Justice Dept. Demands Abortion Records

AP ^ | 2/12/04 | DAVID CRARY

[Aeon Flux]

Spunkie- I am a pothead with no memory, so why don't you refresh me?

[spunkets]

What is the role of the AG?

[Aeon Flux]

Spunkie- you are a tenacious little bugger! *smooch*
Yet, I am just showered and have to head out to a meeting.

Yet, I never leave a good man hanging, so I will give you this:

The role of the AG is to investigate and prevent illegal activity.
Now, having said that, the case in discussion is not illegal activity as of yet.
If the ban was in effect, Ashcroft would be in his rights and position, yet, I have provided for you much proof and evidence that PBA are "not" at this point illegal under law.
You have yet to prove that it is. Off to Oz, will play with you later!

[spunkets]

" The role of the AG is to investigate and prevent illegal activity.

Wrong, that is part of the role the police have and their duties to prevent are very limited.

What is the role of the AG?

[Aeon Flux]

Oh Spunkie, you see, AG IS Federal Law enforcement.


"The Attorney General, as head of the Department of Justice and chief *law enforcement officer* of the Federal Government, represents the United States in legal matters generally and gives advice and opinions to the President and to the heads of the executive departments of the Government when so requested. The Attorney General appears in person to represent the Government before the U.S. Supreme Court in cases of exceptional gravity or importance."

Now, I know this might seem confusing to you, but if you need the ref, I got it from The Government:

http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/

And we all know The Government doesn't lie!;-)

So, Spunkie, if there was no illegal activity going on, you please explain why the need for the Subpoenas?

[Republican Wildcat]

I didn't speak 'for' you, I was reading your posts.

[cyborg]

Well I am pro-life and I never said I liked roe vs. wade. Oh well at least being misunderstood is better than being called a peckerwood like someone else called me.

[hobbes1]

No they don't have the right to dig into people's records to find out if they have AIDS either

Actually they do, if you are accused of certain froms of battery. So, in an analagous line, if you consider the baby, a baby .......

[freedomluvr1778]

You need to learn about what courts are and how they work.

Amen! It's like banging your head against a wall arguing with people who have no clue what they are talking about. This is such a simple legal concept that its almost funny wtaching people argue against it.

[Republican Wildcat]

What is the difference in your position and Roe v. Wade?

[cyborg]

No thanks. I'm not interested in debate. I'll never post anything in any of these threads again. Go talk with the lovely freeper who called me a peckerwood.

[freedomluvr1778]

You know, if the court would operate correctly(and I don't know if it would or wouldn't here), the records really do not need to be subpeoned.

The doctors have claimed that they have performed abortions to stop harm to the mother. That's a basis of their suit, as you obviously know. The court should simply say "produce evidence that you have done what you have claimed or the injunction is lifted and your suit dismissed".

They'd have to produce their files as evidence. They refuse, case dismissed.

[spunkets]

" "The Attorney General, as head of the Department of Justice and chief *law enforcement officer* of the Federal Government,"

The President is the chief executive, the chief LEO, and Ashcroft's boss. See Constitution. Ashcroft does not have the duties of a cop. He has the duties of defending the law and legal LEO action in court, or prosecuting illegal LEO action in court in order to defend the law.

" represents the United States in legal matters generally and gives advice and opinions to the President and to the heads of the executive departments of the Government when so requested. The Attorney General appears in person to represent the Government before the U.S. Supreme Court in cases of exceptional gravity or importance."

The DOJ explaination sucks. The AG is the fed's atty. His duty, amongst other things, is to defend acts of Congress and the President in court. I cut this from a previous post to you.

"Congressed passed the partial birth abortion ban. That law forbids sticking kids with scissors a few seconds before they are born. Atty gen. Ashcroft's job is to defend that law in court and that is precisely what he is doing."

"The docs introduced the records when they brought suit." See the abortionists sued to have the law thrown out. Now Ashcroft must defend it.

AG Ashcroft, in order to defend the law against the abortionist's lies, needs the very documents the docs are basing their claims fot the suit on. He doesn't need, nor does he want, names and IDs on those records, he just wants the evidence the abortionists are basing their claims on.

[spunkets]

" They'd have to produce their files as evidence. They refuse, case dismissed."

That's the way it ought to be. On that basis, the suit should have been in the rubbish heap for months now. They're playing politics and the judges involved are political ops siding with their leftist pals to swindle the babies out of their right to life.

[codercpc]

As a nurse, I could lose my license if I EVER gave out private medical information. But I am certain that insurance company clerks (who decide who should and who shouldn't get a particular medical procedure paid) have no such licensure problems.

Actually, under the law (State and Federal), anyone who has access to medical records, in the course of their job, is subject to fines,jail-time, and job termination if they reveal any part of the medical record to anyone who does not need to know.

I am certified coder, and it would also result in the immediate repeal of my certification (and my job) if I breached confidentially.

[codercpc]

They are your records. You own them. The doc and hospital are required to keep them. An individual can buy and keep a copy for other docs to use, but the original is required to be kept by the med folks.

Wrong...You do not own your medical records in any way, shape, or form. These are legally the property of the hospital, doctor, health care facility.

If you don't believe me, try out this experiment. Go down to your local Dr's office, and demand your medical record. The most you will get is copies of them, the originals belong to the Dr. If your doctor closes his practice, he will ask you where you want those records forwarded. If you say just send them to you, they will send you copies, and store the originals in a storage facility, or if a certain amount of time has past since you were last seen (Years and Years), they will burn the originals.

[freedomluvr1778]

That's the way it ought to be. On that basis, the suit should have been in the rubbish heap for months now.

Yep. The doctors are free to file another suit that does not include the claim that they performed such "necessary operations". Don't make the claim and their is no discovery issue concerning medical files.

It's almost the same if someone attempted to testify as an expert witness on whatever, but only wanted to give testimony under the condition that their qualifications could not be brought into question, they couldn't be cross-examined and what they say must be accepted as fact.

Now, that would be laughed out of court. The refusal to provide evidence for these claims should result in this being dismissed as well.

They're playing politics and the judges involved are political ops siding with their leftist pals to swindle the babies out of their right to life.

No doubt about it.

[codercpc]

Please disregard message #116, I see that it has already been argued ad-nauseum.

Thats what I get for not reading a thread to the end :}

[Aeon Flux]

Ah Spunkie, I do love the grassroots street theater!!!

I actually do!!

It is a very good and cheap way (you never have to pay'm, in fact they GIVE YOU money) to get a candidate or an issue passed to the public with all it's colourful rhetoric and bright fancy costumes.

Yet, in all it's passions, the group mind of such cannot go beyond laws due process, no matter how emotion they may become.

(Just in case! -Due Process: "in the context of the United States, refers to how and why laws are enforced. It applies to all persons, citizen or alien, as well as to corporations.")

How passionate as you must feel, aww heck, I can feel your emotions from here!

You claim:

"The DOJ explanation sucks. The AG is the fed's atty. His duty, amongst other things, is to defend acts of Congress and the President in court".

I do as well believe the DOJ sucks.
They suck millions of tax dollars to validate many forms of infringements they call *enforcement*.

Yet, I do think the Dept does *kinda* :-) know what the job description of the "Head Chief"... who... sort of.....you know ...**runs the place** is....hmmmmmm?

Now this is precious:

"Congressed passed the partial birth abortion ban. That law forbids sticking kids with scissors a few seconds before they are born. Atty gen. Ashcroft's job is to defend that law in court and that is precisely what he is doing."

Very colourful!!

Yet, only somewhat accurate.

Yes, the ban was passed, yet it is also restrained, therefore not a law right now.

Now, SHOULD the AG, use his/her powers be able to subpoenaed medical documents (or any personal or private documents) for evidence in a case *IF* no laws have been broken, except to be used as evidence to pass a law that has not yet come into effect?

Be careful and think before you answer this one.

Think VERY hard before you open that door and let the storm troopers in....they might be shooting that your rivals now, but given that kind of power they may one day be pointing the guns at you!

Do you want DOJ THAT BIG???