Justice Dept. Demands Abortion Records

AP ^ | 2/12/04 | DAVID CRARY

[To Hell With Poverty]

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.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Wouldn't it make sense to restrict the query to the patients of the doctors who sued?

[cyborg]

No they don't have the right to dig into people's records to find out if they have AIDS either, AIDS, whether I use birth control, ephedra, require racial information gathering... all of these ways government inserts itself in the name of 'justice'.

[HiTech RedNeck]

No, the Mengele-maniacs don't have the right to dig into babies' heads... oops, they do

[cyborg]

I give up. Go ahead dig into people's medical records. Don't complain when they come after yours.

[jwalsh07]

The right to life is subservient to the right to privacy and you call yourself pro life? That crap is right out of Roe v Wade and the penumbra.

Nobodys privacy is being compromised, statistics are being gathered for presentation in a law suit.

[cyborg]

If that's what you think, then there's nothing else to discuss.

[jwalsh07]

Right you are.

[LearnsFromMistakes]

It is under this 'right to privacy' that the abortion right was found in the constitution. I continue to read the constitution, and I don't see it. Maybe a conservative like yourself can finally explain to me what the liberals have seen for 30+ years.

[spunkets]

" Ashcroft said the Justice Department will accept the records in edited form, after deleting or masking any information that would identify a patient.That means the Justice dept. only gets case histories w/o any ID, or hint where they came from. This is a valid subpoena, because it is relevant evidence regarding the claims made in the suit.

" Abortion-rights supporters nonetheless depicted the subpoenas as a dangerous intrusion into medical confidentiality.

There is no confidentiality concern here, because their are no names, or other ID. It's the facts of the claims being made by the hired killers that are under scrutiny here. The case histories are in fact what the killers are basing their claims on. The court should have those case histories in front of them for all to see. Then, and only then, will the truth be known about why these particular docs were stickin' kids with scissors.

[sarasmom]

How is anyone disrespecting patient privacy in requesting redacted medical records to prove whether or not partial birth abortions are medically required?

What medical reasoning supports a DNX procedure?

I have had a DNC, after a spontaneous abortion.
I know women who have had DNCs after childbirth, both live and stillborn.

I cant imagine any medical health reason to have a DNX, partial birth abortion.
Can you cite one?
Do you have a case history?

[Aeon Flux]

Cyborg- I'm with YOU!!!

[cyborg]

Thanks. I wish people would consider how government gets out of control when given too much power. Oh well.

[HiTech RedNeck]

If they can say "this sick puppy has to be HiTech RedNeck" then I will worry. But it appears nothing of the sort will be taking place.

[spunkets]

He he...your thoughts are exposed.

Keep the Government off of my:

Guns
Pot
Bedroom
Kid's mind
Body
Computer
Personal records
Money

VOTE LIBERTARIAN!!!!

*MEOW*

[adiaireton8]

Government should stay out of personal medical records.

That statement needs to be qualified, because it is not an exceptionless truth. There are situations in which the government is justified in examining medical records. What you have to argue in this case is that the harm done by the government's intrusion into these doctors' records is greater than the harm that is now being done and will be done to partially-born children if not examining these records ensures that the PBA ban will be overturned. That would not be an easy argument.

[HiTech RedNeck]

The doctor who signed the affidavit saying the procedure was medically necessary put his own practice at issue.

Yepperoonio, and the gummint will win (and I'm cheering for it in this case) even if it loses. If it turns out the gummint can't subpoena the facts, then it certainly can't be deemed to have lost on the facts. Nobody has to disprove an unrebuttable charge in a lawsuit.

[cyborg]

I certainly hope not. Hope this won't be used to justify anything else.

[Aeon Flux]

Hey Cyborg, it is amazing how much public Liberty gets sacrificed over personal ideology.

I saw this article this morning and gagged on my coffee.

And for those who think patients are not in trouble read this quote from "Chicago Business":

February 09, 2004
Northwestern escapes DOJ subpoena
Judge denies Ashcroft's request for patient medical records


By Mark Taylor

"A move by U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft to subpoena the medical records of 40 patients who received so-called partial-birth abortions at Northwestern Memorial Hospital in Chicago was halted—at least temporarily—when a Chicago federal judge quashed the information request."


I have been a vegetarian for 15 years for personal ethical reasons, yet, the day they try to make meat illegal is a sign our nation is in trouble.

Look at the big picture folks, not your own personal issues!!!

[cyborg]

yup

[HiTech RedNeck]

I have refrained from killing my neighbor for 45 years for personal ethical reasons, yet the day they try to make murder illegal is a sign our nation is in trouble.