posted
Now he's issued subpoenas for medical records in abortion cases. I understand why he's doing it, and that he thinks that it'll be just fine if the woman's name and address are deleted, but gosh-darnit, we have been suffering under the stupid HIPAA laws for a year or so now and even legitimate users of medical information can't get it, but he thinks he should have it?
And he made the illogical statement that if the records aren't submitted to him, then the doctors who brought the suit in the first place shouldn't be allowed to testify.
Horse pucky!
I can't stand this guy.
And here's why you should dislike and distrust him as well, regardless of your stand on abortion -- because...
HE IS TRAMPLING ON THE RIGHTS OF EVERYDAY CITIZENS with every action he takes.
The man is as un-American as you can get.
He really should be serving time in jail, not running the Justice Department.
posted
"Blackjack" by Everclear (song excerpts written 'bout Mr. Ashcroft)
Scary John gets his strong arm on; he can break me and make me happy with his black, jack.
Scary John has the heavy hand on; he smiles without his eyes, nice and easy with his black, jack.
Don't tell me that you didn't see this coming down, please dont say that this isn't what you wanted now.
Scary John always knows what's going on, he is everywhere, happy with his black, jack.
This is your american dream?
Everything is simple in the white and the black, you will never need to see the grey anymore, you will never have to be afraid when you are happy with the black, jack.
Scary John wants to kill my song: he doesn't like the fact I'm not happy with the black, jack.
This is your american dream?
Edit: er...is this appropriate to post? Someone lemme know if not...
posted
How about the fact that he is trying to get the abortion documents? Or did you mean OTHER than that?
Posts: 5383 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Out of interest, are there any reasons to like the man? Or is he, as long suspected, just another unqualified official who has his job only because the Religious Right thinks he can advance their agenda, at no matter what cost to the country and everything it stands for?
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
well, just to be quick: Despite the ACLU's insistence that the Patriot Act gave the executive branch "sweeping new powers that undermine the Bill of Rights," all of the snooping, sneaking, spying and other prying powers allegedly granted to the feds still have to be approved by judges, as always.
Most of these powers already existed for criminal investigations, but the government thought it might be a good idea to use them against al-Qaeda as well as the mob. What about the government's newfound power to read all of your e-mail through systems like "Carnivore"? Well, maybe that should bother you, but the Patriot Act constrained the scope of the government to use Carnivore, not the other way around.
Not to mention everyone-on-this-forum's hated Patriot Act passed the Senate 98 to 1 and the House by 357 to 66. Indeed, with the exception of Dennis Kucinich, all of the senators and representatives currently running for president on John Ashcroft's back voted for it.
I assume you have some specific provisions of it that you think are evil? Or do you just start from the proposition that Ashcroft is evil because he was appointed by Bush and therefore he can't do anything good? Cause if it's the last, I apologize for getting in the way of your two-minute hate. please, carry on.
Posts: 196 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:all of the snooping, sneaking, spying and other prying powers allegedly granted to the feds still have to be approved by judges, as always.
Yes, but WHICH judges. Do you know, for example, that there is basically a panel of judges working INSIDE the Justice Department that approves all their BS? Go look, you'll find it. They slipped in this 3 or 5 judge panel, can't remember what they called it. But basically, they are the ones who decide whether J.D. can do whatever the heck it wants.
That's 1.
Two, I'm in favor of impeaching every last congressman and Senator who voted in favor of the Patriot Act. They are traitors.
Why people aren't just rioting in the streets over this, I don't know, but I can tell you right now that it is the kind of law that does nothing but restrict the rights of EVERYONE, not just "the criminal element" as they try to tell us.
That our representatives voted for it is a reason to vote them out of office, not shut up about it.
I come from perhaps a different perspective than many on this board. I remember what things were like back when your life could be ruined if someone branded you a "Communist" or "UnAmerican" because of your exercising the right of free association. I remember when our President used break-ins and wiretaps to gain an unfair advantage in an election.
And stories like 1984 by George Orwell weren't just an overwrought piece of fiction. There were too many eerie parallels to what our government was doing and what other governments were doing. Orwell was writing about totalitarian regimes, especially Communism. But what he hit upon was something even deeper -- the mass psychology of running a nation. And it applies even if you are running a democracy. One major example: the names of things matter. And if your radar doesn't start shouting alarms when you hear a politician call something "The Patriot Act" well then you are just asking to be suckered. There is very little "PEACE" in a Peacekeeper missile.
The chicken-littles who voted for the Patriot Act were over-reacting. And the people in the Administration were quick to capitalize on that opportunity -- the fear and the anger in the immediate aftermath of the WTC and Pentagon attacks. People feeling vulnerable do some awfully scary things. This was one of them.
Mark my words, that law will lead to some collossal mistakes unless the next President and Congress modify it to the point of non-existence.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bob, tell me you read the Patriot Act before your sky-is-falling diatribe. And which parts of it are turning us into Oceania exactly? Seems like if that many Congressmen and Senators voted for it, it must have some merit. Oh, right, the gigantic government conspiracy. sorry, I guess you got me there. if there's no evidence, it must mean there's a cover-up.
p.s. thanks for mentioning the HUAC and the like, from your vast store of personal experience. If only there were newspapers and books so the rest of us could learn about this valuable part of American history.
Posts: 196 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
No need to get snide. I wasn't trying to belittle you or mock your opinion. I just don't have a lot of trust in this Administration and in Ashcroft in general.
One final note before I stop posting in reply: All the votes in the Politburo were unanimous. Must've been TONS of merit in their decisions.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Heh. Rohan, as much respect as I'm sure you believe we all hold for you due to your disrespect to Bob, I think I'm going to enjoy watching him smack you down.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
Basically, the problem is that I see this as a matter of principles. I believe that our Constitution guarantees freedoms and it is a good thing to expand those freedoms to the best of our abilities. That what we want to leave to our children is a more free, more open and yes, a more equal society than what we inherited from our parents.
I see efforts like the attempt to limit Miranda rights (surely everyone caught the attempt to make it NON-MANDATORY to advise suspects of their rights) as contrary to our principles. I see an administration far too willing to incarcerate people without due process, without access to lawyers or family, and to do this to citizens as well as "enemy combatants."
I see a small group of people who are willing to make the ultimate mistake -- sacrificing freedom for a false sense of security -- and it makes me angry. We don't have to look far for lessons in how well repression and divisiveness work for our society.
So on basic principles I oppose the direction that the Justice Department has taken. I oppose the attempts to develop super-snooping software that can mine transportation records and medical records, and so on.
I think the people pushing this stuff are not heroes or defenders of America. I think they are scared and power hungry. And this was an opportunity to push forward an agenda that has nothing to do with what's right for America, but has more to do with keeping their party in power and feeding money to their cronies.
And if someone can explain to me how the Patriot Act deserves that name, then I will back down.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
ouch, Lalo, losing your respect hurts. Of all people, I didn't expect YOU to turn on me.
and I apologize for appearing snide, Bob. (still, smack away) I just thought it odd that you accuse the Congress of a sky-is-falling mentality, then proceed with one yourself. And it is a bit dismissive to think most of the rest of us don't remember or know anything about Nixon or HUAC.
More to the point, I would have more respect for your opinions on this subject if they were based on something that the rest of us could evaluate, rather than just "that guy bugs me." It just is so Lalo-like. come on Bob, you're better than that.
Posts: 196 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, it's based on him trying to subpoena health records of women.
By the way, the Patriot Act has many interesting and hard to find provisions that are truly alarming.
For example, it makes a Department Head responsible for the final determination of whether an errant employee (one who a court says violated the protections built into the Patriot Act). In other words, Ascroft orders an agent to do something slightly illegal under the Patriot Act. A judge says it looks fishy. Ascroft gets to decide if the agent gets punished.
This is even true if the court determines that there WAS a clear violation of the act.
In other words, the court finds the agent guilty, but Ascroft gets to conduct his own investigation to see if any disciplinary action is warranted. It's not up to the court to decide.
Uh huh.
And then there are some chilling statements like this:
quote:In considering a claim filed under this section, a court may admit evidence that is otherwise inadmissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence, if the court determines that the evidence is reliable, and that compliance with the Federal Rules of Evidence may jeopardize the national security interests of the United States.
And here's just one jewel from Patriot II (Jan 2003 draft).
quote:This provision would enable the government to obtain credit reports on virtually the same terms that private entities may. Specifically, it would amend § 1681b(a)(1) to allow law enforcement officers to obtain credit reports upon their certification that they will use the information only in connection with their duties to enforce federal law. This certification parallels the existing requirement that a private entity must have a "legitimate business need" before obtaining a credit report. In addition, to avoid alerting terrorists that they are under investigation, this provision would prohibit (absent court approval) disclosing to a consumer the fact that law enforcement has sought his credit report.
And, the Justice Department would be "above FOIA" without any review possible if they claim "national security":
quote:Although existing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) exemptions 7(A), 7(C), and 7(F) (5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)) permit the government to protect information relating to detainees, defending this interpretation through litigation requires extensive Department of Justice resources, which would be better spent detecting and incapacitate terrorists. This provision thus establishes a specific authority under Exemption 3 of the FOIA to clarify what is already implicit in various FOIA exemptions: the government need not disclose information about individuals detained in investigations of terrorism until disclosure occurs routinely upon the initiation of criminal charges.
(Given that they can hold people without charges indefinitely, the idea that they also don't have to even go to court to defend against a FOIA request seems like way too much power for them to have.
This is just a small tip of it.
There's some judicial review built in to most of the provisions in the two laws. But usually, judicial review is specifically limited in the law. Instead of having to go to Grand Jury to get approval for a subpoena, the JD has the power to issue subpoenas administratively. And then, only if the person FIGHTS will a court get involved.
So, they can get records from schools, credit bureaus, actual creditors, and anyone else who is willing to hide behind the shields built into the law as well -- acting in good faith compliance with the law protects you from being sued, even if you release information that would've been private and damned hard for the government to get before Patriot passed.
Anyway, I feel like you probably knew all this already and think it's no big deal.
Sorry about the apparent assumption that you didn't know about Nixon. I remember it like it was yesterday and I guess the thing that bothers me so much is that the secretiveness of that administration and the current one seem so similar. The one good thing about Nixon's misbehavior is that it seemed to spawn a wholesale rethinking of openness in government. Bush et al. set out specifically to roll that back. They even created special test cases -- like not disclosing the names of participants in the crafting of the Energy Bill in the early months that they were in power.
Why keep that secret? Was it really because it would embarrass the executives involved? Yeah right. I think it was because they don't like government in Sunshine laws and they want to do things without anyone knowing about it until it is too late.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
There are legitimate reasons to believe that we needed reform in our law enforcement practices in this country. Lots of criminals know how to work the system to their advantage. And terrorists are a legitimate threat.
I'm worrying about things that are "potential" abuses of a new law.
Rohan, and I assume many others, are worried about not tying the hands of law enforcement with outdated laws about wiretapping when there are no longer any wires.
As for the stuff that made you think I'm a crank, Rohan, all I can say is that Nixon was a criminal. He deserved to go to jail. Given that example, I have to say that I think Ashcroft has overstepped his authority sufficiently that were he not part of the administration, but rather some law enforcement official out in the real world, he would've been in serious trouble already.
And I do believe that passage of the Patriot Act is a form of treason in the sense that anything which works to destroy the government and especially the Constitution of the United States is treasonous. But more importantly, it is a treason against the people of the US because it makes it possible for our government to hold people without due process and without being answerable to anyone just so long as they utter the words "national security."
Seriously, they need do nothing to prove the case. They just utter the words and there's not a damned thing anyone can do to alter the course events away from what the Attorney General decides they should be.
Heck, on a majority of the positions, he doesn't even have to consult with anyone or report anything.
The very NAMES of the people held under this act can be protected as secret under the same broad heading of "national security."
I wouldn't want Mother Theresa to have these powers. Or Ghandi.
And I feel like I've seen enough of Ashcroft to know he's a few standard deviations below Ghandi and Mother Theresa.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bob, first of all, I actually agree with you that this administration is too tight-lipped for my taste. As someone who wants to give them the benefit of the doubt, they sure don't provide a lot for a wanna-be supporter to go on. So you're right there. As for the Patriot Act, I do view those passages that you quoted differently than you, especially since many of them (as you yourself pointed out) are examples only of "potential" abuses. Like the clause that gives the JD power to subpoena the library records of someone suspected of terrorism. It's been used a grand total of 0 times. It may be that the Patriot Act oversteps constitutional bounds, or at least the Supreme Court could so find. Which they are welcome to. Surely you don't think Bushie's power reaches that far, when he can't even get a VOTE to happen on federal circuit judges? And even if it is a criminal-type overreaching, did John Ashcroft vote for it? But it's his fault for enforcing the law? Your view of treason is broader than mine. I don't consider it treason for someone to vote for a law I don't agree with. For example, some people have chosen to read a right to privacy into the Constitution. I don't see it there, but if they do and they pass a law based on it, I'm not calling for their heads. The attitude that broke my patience tonight is "if you don't agree with my interpretation, you're not only an idiot, you're a dangerous bigoted, evil idiot. Who should be locked up."
I mean, I know accusations are a dime a dozen (especially when it's in for a dime, in for a dollar) but the kind of charges you level do not engender civil debate. You mentioned HUAC and someone else mentioned Tailgunner Joe but you crying "treason!" is only different because you ain't from Wisconsin, if you get my drift. Such vitriolic accusations without specific instances or reason to back it up (well, to be honest, even WITH reasons to back it up) just lead most people who are not already toeing the party line to roll their eyes. like this And that's not good if you are really trying to convince people of the merit of your arguments, rather than the depth of your passion. I mean, the rest of us get it. You don't like Bush or Ashcroft or anyone in his administration. Fine. Next topic.
So, was any of that too sarcastigorical? (I am not being sarcastic)
posted
Bob, back to the incident that sparked this thread: do you know what "discovery" means in a legal context? Experts will be testifying that a procedure is medically necessary. The opposing side is entitled to information relevant to that claim.
In a civil proceeding, people are generally entitled to compel relevant testimony from opponents and third parties. I can't find the federal standards, but in Virginia requests for medical records must be filed with 15 days notice to allow those whose records are subpoenaed to move to quash. The standards used are:
quote:(i) the particular purpose for which the evidence was collected (ii) the degree to which the disclosure of the records would embarrass, injure or invade the privacy of the individual (iii) the effect of the disclosure upon the individual’s future health (iv) the importance of the information to the law suit or proceeding; and (v) any other relevant factor.
Now, redacting the names helps mitigate (ii) and (iii). (i) and (iv) are clearly met - an expert is testifying that based on his experience, such procedures are medically necessary. The opposing side is entitled to review the records upon which that opinion is based.
quote:Like the clause that gives the JD power to subpoena the library records of someone suspected of terrorism. It's been used a grand total of 0 times.
I don't care how many times it is used. Why have that power if it isn't there to be used. When it is used, it WILL be an abuse.
As for the treason comments, I guess if I were trying to actually get them tried for treason I could see your point. To me, it's just a way to wake people up a little bit to begin a discussion.
Sorry if it turned you off.
I do think this law is unconstitutional and I don't like it coming from a crew that hypocritically says they are "defending the Constitution" on things like abortion and gay marriage.
Dagonee --
quote:Now, redacting the names helps mitigate (ii) and (iii). (i) and (iv) are clearly met - an expert is testifying that based on his experience, such procedures are medically necessary. The opposing side is entitled to review the records upon which that opinion is based.
It merely helps mitigate. If the women's medical histories are IN those files, then they can be traced. That was the entire premise of HIPAA, that there is basically NOTHING short of presenting aggregate data that can fully mitigate the fear of releasing medical information on individuals.
Secondly, I've seen it in plenty of trials where the expert witnesses present their evidence and the opposing side's expert witnesses present theres. You don't get copies of each others fully backup information during discovery. Just the evidence that will be provided to the court.
So, if they aren't bringing individual women's case histories into court as evidence, guess what...it's not discoverable.
At least as I understand the rules.
Maybe a lawyer could explain it better.
I've only helped prep for some expert witness testimony in a few trials and none of my analyses have EVER been discoverable. And certainly NOT the data files I used to run the analyses. I see this as equivalent.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm a little confused. If one side says the procedure is needed to protect women's health, wouldn't they need the medical records to submit as proof? And if the other side says no the procedure isn't necessary, don't they also need the records o show other courses of action were available? Properly edited, it sounds like necessary evidence to me. Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
And one side consists of patients and those who provide medical treatment, while the other side is just a bunch of busybodies totally unqualified to make any medical judgements with absolutely no basis to have access to any patients' medical records.
Ashcroft should prosecute himself and his cohort for practicing medicine without a license.
quote:Except as otherwise stipulated or directed by the court, this disclosure shall, with respect to a witness who is retained or specially employed to provide expert testimony in the case or whose duties as an employee of the party regularly involve giving expert testimony, be accompanied by a written report prepared and signed by the witness. The report shall contain a complete statement of all opinions to be expressed and the basis and reasons therefor; the data or other information considered by the witness in forming the opinions; any exhibits to be used as a summary of or support for the opinions; the qualifications of the witness, including a list of all publications authored by the witness within the preceding ten years; the compensation to be paid for the study and testimony; and a listing of any other cases in which the witness has testified as an expert at trial or by deposition within the preceding four years.
quote:And one side consists of patients and those who provide medical treatment, while the other side is just a bunch of busybodies totally unqualified to make any medical judgements with absolutely no basis to have access to any patients' medical records.
Ashcroft should prosecute himself and his cohort for practicing medicine without a license.
Ashcroft is defending a federal law passed by the elected legislature and signed by the elected executive. The law is being challenged by a private group of citizens on the theory that the procedure is medically necessary. Whether or not it is medically necessary will be a matter of fact to be determined by the court.
To prove that matter of fact, the plaintiffs will bring in experts. The experts are being asked for the information that led them to form the opinion they will be expressing in their testimony to the court.
I guess civil rights are only for those people outside the womb, huh?
quote: I guess civil rights are only for those people outside the womb, huh?
O.K. Ignoring the debate of when personhood begins, etc...actually, isn't this pretty much legal fact?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Storm, no, this is not the current legal reality - the Supreme Court has ruled that state interest in protecting fetuses begins at viability. Which never made sense to me - the point at which the state can protect a person depends on the current state of medical science?
quote:So the government has the right to poke its nose into the womb now, eh?
And if the government doesn't like the look of your heart, it can rip it out?
Hmm. Let me treat your question seriously. No, the heart is not a complete individual organism. An unborn child is - genetically distinct, although reliant on the mother for survival. Kind of like a baby born 2 months premature is dependant on others for survival.
And of course, it's not pro-life people who are ripping things out, is it?
Your question ignores the fact that if the law is unconstitutional, the subpoenas are a necessary part of the judicial proceeding that will determine that.
posted
The government has no rights whatsoever to muck about within my body -- whatever it's stated intent -- without my openly expressed&witnessed consent.
Pro-choice is pro-life. With the exception of a barely discernable minority, anti-abortionists are pro-death in every other conceivable circumstance except that inregard to a select portion of tissue within someone else's body.
posted
Dagonee, that excerpt of Civil Law is very interesting. In my case, I provide summary data tables that, I guess, are discoverable. Whereas the data itself, which are NOT supplied to the expert witness, would not be discoverable.
Interesting.
I wonder if these doctors have openned up a real can of worms here. If they reviewed the individual women's charts & medical history and used that to make a decision about the health-related necessity of this procedure, then I guess it would be discoverable.
And, if those doctors turn that stuff over, they'll be in violation of HIPAA and they'd be in trouble for releasing personal health information.
This really sounds like a lose-lose situation all around. I mean, our government is being very heavy-handed (IMHO) and the doctors have exposed their patients to possible release of sensitive information without their consent.
This could get very ugly before it's over.
By the way, if a raw data file is discoverable, can you turn it over in hardcopy? I mean, if someone asked for the records used to determine an outcome in a case, it's something that is technically an asset of my company. We paid to obtain it and work with it to make an analyzable product. Could the other side obtain it for free by subpoena?
In addition, I signed agreements with the states that I bought the data from that I would not release their data files to anyone. It would be an ethical violation to turn those files over to an opposing attorney.
I could always just tell them where to get the data themselves, though....
I guess the parallel to medical records breaks down at that point.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Pro-choice is pro-life. With the exception of a barely discernable minority, anti-abortionists are pro-death in every other conceivable circumstance except that inregard to a select portion of tissue within someone else's body.
Pure, unmitigated BS. There's no other word for it.
First of all, almost all anti-abortion folks are also anti-euthanasia and anti-assisted susicide. That's the easy one.
The Catholic Church is anti-death penalty and anti-abortion, as are some other denominations.
And don't get me started on the "piece of tissue" nonesense. It's begging the question.
posted
*gasp* I actually find myself AGREEING with Bob on a great deal of this....
A few years back my brother-in-law had to work for a few months in Singapore. He told me how everyone over there basically has this card that pretty much tracks where they are at all times --use the card to get on the bus, use the card to clock in at work, use the card when making purchases. I imagine somewhere they have a "mother of all databases" that keeps track of all their people.
And I said that could NEVER happen here - the American people wouldn't allow it.
Then 9/11 happened and everything changed. We are allowing the government to do things now that we NEVER would have allowed, as a society, prior to that incident.
While I was a reporter for many years, I relied heavily on the freedom-of-information laws other safeguards to keep local government from doing things behind closed doors. I do think the current trend toward allowing the government to decide what they have a right to know, and what I have a right to know, is frightening. But I don't necessarily see it as a current administration/past administration deal -- I think it is an overall trend in the government, and now that it is rolling, it will be extremely hard to stop.
"A covered entity may disclose protected health information in the course of any judicial or administrative proceeding:
...
In response to a subpoena, discovery request, or other lawful process, that is not accompanied by an order of a court or administrative tribunal"
Note, there is a general statement that covered entities may releas information required by law, which has this definition: "Required by law includes, but is not limited to, court orders and court- ordered warrants; subpoenas or summons issued by a court, grand jury, a governmental or tribal inspector general, or an administrative body authorized to require the production of information; a civil or an authorized investigative demand;..."
quote:This really sounds like a lose-lose situation all around. I mean, our government is being very heavy-handed (IMHO) and the doctors have exposed their patients to possible release of sensitive information without their consent.
This happens all the time. A patient suing for malpractice can get patient information about anyone treated by that doctor in some cases.
quote:This could get very ugly before it's over.
Possibly, but this is not the stretch or uncommon event people are making it out to be.
quote:By the way, if a raw data file is discoverable, can you turn it over in hardcopy?
Possibly, but if it's cheaper for you to provide in electronic format, you'll be looking at a possible reprimand from the judge for being uncooperative in discovery. If you're not a party, this is less of a concern.
quote:I mean, if someone asked for the records used to determine an outcome in a case, it's something that is technically an asset of my company. We paid to obtain it and work with it to make an analyzable product. Could the other side obtain it for free by subpoena?
Yes, although they have to promise to only use it for purposes of the relevant civil action. (I know, fat chance, but that's the rule.) Many law suits are constructed solely to get to discovery.
quote:In addition, I signed agreements with the states that I bought the data from that I would not release their data files to anyone. It would be an ethical violation to turn those files over to an opposing attorney.
You can't ignore a subpoena. I believe the proper response is to notify the party to whom you owe a duty of confidentiality and give them an opportunity to quash. At that point, no liability can attach to you.
quote:I could always just tell them where to get the data themselves, though....
quote:I guess the parallel to medical records breaks down at that point.
In some ways. The privacy right attached to medical records will be stronger than almost any other privacy right, but the financial costs will probably be higher in other circumstances. Both are taken into account and weighed against the likely probative value of the evidence to be discovered when deciding whether to force disclosure.
Civil procedure is fascinating, and the possibilities for "sharp practice" are infinite.
posted
"The Catholic Church is anti-death penalty and anti-abortion, as are some other denominations."
The RomanCatholic clergy may be, but even so there is very little overlap between anti-abortion RomanCatholics and anti-death penalty RomanCatholics. The same is true of those other denominations. Irrespective of the official desires of the clergy, a majority of the laity favor pro-choice. Interestingly, those who belong in an officially anti-abortion denomination also have the highest abortion rates by far.
"And don't get me started on the "piece of tissue" nonsense. It's begging the question."
That is the question that Ashcroft is attempting to represent as a client to force a subpoena through the courts, though legally the question has already been settled against Ashcroft's position.
quote:The RomanCatholic clergy may be, but even so there is very little overlap between anti-abortion RomanCatholics and anti-death penalty RomanCatholics. The same is true of those other denominations. Irrespective of the official desires of the clergy, a majority of the laity favor pro-choice. Interestingly, those who belong in an officially anti-abortion denomination also have the highest abortion rates by far.
Can you point to any statistics for either of these assertions? And, the reverse analysis could probably be applied to pro-abortion advocates. Further, the euthanasia argument was, of course, entirely ignored, presumably because there is no way you can refute it.
Face it, your characterization of the pro-life movement as is flat out wrong. Do be good enough to admit it.
quote:That is the question that Ashcroft is attempting to represent as a client to force a subpoena through the courts, though legally the question has already been settled against Ashcroft's position.
No it hasn't. Go back to the In Your FACE thread and read the summary of Roe - an unborn child is not legally treated the same as a "piece of tissue." Why? Because even Blackmun admits that there is more at stake here than a "piece of tissue."
To sum up, you've mischaracterized the pro-life movement (at minimum the euthanasia and assisted suicide overlap disproves your "every other conceivable circumstance" assertion).
You've casually mischaracterized a complex legal situation in absolute terms.
And, I just noticed, you have raised an anti-eugenics argument (or at least implied one) in favor of abortion, ignoring the fact that it is pro-abortion advocates that have traditionally been associated with eugenics. Certainly, pro-life groups have been much more in favor of the life of disabled persons, considering that both at the beginning and end of life people keep trying to kill them.
quote: Which never made sense to me - the point at which the state can protect a person depends on the current state of medical science?
Actually, I always wondered about this too. It's kind of like saying that a person is "alive" assuming that it can be kept alive outside the womb. So does life begin based on scientific discovery? If a scientist could keep a child alive starting from conception, does it have rights then? How can we base a moral decision on a scientific standpoint?
Complete derailment...just got me thinking.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Except that there ARE practical effects of scientific discoveries.
For example, if they do invent a viable "artificial womb" to which a fetus could be (safely) transferred, then we have a very different discussion, do we not?
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Roe v Wade decision basically divided pregnancy into the three trimesters. During the first trimester, there's no law that can abridge a woman's right to an abortion.
During the 2nd trimester, the "state can pass laws that limit access if it can show that the interests of the state are best served by having such laws."
During the 3rd trimester, you basically can't pass a law abridging the rights to an abortion in cases where it is medically required for the safety of the mother ...and this is the important part "IN THE OPINION OF HER DOCTOR."
So, no law (state or federal) restricting ANY abortion procedure that a doctor says is necessary.
The doctor doesn't have to prove it either. The Supreme court left it up to "normal judicial and professional" procedures to weed out the bad doctors.
So, unless someone is suing (or trying to censure) the doctors alleging that they were performing abortions in the 3rd trimester that were not to protect the woman's health, they don't have to provide squat.
In this case, we have the exact opposite. We have the doctors coming and saying "hey, we've complied with Roe v. Wade and now we're in trouble because of this Federal ban that runs counter to the original law -- tell those guys to back off."
That's what this case is about, not the woman's health status, but the government's law that doesn't stick to the statements in the Roe v Wade decision about doctors being the final determinants of who is at risk or not.
The more I think about this, the more I believe that the law passed a year or so ago is just flawed. Why? Because it takes the decision out of a doctor's hands and puts it in the government's.
I'm not saying doctors are perfect, but they are at least trained in medicine.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
You do know that there have been 30 years of cases refining and distinguishing Roe, right? I don't have time to do the research, but I believe Casey is more directly relevant here.
But like I said, I don't have time to do the research. I do know that the 3-trimester analysis is much more complicated now.
posted
aspectre, as an agnostic pro-lifer myself, I feel compelled to point out that you've generally misrepresented my position.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dagonee...how many times has the Supreme Court taken it up in the past 30 years?
And has ANY court ever decided in favor of removing the doctor's opinion as the deciding factor for late term abortions?
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bob, would you agree that we should perhaps require post-operation review of all third-trimester abortions, to conclude that they were in fact medically necessary? In all other cases resulting in the death of a patient, this kind of review would be routine.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
I agree. At what point do you believe the government should investigate reports of an abnormally large number of third-trimester abortions being performed at a given hospital?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom: It would seem that if the doctor were sued for a specific abortion by the woman or her immediate family, then the information pertaining to that abortion would need to be accessible to the courts.
Otherwise, an abnormally large number of 3rd trimester abortions could be researched by a researcher under HIPAA. This generally means going through many many hurdles designed to protect the privacy of the individuals.
If the government in the current abortion case does anything that wouldn't pass through HIPAA, then I think they're doing something wrong.
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
How would a researcher know to research an abnormally large number of third-trimester abortions if these numbers were not made public and/or reviewed already?
While I agree that certain elements of privacy must be maintained, I think there's a degree of oversight here that MUST be possible to prevent obvious abuse.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
But which statistics are relevant to the issue of third-trimester abuse that do not also violate some level of patient privacy?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
And that's not good if you are really trying to convince people of the merit of your arguments, rather than the depth of your passion. I mean, the rest of us get it. You don't like Bush or Ashcroft or anyone in his administration. Fine. Next topic.![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
That is absolutely priceless.
