi's medical profile, please click here }

*** POSTED ON JUNE 17, 2003 ***