Rush seeks to keep med records private

NJ.COM ^

[Sub-Driver]

WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. (AP)

[Lucky Dog]

Item: There is no “right to privacy” in the Constitution. What has been loosely referred to as such “emanates” from the “penumbra,” as the justices call it, of the Fourth Amendment.

Fourth Amendment: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

Item: One’s medical records can potentially and reasonably be identified as “personal papers.”

Therefore: It is reasonable to assume that Rush Limbaugh may be upset about a potential violation of his Fourth Amendment rights rather than anypostulated “right to privacy” that some maintain he has “just found.”

[Always Right]

Item: There is no “right to privacy” in the Constitution. What has been loosely referred to as such “emanates” from the “penumbra,” as the justices call it, of the Fourth Amendment.

Unfortunately the clear words of the Constitution aren't as important as what the Supreme Court thinks it should say. So there is no free political speech, but there is a right to privacy. Go figure.

[NonValueAdded]

There is a right to privacy amendment in the Florida constitution, however.

ARTICLE 1, SECTION 23. Right of privacy.--Every natural person has the right to be let alone and free from governmental intrusion into the person's private life except as otherwise provided herein. This section shall not be construed to limit the public's right of access to public records and meetings as provided by law.

Also, we shouldn't be seeing his prescription records on TV should we? With the other non-abused meds he is taking shown? So much for the mentioned "scrupulous" protection.

I'm not sure this will be a fruitful approach for Rush but at least he has the wherewithal to fight this battle and one of us might benefit in the future from a decision.

[jbstrick]

There may be no "Right". But there are federal laws to protect the disclosure of personal information to the public. I believe this is the "right" he is asserting here.

[Lucky Dog]

I concede the point on the FL Constitution. The article did not indicate it was a state versus Federal claim. For the record, I agree with the idea that his medical records are not subject to even review by prosecutors unless they are required under warrant sworn before a magistrate of suitable authority to issue it.

[greasepaint]

Is Rush's petition 'in the public record'?
Perhaps someone could post it, or a link.
I would think that this 'medical privacy issue'
would have been --->thouroughy<-- decided (in other cases) by now.
Is this the first time this issue has
come before a Fla. court?
.
also
---Rush's statement Oct. 3, 2003---
issued a statement from Limbaugh on
Thursday saying: "I am unaware of any investigation by
any authority involving me. No government
representative has contacted me directly or indirectly. If
my assistance is required, I will, of course, cooperate
fully."

---

hmmm???

---

Rush Limbaugh asked a court Wednesday to
hear his claim that investigators violated his privacy by seizing his medical records

[templar]

Does anyone recall if Rush was or was not among those who criticized Clinton for keeping his medical records private?

[Enterprise]

I don't have the Federal HIPPA regulations with me, but there are severe penalties under HIPPA for unlawfully revealing the details of someone's health records. I do understand that there is an investigation, and that a warrant was used to get those records. However, there is no compelling interest prior to any trial to publicly reveal those health records. It will be interesting if Rush's claim is honored by the courts. It is worth a try.

[adam_az]

Item: There is no “right to privacy” in the Constitution. What has been loosely referred to as such “emanates” from the “penumbra,” as the justices call it, of the Fourth Amendment.

Item: HIPAA, a law which lays down strict requirements and stiff penalties for mishandling and releasing private medical records. The police have ALREADY violated it by releasing a list of his prescriptions.

[adam_az]

Does anyone recall if Rush was or was not among those who criticized Clinton for keeping his medical records private?

It's a moot point, since Rush is a radio entertainer, Clinton was the president, and the health of a President-to-be is an important consideration.

[Lucky Dog]

You may be correct... However, the Constitution trumps all lesser legal pronouncements. In this case, it appears that unless the prosecutors are withholding information as to the nature of the crime(s) they are proportedly investigating (any charges on which Rush should have been informed), that the Consitution and HIPAA are both operative.

[adam_az]

main hipaa website: http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/hipaa/

Penalties for violating HIPAA privacy standards"
"
42 USC 1320d-6 (HIPAA Sec. 1177) contains the criminal penalties for violating the HIPAA privacy standards. It states:

"a. Offense.—

A person who knowingly and in violation of this part—

uses or causes to be used a unique health identifier;
obtains individually identifiable health information relating to an individual; or
discloses individually identifiable health information to another person,
shall be punished as provided in subsection (b).

b. Penalties.—

A person described in subsection (a) shall—

be fined not more than $50,000, imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both;
if the offense is committed under false pretenses, be fined not more than $100,000, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both; and
if the offense is committed with intent to sell, transfer, or use individually identifiable health information for commercial advantage, personal gain, or malicious harm, be fined not more than $250,000, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both."

[Lucky Dog]

So you are alleging that the prosecutors in this situation are subject to these potential penalties?

[xzins]

Rush is not an elected official.

The reason the president's health is important is that it directly impacts his ability to perform in his elective office.

[ladyinred]

Okay, the Supremes say that gays have a right to privacy, but Rush doesn't now? What does this new far reaching medical privacy law say about this? I can't even call a hospital and see how my own husband is doing under this new law. His records should not be released by anyone but him!

[adam_az]

Well, I have some experience with HIPAA from the information security perspective of the regulations. I don't recall reading that prosecutors or police are exempted. The purpose of HIPAA is to protect individuals health privacy. It's very, very strict. It applies to any doctors office that keeps any electronic records for even just one patient. A handfull of doctors use all paper records now, so as not to have to follow it's complex regulations.

[adam_az]

I think HIPAA says the police or prosecutor who released the perscription records couold be liable to go to jail or pay a big fine. Lawdude, do you know much about HIPAA? I posted the penalties earlier in this thread, and link to the regulations.

[Lucky Dog]

It looks like the previous post addresses this one.

[bvw]

That's bunkum,double bunkum, triple bunkum. Not only IS there a a right to privacy in the Constitution, its in the damn Declaration too.

You can see, sheeple! Pull that nanny-state wool from your eyes! Then you'll see, or at least have a chance to.

We, the People, retain ALL rights! An some level of modesty and privacy in personal affairs is one of those natural unalianable rights we each are due -- due each of us as personal agents of our Creator -- those unaleinable rights are part of the responsibility He as assigned to each of us. We simply may not give them up and continue as good agents in the good graces and respect of the Creator, Himself.

The Constitution recoginizes certain rights only in the limited regard that the Federal Government must be especially careful to may not infringe, abridge or interfere with them. As the dang Constitution itself says, in the Preamble to the Bill of Rights:

The Conventions of a number of the States having, at the time of adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added, and as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution;

And then continues very, very clearly in Amendment 9:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

This was *ONCE* and for many years, a free country!

Now pull off the wool bad teachers have placed on your eyes, and make it a nation of free men under the princibles of Liberty, again!