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.

[spunkets]

"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 "

No. The patient's name is not being given and the parient is not in legal jeopardy whatsoever. THe docs are making claims that are based on the records and the court should have them, because those records are the evidence the claims are based on.

Otherwise their is no justification for obtaining med records at all, because of the 5th amend. The greater harm nonsense is just that, nonsense.

[cyborg]

I'm bookmarking this thread so next time an article talks about government wanting to get info about things like gun ownership, financial information,cell phone records,etc. I want to be able to remind the 'peace and safety' crowd.

[Aeon Flux]

Yes Spunkie I am quite the CATO Kitty!!

[spunkets]

The records are what the docs are basing their claim on. The court needs to know exactly what the records say. That's why they will be turned over. W/o the records there is no evidence. The Chicago judge is a leftist, just like the NW docs. He has no justification for doing what he did.

[Victoria Delsoul]

``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.''

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

Yeah, tell that to Rush Limbaugh or Dr. Atkins. The hypocrisy of these people! It's OK when it serves their political agenda.

[cyborg]

http://www.cato.org/
I like what I'm reading.

[cyborg]

Everyone is off and running with the phony story about atkins too :(

[Aeon Flux]

Spunkie- The new laws on PBA, I believe, are currantly suspended. Arsecroft's need for those records are more for his own "case making", not for an illegal investigation.

At least he is bored with the pot fields and lost on banning good hemp products...he needs to pray a bit harder at those AM prayer meetings....

[spunkets]

" tell that to Rush Limbaugh or Dr. Atkins."

Their situation is unlike this one. The docs introduced the records into the trial when they made their initial claim that stickin' kids with scissors was necessary for the given reasons. Now the court better get the records, or toss the bozos out on their arses.

Note the records belong to both the doc and the patient. They are the patient's condition and the docs eval and diag. The patient's names and any other identifying characteristic are to be all blacked out.

[Aeon Flux]

Yes Cyborg, CATO has GREAT seminars here in Capt City.

Check out:

WWW.garynolan.com

[Victoria Delsoul]

I agree. The records are evidence in this case, and since the patients' names and related information would be blacked out, I don't see a problem with that.

[spunkets]

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. Now they damn better well appear on the judge's bench.

BTW, Cato is a libertarian institution, it is not connected with the Libertarian Party.

[cyborg]

very interesting...the Libertarian Party has some pretty good ideas

[Aeon Flux]

Spunkie- Yes, the law passed and then was "suspended" as it is being challenged and not quite in effect yet.
May I also add another quote from "Chicago Business" which was a major factor in the Judge's decision:

"In a 16-page decision, U.S. Chief District Judge Charles Kocoras denied the government’s request to obtain patient medical records from Northwestern, citing the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) and Illinois’ medical privacy law. "

Once again proving a disregard for state's rights as we saw a year or so back with the Rosenthal case in California.


And as far as CATO and the Libertarian Party, yes, I am quite aware of the logistics of both.
I have friends in the Institute and have worked on hill issues with them, and I am a member of the other.

Good to see you are up on some things ;-)

[spunkets]

" "In a 16-page decision, U.S. Chief District Judge Charles Kocoras denied the government’s request to obtain patient medical records from Northwestern, citing the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) and Illinois’ medical privacy law. "

I'm certain all 16 pages are pure steaming BS. Both laws are irrelevant, because the patients names and ID are not known. In addition they were introduced by the plaintiffs that brought suit when they made their claims.

" Once again proving a disregard for state's rights as we saw a year or so back with the Rosenthal case in California."

State's rights my arse. This is a fed case and fed law applies.

"logistics"

procurement, maintenance and transportation.

[spunkets]

"Rosenthal case"

I smell pot.

[jwalsh07]

Pro abortion libertarians occupy a place on the genetic tree right below worms.

[MHGinTN]

"I don't care. No more government intrusion into citizen's personal records.
4 posted on 02/12/2004 9:21:54 PM EST by cyborg It is more than obvious that you don't care ... probably because you don't consider the little ones as fully members of the human species and ana alive member in the womb. All your bluster and flappery, and you stated the relevant fact early in this thread ... you don't care, so stop playing games that expose your asinine agenda to be a peckerwood.

[Aeon Flux]

Spunkie- The PBA ban is up in the air due to challenges which is the real key to whether the enforcement is applicable. If it completely was your case would hold water.
As for as lack of personal identification, under Patriot Act Scene 2 and the death of search and seizure, there is no ID protection and under subpoena, if wished to be known, Ashcroft is not beyond anything.

"The University of Michigan, which initially refused to turn over the subpoenaed records because of privacy concerns, said it was discussing ways of deleting enough identifying information to comply with the subpoena. Other hospitals said they remained concerned."

"Under the department's subpoena, "there still is enough identifiable information in these records to identify these people," said Kelly Sullivan, a spokeswoman for Northwestern."

HIPPA is a Federal law.
Illinois has a state law that deserves respect as well.

I happen to believe all these hot issues should be state laws, yet, there is a federal law protection on medical records as well.

[cyborg]

oh dear you got me.