posted on February 19, 2004 11:53:01 PM new
John Ashcroft terrifies me. I'm not kidding. After this recent round of supponeaing medical records of women having had late term aboritions from 5 different hospitals I'm not kidding. this guy is scary. He's on a fishing expedition (as in he has no names, he just wants them) and his complete and utter disregard for privacy issues is alarming. At what point do all of these patriotic amaericans start standing up and saying he has gone too far? How many freedoms are you willing to sacrifice?
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on February 20, 2004 01:24:26 AM new
fenix - Since you gave no link to exactly what you're referring to, I'm guessing here.
But I believe this has to do with late term abortions....and the argument about whether the law should state 'for the mother's health' OR 'only if the mother's life' is in jeopardy.
Those who are opposed to 'for the mother's health' clause....say that keeps the law where it was. The pregnancy stressing the mother out would qualify....it wouldn't have to be a true 'medical' reason. Anything could be considered 'for her health'.
The other would be if her 'life' was in danger because of the pregnancy.
If this is what you're referring to.....the NAMES [nor any identifing facts] were not to be included. Those would be kept 'blanked' out. They just need the files in order to gain the statistics. They just want to be able to see what reasons were given to the doctors on women who have waited until their third trimester to abort their babies.
Just like in **all** 'blind' studies....that's the only way to gain these stats/ information.
Re-elect President Bush!!
[ edited by Linda_K on Feb 20, 2004 01:27 AM ]
posted on February 20, 2004 01:46:57 AM new
Ashcroft Defends Subpoenas
[taken from the NYTs website]
By ERIC LICHTBLAU
Published: February 13, 2004
WASHINGTON, Feb. 12 — Attorney General John Ashcroft rebuffed calls from Congressional Democrats and abortion rights groups on Thursday to drop the Justice Department's demands for abortion records from a half-dozen hospitals.
Mr. Ashcroft said the records were essential to the department's courtroom defense of a new law banning what he called "the rather horrendous practice of partial-birth abortions."
A group of doctors have sued to overturn the law, which was passed by Congress last November and signed by President Bush. They say they have performed medically necessary abortions that would now be banned.
Mr. Ashcroft told reporters that "if the central issue in the case, an issue raised by those who brought the case, is medical necessity, we need to look at medical records to find out if indeed there was medical necessity." He refused to say whether he had personally signed off on the subpoenas for the records.
The department has subpoenaed at least six hospitals, in New York City, Philadelphia, Chicago and Ann Arbor, Mich., to obtain medical histories for women who have had abortions in the last three years performed by the doctors now suing the government. A federal judge in Chicago has thrown out a subpoena against Northwestern University Medical Center because he said it was a "significant intrusion" on patient privacy, and hospital administrators in other cities are contesting the demand as well.
Government lawyers do not want the names or other identifying information about the women, Mr. Ashcroft said. He said the Justice Department was sensitive to privacy concerns, "and so we took, I believe, every precaution possible" to protect patient confidentiality.
But some Democrats in Congress, abortion rights groups and civil liberties advocates condemned the records demand on Thursday and called for Mr. Ashcroft to drop the subpoenas.
"It is clear from both federal and state laws that strong privacy restrictions are in place to prevent the kind of intrusive breach of medical privacy that these actions represent," said Representative Rahm Emanuel, an Illinois Democrat who has written legislation restricting the public use of medical records.
Representative Eliot L. Engel, Democrat of the Bronx, said, "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."
Oppression of citizen rights is a slow and insidious process and Ashcroft is the engineer of that process.
Peace demonstrations, Universities, now patients and medical providers are being surveilled and subpoenaed...
sometimes by the FBI on fishing expeditions.
Remember when we were assured that the government would violate civil liberties only if necessary to control terrorism?
In what way does the privacy of medical records relate to the pursuit of Al Qaeda and terrorism?
This is simply an effort to limit our patient doctor privacy and by doing so it is another in a long line of Ashcroft's violation
of American civil liberties.
posted on February 20, 2004 09:48:18 AM new
Linda- if a person is to be part of a medical study, they have to sign release and consent forms.
No one should have to worry that sometime down the road their medical file would be be given to the government or any other organization to use to advance a political agenda.
If the government wants to to do a medical study they should do what every other research organization has to do. Organize a study and cover all costs of those that choose of their own free will to participate.
Oh and Twelve - aren't you the one that agreed that the government was going too for on CAPsII and that it was an unreasonable intrusion into personal privacy? Was that just blind hatred for the administration or are you the only person that is allowed to stand up for your legal right to privacy without having alterior motives? I don't care who gets behind this one - This could get the thumbs up from both Clintons and I would still be just as against it.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on February 20, 2004 11:12:46 AM new
Yes I did say that, however as you know that I do support anti-abortion measures, I will not blanket my support for everything.
In this instance I do believe they have a valid request.
posted on February 20, 2004 11:44:08 AM new
No in other words Twelve - you only believe that people have a right to personal privacy in issues in whih you agree with the cause. You believe that your purchase history has more protection under the law than your medical history?
You know what - I don't believe that is your stance any more than I believe that you actually condone the killing of homosexuals as you implied in another thread. I think you are baiting and inflaming rather than debating. I don't believe that someone that fought in our military and expouses such extreme levels of patriotism as you believes that that the constitution is subject to spot enforcement based on personal whims. Maybe it is blind trust, but I give you more credit than that.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on February 20, 2004 11:50:19 AM newif a person is to be part of a medical study, they have to sign release and consent forms That is true.
I personally just don't see this as a problem SINCE identify information is not going to be available.
But I also recognize that you do see it as a problem. What would your solution be so that the AG could see whether the law is being followed or not? Would you agree that new consent forms have a clause in them so that women will know their medical information MIGHT be requested...without their personal information being at issue?
Re-elect President Bush!!
[ edited by Linda_K on Feb 20, 2004 11:56 AM ]
posted on February 20, 2004 11:53:36 AM new
Adding:
Keeping in mind that since I've not read about this particular case
Mr. Ashcroft said the records were essential to the department's courtroom defense of a new law banning what he called "the rather horrendous practice of partial-birth abortions." ....
I'm speaking, in my above post, of the way it should/could/will be handled in the future.
posted on February 20, 2004 12:00:30 PM new
It's also a way to intimidate those in the medical profession.
Here's a sidestep issue for you, since the subject of 'informed consent' arose:
There's a new faux blood product being used in half a dozen cities around the country. It is carried in abulances and used without consent to treat trauma cases at scenes when extensive blood loss is occurring.
The last time a faux blood product was allowed to be 'tried out' in this manner, twenty people died. The company that made it no longer does so.
Before the company making this new faux blood began its 'trials' in these cities, it held 'community meetings' wherein it described its product. The company also handed out free plastic wristbands that state "I do not want to participate in the [product name] study", to be worn by anyone who, in the event of winding up in an unconscious, bleeding condition, could refuse to be treated with faux blood.
Once the company had held these community meetings and passed out the wristbands, it had fulfilled its obligation to make people aware of its new product and the public's role as guinea pigs in testing it.
Interesting, eh?
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of what he was never reasoned into." -Jonathan Swift
posted on February 20, 2004 12:27:04 PM new
::What would your solution be so that the AG could see whether the law is being followed or not?::
They don;t want to see if the law is being followed Linda. That is not why they are supeonaing the records. They are on a fishing expedition. They are supoenaing the records of people that underwent the procedure in hospitals where doctors who have filed suit against the law work. The doctors are contending that the law is too broad based and completely ignores instances where the mothers life is at risk in continuing the pregnancy. The AG is trying to get patient records in order to help build their case to fight that suit. They are not trying to make sure the law is being enforced - they want records from a period of three years before the law was ever created. What should be done - You take the doctors sworn testimony at face value and assume that maybe people with medical training have more knowledge on the subject than you and accept that there are instances where medical neccesity conflicts with personal moral beliefs.
:: Would you agree that new consent forms have a clause in them so that women will know their medical information MIGHT be requested...without their personal information being at issue? ::
No. If the government wants to use medical records to forward their agenda they can do what other medical research firms do. They can pay 100% of costs and reimburse for time and travel expenses. Until then, the government should be given access to squat unless someone specifically opts in.
I don't have insurance, I have 20K in medical bills that I am trying to get paid off and as long as I am soley responsible for the debt I am soley priviledged to the information that derived from them.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
[ edited by Fenix03 on Feb 20, 2004 12:36 PM ]
posted on February 20, 2004 01:22:24 PM newMr. Ashcroft said the records were essential to the department's courtroom defense of a new law banning what he called "the rather horrendous practice of partial-birth abortions."
Why not stop at a law? Why not make it a constitutional amendment?
Marriage is a Human Right not a Heterosexual Privledge
posted on February 20, 2004 01:42:16 PM new
fenix - [i]I understand, after reading the NYTs article, that these records are being requested and for what purpose. I also understand the lawyers/doctors want to change this law.
The doctors are contending that the law is too broad based and completely ignores instances where the mothers life is at risk in continuing the pregnancy. That's correct...we're still in agreement.
The AG is trying to get patient records in order to help build their case to fight that suit. They are not trying to make sure the law is being enforced - they want records from a period of three years before the law was ever created.
Yes, I understand that. And the ONLY way anyone, other than the doctor and the patient, will ever know WHY these illegal late term abortions are being preformed is IF they have the patients records to see under "what medical condition" they are being preformed. For that...one needs the records.
What should be done - You take the doctors sworn testimony at face value and assume.....Nope I couldn't disagree more. Why should abortion doctors/surgeons have different rules [in law] than any other medical surgeon does? Imo, they shouldn't.
We don't do that, in our courts, in any matter relating to medical claims. None of their patient records are kept from being seen in court.
Take at face value the word of those who earn their living [good money in these late term abortions] performing these procedures? I don't think so. No more than we would do with any other doctors word in court.
The truth of why a procedure was preformed is in thos files No need to take anyone's word for it. No privacy rights being violated as no one knows their [the patients] personal information.
If the government wants to use medical records to forward their agenda.... This is a LAW that was passed...not a personal agenda. There has to be some way to insure these late term abortions are only being done for the reason the LAW allows. Don't like the law?? Then those who don't should work to change it.
To me, this sounds like the other gay marriage thread. Don't like the law that was passed....just don't obey it. Rather than working to change it to the way some want it to be. Just another example of breaking the law because you don't like it. Again, not the way our system works....and if this behavior continues in either case, anarchy will prevail. We are a nation of laws.
I'm sorry to hear of your high medical bills. but on the "I am soley priviledged to the information that derived from them." The same *is not true* when the bills are paid by any insurance company though. Many companies/hospitals/doctors/medical decision makers and more....all have access to those records....and with your [collectively] personal information.
posted on February 20, 2004 03:31:16 PM new
::This is a LAW that was passed...not a personal agenda.::
Come on Linda every law is based on personal agenda and abortion laws rank right up there at the top. Ashcroft has been incredibly outspoken regarding stripping women of reproductive rights and if I were a woman who had made a decision either for person or physical reasons to have an abortion, putting my records into the hands of someone that has worked for most of his politcal life to strip those rights from me would be the ultimate intrusion and insult. Especially when those records were being examined with the sole interest of justifing the stripping of those rights.
::To me, this sounds like the other gay marriage thread. Don't like the law that was passed....just don't obey it.::
Linda - no one is disobeying he law - no one is even being accused of disobeying the law. The doctors are simply trying to overturn a law that gives no value to a womans life one she is six months pregnant.
::We are a nation of laws.::
Yes - imagine that we used to be a nation of rights, now we are a nnation of laws stripping away those rights.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on February 20, 2004 04:08:26 PM new
fenix - Trying to overturn a law....I understand that. I would totally agree with your position IF, in this one case, their names were going to be made public, but they're not going to be. Why should any AG not be able to prove these procedures WERE being done all too often when the life of the mother was not at risk, nor was there a medical necessity for them, but rather only because the woman didn't make up her mind until that time in her pregnancy. Let the truth be known. Gosh....maybe Ashcroft would be proven wrong and their side would win and give more support to overturning the law afterall.
---
But aside from that issue there needs to be a way to confirm the law is being respected,imo. If not by this method then by another. I'm confident someone will come up with a compromise. Like the consent forms I suggested, or a medical review committee like is done now in the hospitals/clinics were patient records are reviewed by the staff, not their own doctors, to be sure medical care was appropriate. That might just pacify both those who stand on both extremes of this issue [all abortions okay....late term only with strick criteria.] and those who supported it.
On personal agendas. I know full well how some see the views of those they believe are so right wing it's not funny. There are those of us on the right that feel the same way at some laws that get passed by the ultra-liberals and fight for our position. What I'm trying, in many of my posts, to point out is that it's not only far-right thinkers that VOTE these laws into being. There are many moderates, on both sides, that do, It's NOT JUST an agenda of those on the far Christian right. It's legislation that passed because enough people favored.
And this law will apply even if we do have a democratic president in office come Nov. [we won't, just using that as an example ] And that president will have sworn to uphold the laws of the nation too. Just like clinton passing the DOMA bill. But everyone blames Bush for it. He, as president, is required to follow the law.
posted on February 20, 2004 05:30:08 PM new
I can see where people would think that their "right to privacy" is being stripped away, however without those records, how can they be sure that illegal abortions weren't performed?
Linda has already brought that up and other fine points...
posted on February 20, 2004 05:53:14 PM new
Linda...
::: Why should any AG not be able to prove these procedures WERE being done all too often when the life of the mother was not at risk::
I don't know how closely you have followed this issue but the conservative stand is that is not actually a medical situation that would justify third trimester abortions.
I do have one question for you - you stated in the double stards thread that there do seem to be double standards in that situation along political lines. Is there one here as well. Would you be so eager to throw away you right to privacy if it were in furtherence of a cause you have a different moral stance on?
Twelve
::however without those records, how can they be sure that illegal abortions weren't performed? ::
Have you actually read this thread? Third trimester abortions were not illegal during the three year period that records are being requested for. Now - whith that out of the way - how do you justify it?
BTW - at least one of the supeonas has already being squashed as violating a patients right to privacy.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
[ edited by Fenix03 on Feb 20, 2004 05:55 PM ]
] And that president will have sworn to uphold the laws of the nation too. Just like clinton passing the DOMA bill. But everyone blames Bush for it. He, as president, is required to follow the law.