Justice Dept. Demands Abortion Records

AP ^ | 2/12/04 | DAVID CRARY

[Republican Wildcat]

These are records of criminal activity (murder). The people who hired for the murders aren't even going to be revealed, so there's no so-called "privacy" issue.

[cyborg]

Don't you think what is yours should belong to you? That's not comforting to know that my own records don't belong to me.

[Judith Anne]

Actually, what people call "their" medical records are the records of the treatment given by the doctor and the hospital to the client. In every instance I know of, people have the right to a copy of those records, but the treating hospital keeps records of the treatment IT FURNISHED and the treating doctor(s) keep records of the treatment HE/THEY FURNISHED.

What is so hard to understand about that? I give up.

[spunkets]

I understand why those 2 orgs say that, but what they have is really custody, not really ownership. The basis for their claim is the fed and various state laws that require them and their storage by the med folks involved. The fact is that the patient pays for them, since they are the results and record of service, and the patient has all rights retained to viewing priviledges. Both Princeton and the AMA err when they make such a claim, because the right to determine who may see them belongs to the patient, not the docs. The reason the AMA, or any other med person tells the patient to make an appointment is, because fed law prohibits patient generation, or use of med data/results. The feds gave them a monopoly.

[spunkets]

"Hospitals release information contained in medical records for social studies or statistics that serve their needs."

W/o any ID attending those records.

[Republican Wildcat]

Cyborg is making a non-argument, anyway. Ashcroft wants statistics and descriptions of the procedures the doctors perform, not to know who is paying for said procedures.

I doubt cyborg's sincerity in being pro-life as well. Otherwise, why would you agree with Roe v. Wade that murdering babies is a private matter?

[Judith Anne]

Your argument breaks down when you consider ER records, sorry. No appointment necessary, and the hospital and doctor still own the records, not you. You can get a copy but you can't get the records. They aren't yours--they're just ABOUT you, and the treatment you were given. But the records aren't yours.

[cyborg]

Speak for yourself. Do not speak for me, esp. when you are putting in words in my mouth that aren't true.

[Judith Anne]

You are exactly correct in your assessment, in my opinion.

[spunkets]

I don't want to get into what is really a complicated concept of ownership in this case. The important legal concepts involved is that the right of access and dispersal of viewing priviledges belongs to the patient. The custody and use of those records belongs to the licensed practitioner that generated them. If the patient ID is removed the records can be used and viewed by other med research personel.

[Judith Anne]

It's not too complicated to me. But I think the records should be released for this case, with identifying information removed.

[spunkets]

Yes, that's very clear.

[Aeon Flux]

Spunkie- The ban is presently being challenged by Federal judges across the nation, therefore, whether or not it is enforcable at this time is up in the air.

I think you are confused with the points Cyber and I are trying to make.

We are both questioning whether the AG is within his rights to bulldoze into medical records, over stepping federal medical records privacy laws, to enforce a law that the federal judges and their courts have not determined is enforceable as of yet.

To give a nod to the questionable infringement of civil rights on an issue that disturbs you, will lead to an open door on the infringement of the rights on issues that will hit you much closer to rights you will want to keep for yourself.

[spunkets]

"The ban is presently being challenged by Federal judges"

The fed law is not being challenged by judges. THe law is being challenged by planned parenthood and the docs that are a part of, and back them.

" I think you are confused with the points Cyber and I are trying to make."

I am not confused. Your points are either irrelevant, and or just flat wrong. Also Cyber isn't arguing anything here. "AG is within his rights to bulldoze into medical records"

He is not bulldozing into med records. The docs opened them up for viewing with their claims and testimony. There is no ID given with the records. What part of, "there is no privacy concern" don't you get?

"questionable infringement of civil rights"

The right involved here is the right to life. Their are no privacy rights involved. "will lead to an open door on the infringement of the rights"

This case has bearing on the right to life and whether the courts will restrain themselves to honoring the truth and uphold the law. That is it.

[Aeon Flux]

Spunkie:

A retraining order from Judge Richard G Kopf

http://www.crlp.org/pdf/110503_memo_carhart_ashcroft.pdf

AND LOOK!!! I got this from an anti-abortion site!!

Judges Prevent PBA Ban from Taking Effect
Friday, November 07, 2003

By Sam Kastensmidt

"Shortly after President Bush signed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 into law, three judges (in three separate circuits) issued injunctions to prevent the enforcement of the new ban. Thus, abortionists will be permitted to perform partial-birth abortions, regardless of the newly passed legislation."

http://www.reclaimamerica.org/Pages/News/newspage.asp?story=1447

If the ban is NOT in effect and you have yet to prove it is, as I have proved that it is questionable and probably not, given the blocks from these three federal judges, Ashcroft is probably NOT within his right to enforce this ban as of yet and does not have the rights to subpoena the records.

[spunkets]

You need to learn about what courts are and how they work. Pay close attention to the roles each of the players in the judicial process has. The law is on trial here. Keep that in mind.

[Aeon Flux]

Spunkie- I absolutely agree the law is on trial, which is why the right to enforce this ban is questionable as is the AG's subpoenas.

Look, I am not a PBA fan or like to see it happen, but you cannot let your passions get in the way of allowing infringements of rights when a law is in question and not quite in effect as of yet.

[spunkets]

"the AG's subpoenas."

What is the role of the AG?

[Aeon Flux]

Spunkie- Better yet, why don't you tell me what you believe is the role and rights of the AG?

(now, mind you, I remember *Reno*)

And what do you believe are the rights of the public under "what used to be" The Constitution?

[spunkets]

"Spunkie- Better yet, why don't you tell me what you believe is the role and rights of the AG?"

I already did. You missed it.

Now, what is the role of the AG?