Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.
Posted on 10/15/2010 6:12:49 PM PDT by RobinMasters
That information has already been attained and attempts have been made to introduce it as evidence. Case and evidence dismissed on grounds of standing. This is really stupid, hiding behind a law meant to protect medical records to hide the fact obama was not born in Hawaii. It is common for hospitals to release this type of imformation to the public, it is not considered “ private information.
I hear you, Tiger. But as Alexander once said to his enemy, “You call me a boy and diminish your own glory if you defeat me. If I, a boy, defeat you, so much greater the glory for me.”
That says a lot about the weakness of their position.
Whose position is “weak?”
Here’s a link to the scanned images of the two certifications of eligibility sent by the Democrats to get Obama on the ballot in Hawai’i. The first is signed by the Chairman and Secretary of the Democratic Party of Hawai’i and the second is signed by the Chairman of the National Democratic Party and by Nancy Pelosi in her role as Chair of the Democratic National Convention and by Alice Travis Germond, Secretary of the Democratic National Convention.
http://moniquemonicat.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/hawaii-response.pdf
Since the state of Hawai’i, with a Republican Governor and a Republican Attorney General accepted the Democrats’ state and national letters of certifications to get on the ballot, where’s the controversy?
LOL Point taken! ;-)
There isn’t one. It’s a birther speculation morphed into birther reality.
I do not dispute that the Federal courts have a say, so long as they are not presumed to have the final say.
This IS NOT to say that the other 2 branches should have the final say, but rather the Final say on the meaning and enforcement of the Constitution should rest with the people in their capacity as States.
The exact same capacity in which they consented to the Constitution in the first place.
So to be frank on the issue of eligibility the Federal courts have the right to intervene if the executive and legislative branch disagree, but ultimately should they fail the States have the right and duty to intervene.
Such intervention can take many forms anywhere form the Arizona Bill which would forbid ballot access until their officials have verifier natural born Status.
Which is something every state should do to prevent this situation in the first place. To in extreme cases refusal to recognizes him as the office holder. For practical reasons the extreme resolution should not ever be practiced.
A simple verification requirement by each of the 50 States individually and independently for ballot access should be enough, for the enforcement of this particular clause of the Constitution.
As this 50 state verification did not happen the Federal Court does have room to intervene.
I do not dispute that the Federal courts have a say, so long as they are not presumed to have the final say.
This IS NOT to say that the other 2 branches should have the final say, but rather the Final say on the meaning and enforcement of the Constitution should rest with the people in their capacity as States.
The exact same capacity in which they consented to the Constitution in the first place.
So to be frank on the issue of eligibility the Federal courts have the right to intervene if the executive and legislative branch disagree, but ultimately should they fail the States have the right and duty to intervene.
Such intervention can take many forms anywhere form the Arizona Bill which would forbid ballot access until their officials have verifier natural born Status.
Which is something every state should do to prevent this situation in the first place. To in extreme cases refusal to recognizes him as the office holder. For practical reasons the extreme resolution should not ever be practiced.
A simple verification requirement by each of the 50 States individually and independently for ballot access should be enough, for the enforcement of this particular clause of the Constitution.
As this 50 state verification did not happen the Federal Court does have room to intervene.
There is already federal law which says that whatever proof of birth any state accepts will be accepted by the federal government and by every other state.
The federal law is The Intelligence Reform and Counterterrorism Act of 2004, Section 7211 and at the bottom of every Hawai’i Certification of Live Birth it states that “this copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding.”
For folks who want to see Obama’s original, long form birth certificate, that is a political issue, not a legal issue.
If Obama has not been forthcoming enough about his past, the option is for citizens who are registered voters to vote against him and deny him reelection.
The problem with your interpretation of HIPAA is that it does allow for directory types of disclosures, and no one is going to prosecute a hospital for confirming what is alleged to be public knowledge.
No, the directory type of disclosure is more specific - I posted about this last time I saw it come up. From the HHS site:
A covered entity may use or disclose protected health information without the written consent or authorization of the individual as described by Secs. 164.506 and 164.508, respectively, provided that the individual is informed in advance of the use or disclosure and has the opportunity to agree to or prohibit or restrict the disclosure in accordance with the applicable requirements of this section. The covered entity may orally inform the individual of and obtain the individual's oral agreement or objection to a use or disclosure permitted by this section. (a) Standard: use and disclosure for facility directories. (1) Permitted uses and disclosure. Except when an objection is expressed in accordance with paragraphs (a)(2) or (3) of this section, a covered health care provider may: (i) Use the following protected health information to maintain a directory of individuals in its facility: (A) The individual's name; (B) The individual's location in the covered health care provider's facility; (C) The individual's condition described in general terms that does not communicate specific medical information about the individual; and (... (2) Opportunity to object. A covered health care provider must inform an individual of the protected health information that it may include in a directory and the persons to whom it may disclose such information (including disclosures to clergy of information regarding religious affiliation) and provide the individual with the pportunity to restrict or prohibit some or all of the uses or disclosures permitted by paragraph (a)(1) of this section.The information we would like to see can't be disclosed by the hospital because:
and no one is going to prosecute a hospital for confirming what is alleged to be public knowledge.
Sorry, but you are completely wrong about HIPAA enforcement. I can go to the hospital for an appendectomy and publish a book with every detail for the general public. The hospital is still required to keep confidentiality unless they have a written release from me. If they don't follow confidentially in such an instance, they can be fined and face imprisonment. And the government has been fining and even prosecuting hospitals and individuals.
If so, I and many other people would like to see it. Where are the statements from the hospital spokesmen posted?
It is common for hospitals to release this type of imformation to the public, it is not considered “ private information.
Sorry, but silly as it may be (and a pain in the neck to medical workers) them's the rules. You no longer can release information - even though it used to be routinely released - without violating HIPAA. The law is very strict, including as protected health information
the provision of health care to the individual,and the penalties are strict as well
Criminal Penalties. A person who knowingly obtains or discloses individually identifiable health information in violation of the Privacy Rule may face a criminal penalty of up to $50,000 and up to one-year imprisonment. The criminal penalties increase to $100,000 and up to five years imprisonment if the wrongful conduct involves false pretenses, and to $250,000 and up to 10 years imprisonment if the wrongful conduct involves the intent to sell, transfer, or use identifiable health information for commercial advantage, personal gain or malicious harm.
There isn’t one. It’s a birther speculation morphed into birther reality.
I’ve decided it’s a religion and mental disorder, you know? Like liberalism.
Except, of course, for those who agree with my take on the matter. (*grins sheepishly*)
I’ve decided it’s a religion and mental disorder, you know? Like liberalism.
Except, of course, for those who agree with my take on the matter. (*grins sheepishly*)
Great minds and all ... :)
It is my understanding that the information was not attained by normal channels. There is nothing in HIPAA that would prevent a Hawaiian hospital from stating that obama was born there , since he has already claimed to be born at that hospital.
(sarcasm)
HIPAA refers to health information. Birth records are not medical information, and have frequently been sought and released.
Alameda County (CA) allows people to obtain an "informational" (can't be used for identification) copy of a birth certificate.
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.