An editorial in today's New York Times condemns a policy, known as preemption, which prohibits consumers from suing manufacturers if a product harms a consumer, so long as that product is in some way regulated by the federal government. The editorial calls preemption a "perverse legal doctrine" and warns that as it "continues to spread, the public will be deprived of a vital tool for policing companies and unearthing documents that reveal their machinations." Federal agencies are responsible for enforcing the positive law enacted by Congress. However, even when positive laws and regulations work, citizens must have an opportunity to seek legal redress if a product causes harm. Tort law provides that opportunity by allowing citizens to seek damages from the makers of those products. A Times investigation into the birth control patch Ortho Evra proves why positive law sometimes does not work, and why tort law must be preserved: For years, Johnson & Johnson obscured evidence that its popular Ortho Evra birth control patch delivered much more estrogen than standard birth control pills, potentially increasing the risk of blood clots and strokes, according to internal company documents. But because the Food and Drug Administration approved the patch, the company is arguing in court that it cannot be sued by women who claim that they were injured by the product — even though its old label inaccurately described the amount of estrogen it released. In their attempts to shirk accountability by erasing the possibility of tort claims, pharmaceutical companies and other industries have found a friend in the Bush administration. The administration has advanced a pro-preemption argument in a number of policy areas covering everything from cars to mattresses. According to a recent paper from the Center for Progressive Reform, the administration has been fighting for preemption on two fronts. "One form has been to intervene on the side of industry in tort litigation by the filing of amicus briefs arguing that the plaintiff 's claims against the corporate defendant are preempted by the agency's regulations or its general authority over the health or safety matters at issue," the paper argues. The Bush administration has also tried, and been largely successful, in writing regulations that expressly preempt tort law, according to the paper. Federal agencies, including the FDA and the Consumer Product Safety Commission, have inserted preemption language into the preamble of regulations. Under Bush, agencies have been inserting the language at the last minute, after the public comment period has closed. In the case of an FDA regulation on drug labels, "FDA deprived most of the public — including state officials, Congress members, and interested individuals and citizen groups — of any chance to weigh in on the matter before the rule was finalized."