Ashcroft Defends Subpoenas

[Khephra]

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.

more...........................

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/13/politics/13ABOR.html

[ixion]

1. AshKKKroft is soooo not interested in catching criminals

he'd much prefer to go after pot smokers and women who decide to get abortions and anti-war people.

Really, he makes me ill.

[SemperEadem]

22. Since when is the Attorney General a Doctor?

He can have them just as soon as the FBI finishes grilling his pastor and making him write out his conversations about what he discusses, spiritually, with him.

[Iris]

2. So is Ashcroft the one who gets to determine

if the abortions were medically necessary?

[havocmom]

3. So, what is the penalty for practicing medicine without license?

John Ashcorft, OB/GYN? Sheeeit. He can't even look at a half nekkid statue without getting heebie jeebies.

It was bad enough when insurance company bean counters started deciding what was medically necessary or not. Now we get bible thumping misogynists doing it? I fear for all our daughters.

[Jane Roe]

5. No

That is a jury issue.

[Occulus]

6. Wow.

And here all along I thought that it was doctors who decided medical neccessity. Silly me.

Why in hell is he going after records from before the ban went into effect?

[Jane Roe]

7. If this ever goes to trial . . .

doctors will certainly testify as expert witnesses to bring the jury up to speed.

Even doctors are not above the law, and this is not the only type of case where doctors are called to account for things they do while practicing medicine.

[bushisanidiot]

4. He Swore an Oath That He Wouldn't Let His Political or Religious Preferenc

es tar his ability to do his job without prejudice. He is clearly going after abortion providers just as we all suspected he would. He lied just like all the other repukes that have taken office since pres. AWOL stole the fucking election!

IMPEACH AWOL NOW!!!

[KansDem]

8. There something here I don't quite understand.

The AG wants these records for essentially research purposes?

This law is already in effect. Why doesn't he just use the research that was available BEFORE the law was signed, or am I assuming that Congress and the President use research to craft and pass new laws?

And does this set precedent for ANYONE to request medical records for research purposes?

[Jane Roe]

9. I had thought he requested the records for possible criminal prosecutions

Now I hear that it may be for research and that it is records for procedures before there was any federal regulation of abortion.

This is beginning to sound disturbing. I can understand subpoena's for medical records in criminal investigations or lawsuits -- but just for "research"? I sure hope that isn't happening.

[Tuttle]

10. I remember Nader --

in 2000 he said "The Democrats will always claim the Republicans will revoke a woman's right to choose - these are scare tactics: it will never happen!"

Thanks, Ralph!

Tut-tut

[Jane Roe]

11. No rights are being revoked here:

"With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in potential life, the "compelling" point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother's womb. State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications. If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother."

[lark]

12. You are assuming they care for the mother - n/t at all

They care about keeping the rightwing nuts in line through coercive actions against women.

lark

[Jane Roe]

13. No I am not.

I have no delusions about or fondness for the Bush administration whsoever.

I sincerely wish that a Democratic administration were implementing (and I do mean implementing) this portion of the Roe v Wade decision. That is the main reason that I post on abortion threads in DU. To make Democrats aware of this part of the law of Roe v Wade so that they will: (1) win more elections; and (2) implement the abortion law suggested by Roe v Wade in the spirit of that case.

I think there is a strong tendency by a lot of Democrats to completely write off late term fetuses. Although this is a permissible viewpoint under Roe v Wade, the decision itself seems to believe that this is not the course state law would or should follow. I think this complete write off of late term fetuses, as a class deserving of protection, is a big turn off for a lot of voters.

Unfortantely, you are correct that John Ashcroft is not a good person to be put in charge of protecting anybody from anything.

[nolabels]

15. Unless you are sending YOUR medical records to all the law inforcement...

agencies in the U.S. yourself personally, you should not be so presumptuous that it is okay for things like this to happen. I for one don't think law enforcement should on a whim be privy to anyones medical records. This is one of the reasons they courts with actual judges.

[Jane Roe]

16. If they have good grounds for a subpoena

(like they do in the Rush Limbaugh case), then they can subpoena my medical records.

However, if my own medical records were subpoena'd -- I wouldn't automatically assume that abuse had occurred. It is not like this is the first time medical records have been subject to subpoena.

On edit: Thanks to post #14 for explaining the subpoena. It sounds like they had good grounds to issue the subpoena. More particularly, it sounds like the government is investigating whether the doctors have "standing" to sue. I think that is considered fair play in the context of Constitutional litigation.

On 2d edit: actually I don't think the DoJ should be arguing that the challenged act is constitutional at all. I think the so-called PBA Act it is clearly unconstitutional and should be rewritten in accordance with the standards articulated in R v W. However, I am not sure whether the DoJ legally has the discretion to choose not to fight on behalf of challenged statutes.

[AZCat]

18. One of the articles on this issue...

Spoke about the medical records being subpoena'd. It said that since the patients were not actually part of the case the records are protected under HIPAA. Did anyone else see this article, or have a link?

[Jane Roe]

20. Good question

also: does this privacy law apply if patient identities are redacted (as they clearly should be here)?

[AZCat]

23. Okay, here's previous thread (and link to article)

Thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=357117

Article:
http://chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=11447

Interesting points (from article):
<snip>
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.
<snip>
Northwestern spokeswoman Kelly Sullivan said that HIPAA and the Illinois law required the hospital to protect the privacy and confidentiality of patient records. "Patients are not a party to the litigation and thus (Northwestern) cannot produce the medical records of nonparties," Ms. Sullivan said. "The judge agreed and quashed the subpoena request."
<snip>

[GinaMaria]

19. HIPAA

Seems to be a fine line they're walking with HIPAA. These patients' medical records are being used in a case where the Doctor's are suing. The patients are not involved in the suit. Why should their privacy be violated? The hospitals are doing the right thing right now. A HIPAA violation is serious.

This is interesting from an election point of view. MDs have traditionally been loyal to the GOP. I wonder if this changes their attitude toward this admin?

[AZCat]

21. MDs loyal to GOP?

I dunno about that- my dad is a doc (as are several other relatives) and patient's rights are VERY important with him.
He does NOT like Bush* either.

[nolabels]

24. I am not sure (could look it up) but how does all this square with the....

Patriot Act, does not that give some jurisdiction to do this type of thing. They have gone after legal gambling establishments, Mail order and health supplements companies, Martha Stewart to name few. Mostly the laws they seem to want to enforce they also want do subjectively.

Every time I hear about the government issuing themselves carte Blanch to do what ever they feel they want to do at anytime and never having to answer for any of it or even inform others that it is going on smacks of actual lawlessness itself.

On what grounds are they defending such abridgments to the public trust. The public trust is one they seem to want dismiss or ignore. Frankly it seems a lot easier to me find refuge in the understanding some portion of population understand what should be allowed, what is legal and or good. Understanding precedent in a court of law has it reasons also.

Secret governments agencies with secret doings to hide secret results is not any government that I wish to defend.

[Iris]

14. The medical records being subpoened are of doctors who have filed suit

to against the law Congress just passed. The attorneys want this information to defend their case.

At least that's the way I understand it.

[KansDem]

27. This is what I don't understand...

The AG wants these records to defend the law just passed. My interpretation of the article is that the doctors are suing based on beliefs that abortion should not be banned, citing they have used this particular procedure in dire circumstances. I also inferred that the AG wants the patient records for research to "defend the law." I'm wondering why he just doesn't use the research that lead to the crafting and passing of this law, assuming the law is based on research that supported the need for such legislation. If there isn't any research, than I say "T.S., Ashcroft, that's what happens when laws are passed based on hard-right, neo-con beliefs." I find it disingenuous that the AG wants records of individual patients to build a case to support the law banning abortion after it was passed.

Let Ashcroft get some religious fanatics to provide the "research" in defense of the law, and leave the patients alone.

[myopinion]

17. It is a hard choice for the mother ONLY

I am a male, but I am appalled that these shit heads want the people of the U.S. to believe what they do is “in private” and we should not question what they do.
But at the same time they want to know what goes on in each woman’s womb and vigina!
What a bunch of hypocrites and perverts!

[SemperEadem]

25. GOP= Government on Parade---more government! more clowns!!

[nolabels]

26. Under the assumption that todays federal government is mostly..........

just a creation of the corporate entity that propels it. I would like to put forth that these same corporations also see people in this country as just another commodity to be manipulated and sold off to the lowest bidder


http://www.abcactionnews.com/stories/2002/11/021126records.shtml

Working to keep medical records from being sent overseas
an ABC Action News report 11/26/02


TAMPA - A group called Tighten Up America wants to raise awareness and change the laws so that Americans' medical records cannot be sent overseas to countries like the Philippines, Pakistan and India, to be transcribed as they are now.

The work is exported mainly because there are not enough transcriptionists in the U.S. to do the work. However, the group says patients may be paying a high price.

"No one asked my permission. They just took it upon themselves to send my daughter's medical and personal history to who knows where," said Janice Courtney of St. Petersburg.

Courtney could not believe that her young daughter's medical records from Bayfront Hospital were sent to what turned out to be India to be transcribed from a doctor's voice recordings.

Bayfront uses a company called C-Bay Systems, which openly states on its Web site that it offshores its work to India, a frightening prospect to Courtney.

"Her Social Security number, her address, her school. They could come and take her. They could steal her identity," she continued.
(snip)

[Bridget Burke]

28. WRONG! There ARE transcriptionists in the US.

A friend of mine was supporting herself by transcribing medical dictation for Houston doctors. She worked at home & did OK.

Now, all the work has dried up--gone to India. She's looking for a full-time job, but pickings are dry.

[nolabels]

30. So there are no 50 cent an hour ones here then?

The wage factor is primary with bussiness, and I guess with a lot of other people. What I was meaning was who knows what security is these days. It is just another secondary concern for bussiness, money and profits come first. How to point that out?

They talk a good game untill the money is on the table

[reprehensor]

29. Would someone please...

give him a Columbian necktie. Please?

[llmart]

32. A ha ha ha ha!

I've never heard that one before, but I think I get the gist of "Columbian necktime". It can't be too soon for me to see this whole cabal booted out the door and as Kerry said, "don't let the door hit you on the way out".

[DU GrovelBot]

31. ## Support Democratic Underground! ##

RUN C:\GROVELBOT.EXE
 
This week is our first quarter 2004 fund drive.
Please take a moment to donate to DU. Thank you
for your support.
 
- An automated message from the DU GrovelBot

Click here to donate.

[Hand]

33. Hey, Asscrack...

I GOT YOUR CENTRAL ISSUE RIGHT HERE!!!!!

(Hmm, can't find an appropriate graphic--oh well, you get the idea)

[spanone]

34. ashcroft is one of the main reasons we must remove bush*

he's the most dangerous of them all.