Bush Administration Seeks Partial-Birth Abortion Records to Defend Ban

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- The Bush administration is actively seeking patient records on partial-birth abortions in order to defend the federal ban on the abortion procedure. Abortion advocates have filed three lawsuits seeking to overturn the legislation and courts have set a late March trial date to start the proceedings.

The Department of Justice has subpoenaed patient records from seven abortion practitioners and at least five hospitals -- including Northwestern Memorial Hospital in Chicago and the University of Michigan medical center. The hospitals say the patient information should be kept confidential.

A Chicago judge quashed the subpoena preventing Northwestern from having to divulge the information. Attorney General John Ashcroft hoped to obtain the records of some 40 women who had partial-birth abortions at the hospital in the last two years.

The Bush administration is not seeking to identify patients, but is looking to verify what pro-life groups and some abortion advocates have admitted -- that most partial-birth abortions occur on healthy women and healthy babies.

That didn't persuade U.S. Chief District Judge Charles Kocoras. He wrote a 16-page opinion citing the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) and Illinois’ medical privacy law as reasons why the information couldn't be divulged.

"By demanding the rationale behind the abortions he performed, the subpoena would thereby require Northwestern to disclose medical history information of Dr. Hammond's patients," Kocoras wrote in his February 5th opinion denying the subpoena.

According to Chicago Business, Cassing Hammond, who practices at Northwestern but is not on staff, received a subpoena from the Justice Department prior to the hospital being served. Hammond performed the partial-birth abortions and is one of the parties in the lawsuit seeking to overturn the ban.

A University of Michigan medical center staff member is also a party in the pro-abortion suit.

UM OBGYN Department Chairman Dr. Timothy Johnson joined the abortion practitioners in opposing the law, which argues the ban is unconstitutional because it does not include a health exception.

Pro-life groups say such exceptions are unnecessary because there is never any instance in which a partial-birth abortion would be necessary to protect a mother's health. Also, health exceptions render all partial-birth abortions legal because the exception can be defined by an abortion practitioner.

Johnson told the Ann Arbor News that he doesn't recall any partial-birth abortions being performed at the Michigan facility.

According to the newspaper, the Justice Department issued the subpoena in an attempt to established that Johnson is not a legitimate party to the lawsuit because he doesn't perform the abortion procedure himself.

However, the Michigan hospital will review the medical records it has and remove any information that would reveal the identity of women who had partial-birth abortions, if it finds any, before sending the documents to the Justice Department.

According to the publication Modern Healthcare, the Bush administration is also seeking patient records from Hahnemann University Hospital in Philadelphia, owned by Tenet Healthcare Corp.; Columbia Presbyterian Medical Center and Weill Cornell Medical Center of New York Presbyterian Hospital -- both of which are part of the New York-Presbyterian Healthcare System; and an unidentified San Francisco-area hospital.

The court case is scheduled for a hearing on March 29 in the federal New York Southern District Court.

Partial Birth Abortion—Time for Full Disclosure

A wave of controversy surrounding the recent banning of a surgical procedure known as Partial Birth Abortion (PBA) has reached yet another stalemate. Within an hour or so of the president signing the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 on November 5, 2003 a federal judge in Lincoln Nebraska blocked enforcement of this new law and federal judges in New York and California quickly followed suit.

The judges who blocked this ban stated that it was unconstitutional, that there must be exceptions in place to protect the health of the mother. The Bush administration responded with a request for trial-type court hearings to determine whether the procedure is in fact ever necessary to protect the health of the mother—an appropriate and necessary maneuver at this juncture. A surgical procedure which is so controversial that it requires dozens of state governments and all three branches of the federal government to become involved multiple times over 8+ years by multiple administrations, should be fully documented with comprehensive video and photographic evidence. This should be accessible for peer review as well as for the public record. Yet the only available information on the actual procedure itself is a relatively small amount of text and some hand drawn sketches. After all of this time, energy, and tax-dollars how can that be?

Every day Americans can watch virtually every type of surgery on cable television. Most surgical procedures have been videotaped countless times from multiple angles and are fully documented down to every subtle nuance. It is understood that surgeons want to help further the advance of their noble art and educate others at the same time. Surely the same should be the case for the supporters of the PBA procedure. Supporters claim it is performed in order to preserve the health of the mother. So, how on earth can there still be no readily available surgical records with comprehensive video and photographic documentation on this “health saving” procedure which is performed several thousand times every year in America?

There has been a wealth of documentation on other procedures involving problem pregnancies such as in-utero fetal surgery to correct spina bifida. This procedure has become a worldwide phenomenon and has been exhaustively documented with video and repeatedly shown on television for years.

In order for the upcoming court hearings, which are now set for March 29, 2004 to be completely accurate and meaningful, there must be a series of fully documented independent case studies with comprehensive audio video and photographic documentation of the entire partial birth abortion process and procedure. There should be several studies conducted to prove whether or not this procedure is the best alternative available for mothers in their specific situations. Also there must be close monitoring with in utero and ex utero documentation, including video, of what occurs to the baby throughout the procedure. There should be studies on the long-term effects of mothers who undergo this procedure. Without it we will never get the “true picture” and necessary evidence to uphold the constitutionality and veracity of the PBA Ban.

Now is the time for everyone concerned to demand full disclosure of this procedure. The US Department of Justice is defending the PBA Ban in these cases; concerned citizens should call write and fax Attorney General John Ashcroft and request that this happen. Contact information below. We the people must force this issue. Both sides of the debate should at least be able to agree on this much—right?

Surgical abortion in all its various forms occurs over 1.3 million times per year in America alone, far more than any other invasive surgical procedure. If abortion is truly about women’s health, it is absolutely necessary that all of the various procedures used are very well documented, along with comprehensive video and photographic evidence, and this must be made available for full public disclosure. Aside from what happens in this case, congress should use its authority to see that this happens.

Please fax, write, and call Attorney General John Ashcroft. Request that his department demand a series of independent case studies with comprehensive video and photographic documentation of the entire partial birth abortion procedure be introduced into evidence at the upcoming court hearings set for March 29, 2004

The Honorable John Ashcroft
Attorney General of the United States
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, D.C. 20530-0001
Telephone: 202-353-1555 (Public Comment Line),
Telephone: 202-514-2001 (Attorney General's Office)
FAX: 202-307-6777
Department of Justice E-Mail: AskDOJ@usdoj.gov

Kevin Jeanfreau
Christian Patriots For Life
www.CpForLife.org

Partial-Birth Abortion
Illustration of partial-birth abortion performed
at 24 weeks gestational age.
Letter from Anthony P. Levatino, M.D., J.D., former abortionist, explaining that the images shown above "accurately depict" the partial-birth abortion method, and that "the images are size-appropriate to a fetus of approximately 24 weeks gestation." -- March 4, 2003

America! You are literally butchering your children and your future!
In his book, "Notes on the State of Virginia," Jefferson said, writing as a lifelong slave owner,
"Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever."
Imagine what Jefferson would say today, in this ever darkening culture of death.
Alternative abortion procedure: D & E (Dismemberment) Abortion

Thank you for the ping.

(Before I forget, if anyone wants to support efforts such as those by Dr. Levantino's contribution of the art shown above - which was used by Senator Santorum during the Senate hearings on the ban - take a look at, and consider supporting, the Physicians Life Alliance.
http://www.physicianslifealliance.org/
I should disclose that I'm on the Board of Directors of this group which does work like this and which sponsors "Medical Students for Life.")

As to the request by the Justice Department, the burden of proof on any effort to overturn a ban should logically be placed on the plaintiffs. It is only common sense that the plaintiffs should be prepared to provide evidence that the ban will harm the health of women. It's not enough to simply state that the harm is inevitable. There is a body of evidence in these records, which should be fair game for scrutiny since the plaintiffs are the ones who opened the case and who have made the original complaint.

Besides, the Feds - in that self-same HIPPA that the judge quoted to rationalize his injunction - have already written the rules and regulations that allow themselves the right to copy without supoena any medical record of any "provider" of "medical care."

Justice Dept. Demands Abortion Records

Feb 12, 10:24 PM (ET)

By DAVID CRARY

NEW YORK (AP) - Under fire from abortion-rights groups, Attorney General John Ashcroft insisted Thursday that doctor-patient privacy is not threatened by a government attempt to subpoena medical records in a lawsuit over the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act.

At stake are records documenting certain late-term abortions performed by doctors who have joined in a legal challenge of the disputed ban. President Bush signed the act into law last year.

Critics of the subpoenas accuse the Justice Department of trying to intimidate doctors and patients involved in the contested type of abortion.

At least six hospitals have been targeted by subpoenas, including facilities in New York and Michigan which said they are weighing how to respond. Last week, a federal judge in Chicago blocked release of records from Northwestern Memorial Hospital; another judge is considering a similar request from Hahnemann University Hospital in Philadelphia.

Ashcroft said the Justice Department will accept the records in edited form, after deleting or masking any information that would identify a patient. Abortion-rights supporters nonetheless depicted the subpoenas as a dangerous intrusion into medical confidentiality.

"People's medical records should not be the tools of political operatives," said Rep. Eliot Engel, D-N.Y. "All Americans should have the right to visit their doctor and receive sound medical attention without the fear of Big Brother looking into those records."

The federal ban seeks to outlaw a procedure referred to by critics as partial-birth abortion and by medical organizations as "intact dilatation and extraction" - or D&X.

During D&X, a fetus's legs and torso are pulled from the uterus before its skull is punctured. An estimated 2,200 to 5,000 such abortions are performed annually in the United States, out of 1.3 million total abortions.

The doctors targeted by the subpoenas have contended in lawsuits that the ban is unconstitutional because it is overly broad and lacks any exemption for a woman's health.

Ashcroft, at a news conference in Washington, said the subpoenas were needed to enable the government to rebut these claims.

"The Congress has enacted a law with the president's signature that outlaws this terrible practice," Ashcroft said. "We sought from the judge authority to get medical records to find out whether indeed the allegation by the plaintiffs, that it's medically necessary, is really a fact."

In the Chicago case, the Justice Department sought medical records from Northwestern Memorial Hospital relating to abortions performed by Dr. John Hammond.

U.S. District Judge Charles Kocoras quashed the subpoena, saying Illinois' medical privacy law superseded the government's need for the records. Kocoras said patients' privacy could be jeopardized even if their names were deleted, because their prior medical history would still be disclosed.

At the University of Michigan Medical Center, spokeswoman Kallie Michels said no records have been turned over. She said the university is waiting to see a new court order requesting data that does not identify patients.

A subpoena also was issued to New York Presbyterian Hospital.

"We place a very high value on our patients' privacy and we are exploring our options in that context," said spokeswoman Myrna Manners.

Another New York hospital, St. Luke's-Roosevelt, also received a subpoena but told the Justice Department that none of the abortion procedures at issue had been performed there in the past couple of years.

Some of the abortion-rights groups engaged in the litigation - including the American Civil Liberties Union and the Planned Parenthood Federation of America - declined comment.

But the chairman of an allied organization, Wendy Chavkin of Physicians for Reproductive Health Choice, said the subpoenas were cause for grave concern.

"Not only is this Justice Department and this attorney general profoundly anti-abortion, but they have a questionable commitment to civil liberties," Chavkin said.

She said the subpoenas seemed to be a tactic of intimidation comparable to a subpoena issued recently in a federal grand jury probe ordering Drake University to turn over names of certain anti-war activists.

Dr. Joe DeCook, vice president of the anti-abortion American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, said the government should be entitled to get medical records as it enforces federal laws.

"If there's a law, it should be followed," DeCook said. "It can be enforced without embarrassing the woman by dragging her name out in public."

Cook's organization contends that D&X is never medically necessary and supports the partial-birth abortion ban. The larger American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, as well as the American Medical Association, does not encourage use of D&X but says the procedure should not be banned.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.