Who likes their privacy?

J

John Reynolds

Ecce homo
Veteran
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/06/p...amp;adxnnlx=1078598020-2rpWeigt6rs6FPEYvsUizA

"Federal law "does not recognize a physician-patient privilege," the Justice Department said last month in court papers that sought abortion records from Planned Parenthood clinics in California, Kansas, Missouri, Pennsylvania, New York City and Washington. Moreover, the department said in another abortion case, patients "no longer possess a reasonable expectation that their histories will remain completely confidential."
Click to expand...

The times are a-changin'. Wake up, America, please wake up.
 
Don't worry John. As long as you're a "good citizen" you won't have a problem.

* Natoma checks his papers. Black, Gay, Anti-Bush, Wacko Environmentalist, Pansy Assed Liberals need to be on the look out.
 
yes. :)

kyla-malik-full-rock.jpg


the tiny girl is our friend kyla. she was the one taking photos for us that day. Well, tiny next to me that is I suppose. hehe.
 
:LOL: Thanks.

Oh No! Now they have my photo! Damn you Tagrineth! JVD was right. You are the space mutant who brainwashes people. You're one of them aren't you. Just wanted to get my photo so you could ID me. :oops:

* Natoma flees

:p
 
your nytimes articles isnt viewable. So here is another link:
http://www.michigandaily.com/vnews/display.v/ART/40482b8edfe79
BTW selective quoting is great, isnt it?
The government?s motion argues that disclosure of the records is necessary because the plantiffs? case may rely on the argument that the controversial procedure, labeled as partial-birth abortion by its opponents, is at times a medical necessity.
Click to expand...
The govermnent is trying to respond accuratly to a lawsuit brought against them.
The Justice Department subpoenaed Johnson?s records last month to gather evidence for its defense against the American Civil Liberties Union?s challenge to the 2003 law.
Click to expand...
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/06/p...00&en=faacc93e957d72d5&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE
A spokeswoman for the Justice Department, Monica M. Goodling, said, "We are respecting patient privacy by having hospitals delete any information that identifies specific patients."
Click to expand...

later,
epic
 
"Man you're in shape!" Says I as I slowly look down on my ungainful gut... Where your bf? He too shy for picts?
 
John Reynolds said:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/06/politics/06PRIV.html?th=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1078598020-2rpWeigt6rs6FPEYvsUizA

"Federal law "does not recognize a physician-patient privilege," the Justice Department said last month in court papers that sought abortion records from Planned Parenthood clinics in California, Kansas, Missouri, Pennsylvania, New York City and Washington. Moreover, the department said in another abortion case, patients "no longer possess a reasonable expectation that their histories will remain completely confidential."
Click to expand...

The times are a-changin'. Wake up, America, please wake up.
Click to expand...

What would the feds be investigating? I can't think of anything they would glean from records from such a broad area.
 
3dilettante said:
What would the feds be investigating? I can't think of anything they would glean from records from such a broad area.
Click to expand...
Ok, this is the short:
Bush signs ban on Partial birth abortion last year.
Planned Parenthood, and others, sue to have law overturned. They argue that there is a (medical?) need for such procedures. But dont want to say what it is.
Govermnent, scratches head, we need more info to go ahead. How can we make sure this procedure is needed without getting some actual cases.
PP and abortion doctor's go "no you cant", and try to stop government from getting records.

later,
epic
 
Bah thats just photoshop.


Natoma is Asian 5'2 and doesn't know any women.



And yes tag is a space mutant from uranus and is roughly 5 thousand years old .
 
John Reynolds said:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/06/politics/06PRIV.html?th=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1078598020-2rpWeigt6rs6FPEYvsUizA

"Federal law "does not recognize a physician-patient privilege," the Justice Department said last month in court papers that sought abortion records from Planned Parenthood clinics in California, Kansas, Missouri, Pennsylvania, New York City and Washington. Moreover, the department said in another abortion case, patients "no longer possess a reasonable expectation that their histories will remain completely confidential."
Click to expand...

The times are a-changin'. Wake up, America, please wake up.
Click to expand...
Your, way off base here JR.

later,
epic
 
Damn Natoma, you is a hotty! Buff, cute, and friendly looking...not at all like what I thought you'd look like! :oops:

And you're single for how much longer? :|
 
epicstruggle said:
3dilettante said:
What would the feds be investigating? I can't think of anything they would glean from records from such a broad area.
Click to expand...
Ok, this is the short:
Bush signs ban on Partial birth abortion last year.
Planned Parenthood, and others, sue to have law overturned. They argue that there is a (medical?) need for such procedures. But dont want to say what it is.
Govermnent, scratches head, we need more info to go ahead. How can we make sure this procedure is needed without getting some actual cases.
PP and abortion doctor's go "no you cant", and try to stop government from getting records.

later,
epic
Click to expand...

That's a very Rush Limbaugh-like summary. Leave out pieces or frame the argument backwards to appear correct....

To bad that's not how it works; the government isn't a defendant in a criminal trial.
They are the defendant in a civil case. What is being challenged is that there are no legitimate medical exceptions to Partial birth abortion. Any abortion law must have an exception for medical necessity (see Row v. Wade). The ban basically says there is no exception , this makes the burden on the Gov't , Therefore it is up to the government to prove "medically" there are no exceptions because the are infringing into rightful abortion territory. It now seems inconvenient that the legislature made a medical decision for the country. The Justice branch now has to fish for medical evidence to prove the basis of the law . The moral of the story is you can't reach a conclusion and then look for the evidence to support it after fact. Especially when that search causes an undue burden on privacy rights. The government can of course fund studies by universities and other organizations to get to the bottom of the issue. Unfortunately that might reveal something they don't want know and open the flood gates.

summary
Supreme Court = all medically necessary abortions are a right
PBA ban = except this one!
Planned Parenthood = prove it
Justice Dept = we would but we don't have enough evidence ?!?!?!? so we need the records from 10 hospitals :p

final analysis = How did a law get passed that claimed something there is not enough evidence to defend?
 
indio said:
That's a very Rush Limbaugh-like summary. Leave out pieces or frame the argument backwards to appear correct....
Click to expand...
This part really deserves a :rolleyes: I purposely said i was going to summarize the case.
To bad that's not how it works; the government isn't a defendant in a criminal trial.
They are the defendant in a civil case.
Click to expand...
I never said they were part of a criminal case. Where did i say criminal. The point of the lawsuit is to see whethere the law can stand up or not.
What is being challenged is that there are no legitimate medical exceptions to Partial birth abortion.
Click to expand...
Yes.
Any abortion law must have an exception for medical necessity (see Row v. Wade).
Click to expand...
I did not know this. Ill defer this to you, until someone can prove it wrong.
The ban basically says there is no exception , this makes the burden on the Gov't , Therefore it is up to the government to prove "medically" there are no exceptions because the are infringing into rightful abortion territory. It now seems inconvenient that the legislature made a medical decision for the country.
Click to expand...
As apposed to the judiciary?
The Justice branch now has to fish for medical evidence to prove the basis of the law . The moral of the story is you can't reach a conclusion and then look for the evidence to support it after fact. Especially when that search causes an undue burden on privacy rights.
Click to expand...
How is this a burden on privacy rights. The government has stated they only want records that exclude any way to identify the women.
The government can of course fund studies by universities and other organizations to get to the bottom of the issue. Unfortunately that might reveal something they don't want know and open the flood gates.
Click to expand...
Like what? Im curious.
summary
Supreme Court = all medically necessary abortions are a right
PBA ban = except this one!
Planned Parenthood = prove it
Justice Dept = we would but we don't have enough evidence ?!?!?!? so we need the records from 10 hospitals :p
Click to expand...
I believe one hospital has lost a court case, but they are appeling it.
final analysis = How did a law get passed that claimed something there is not enough evidence to defend?
Click to expand...
Because 2/3+ of the US doesnt feel this procedure is necessary. Not a medical sound, but it does mean its a popular issue.

later,
epic
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top