Rick Scott is Anti-Patient

Sidney Ainsley Miller was born prematurely at 23 weeks. Sidney's parents, Karla and Mark, went to the Woman's Hospital of Texas due to complications with the pregnancy. Dr. Donald Kelley, a neonatologist, informed the Millers the fetus was healthy but had an 8 out of 10 chance of being born disabled. The Miller told the medical staff to not use extraordinary measures to help their child alive. This is where things get complicated.

The Woman's Hospital of Texas defied the wishes of the Millers and kept Sidney alive. The hospital's decision flew in the face of laws on parental consent during medical decisions. A 1998 Harris County jury found The Woman's Hospital of Texas committed battery by reviving Sidney without the consent of the Millers. The jury awarded the Millers 42.9 million. The conservative 14th Court of Appeals in Houston reversed the lower court's decision. This is activism from the bench at its finest.

The 14th Court of Appeals ruled that The Woman's Hospital of Texas did not need the Millers consent. The court's argument was under Roe v. Wade a fetus is not a person. Therefore Sidney was not technically the Miller's child. The 14th Court of Appeals also ruled Sidney's birth was an emergeny and legally a "intensely factual question." The hospital never used that legal argument. 14th Court of Appeals made the argument for the medical facility. The Miller's lawyer, Michael Sydow, summed up the 14th Court of Appeals twisted legal logic.

"In our system, in Texas, once the jury makes a finding, that's the truth," Sydow says. "That's it. You can't keep coming back and arguing the facts."

Sidney is now 20 years-old and suffers from cerebral palsy. Sidney is also blind, cannot walk, talk or feed herself. The Millers guard Sidney's privacy from the media. Florida gubernatorial candidate Rick Scott has put Sidney back in the spotlight. Scott's former company HCA/Columbia owned The Woman's Hospital of Texas. Scott uses his former hospital's refusal to comply with the wishes of the Millers to tout his anti-abortion credentials.

Scott also said his company lost a $43 million judgment in a lawsuit because “we kept a baby alive when the parents didn’t want to because I believe in the sanctity of life,” he said.

Actually, Scott won the case on appeal.

Scott has been mentioning the Miller case everytime he is asked about abortion. The St. Petersburg Times asked Scott for details.

Pressed for details about what he knew and his role in the Millers' case, Scott said he recalls little. "I can't remember back. I don't know, it was so long ago," he said.

Scott's dismissive attitude is sickening. Scott wears his ignorance on policy matters as if it is a badge of honor.

Mark Miller has had enough of Scott using his family's pain for political gain.

Mr. Scott, you've grossly overstepped the bounds of decency," Mark Miller, the father at the center of the controversial case, said in an interview. "I call on you to accurately reflect the facts. If you are going to run on the record, run on all of it, not just the parts that suit your needs."

For the record: the Millers are against abortion. The issue is a hospital defied their medical wishes. Government and religious institutions should not be able to dictate what medical procedure are appropiate. The issue extends beyond abortion and patients having the right to proper care.