Rep. Martha McSally wrote an op-ed for Tucson.com about why she chose to vote against the Protecting Access to Care Act, which seeks to limit the payout of noneconomic damages in medical malpractice cases.

According to McSally, “I was one of only a handful of Republicans to break with my party and oppose HR 1215, which the House passed 218-210, despite my opposition. This bill would cap medical malpractice lawsuits by limiting victim damages not related to earning potential to $250,000.”

McSally cites a tragic story of a baby in Arizona sent home by doctors, even though they knew she was at risk for jaundice. Unfortunately, that decision led to severe repercussions for the infant, who suffered irreversible brain damage which will handicap her for life.

McSally went even further, stating, “I do not believe it is the role of the federal government or any member of Congress to interject and declare the value of an individual’s life, lived to the fullest. It is the role of judges and juries to consider each case and the unique suffering inflicted — not the role of the federal government. These views are not just my own. In fact, Article 18 Section 6 of the Arizona Constitution prohibits state laws that would limit the amount of damages that can be recovered for causing the death or injury of any person.”

It is rare to see a Republican stand against federal tort reform, even though doing so helps buttress states’ rights (part of the Republican platform). Somehow, on the issue of tort reform, roles are reversed, and Democrats have become the states’ rights campaigners.

It seems McSally is happy to lead the charge in the other direction.