Today's opinions: Ending rescissions, exploring issues of doctor payments and the Oklahoma abortion law

Fueling The Anger Of Doctors The New York Times
In all the recent discussions about health care reform, what had heretofore played out only beyond earshot of the exam room suddenly was very public: the tangled, uneasy and often antagonistic relationship between practicing doctors and the insurance companies who pay for the services they deliver (Dr. Pauline Chen, 4/29).

Courtesy Of Sue Lowden: A Chicken In Every Doctor's Pot The Washington Post
If you haven't heard the name Sue Lowden, brace yourself. She is a Republican who might well become a U.S. senator from Nevada, and judging by her idea for containing health-care costs -- critics call it "chickens for check-ups" -- she threatens to make Sarah Palin sound like some kind of pointy-headed policy wonk (Eugene Robinson, 4/30).

A Win For Health Reform: Insurers To End Vile Rescission Practice Kansas City Star
Score a big point for health care reform. Insurers are about to drop one of the industry's vilest practices. ... Say what you want about the motives here; the effect is what counts, and it's great for consumers (Barb Shelly, 4/29).

Sick Days Las Vegas Review-Journal
Business groups argue convincingly that a government mandate on sick leave — especially during the recession — would hurt the very people it's intended to help, since employers would offset the cost by cutting positions and hours (4/30).

No Coverage Is A Chronic Condition The Boston Globe
Harvard-Pilgrim turned me down simply because I'd been treated for previous attacks. That was several years ago, but no matter, the clause in the policy says "per condition," and that's that (Clif Garboden, 4/30).

'Oklahoma, What Have You Done?' CNN
As expected, the anti-abortion movement is claiming victory. But this bill isn't "anti-abortion." It is devastating because it is anti-motherhood and anti-medicine (Mary Alice Carr, 4/29).