Abortion Debate

[richlevy]

Well, the abortion debate in Kansas has certainly heated up with this . I would bet that even many staunch pro-lifers would balk at what is being attempted here.

TOPEKA, Kan. - The Kansas attorney general, a staunch opponent of abortion, has demanded the medical records of nearly 90 woman and girls who had late-term abortions, saying he needs the material to investigate crimes.

The two abortion clinics involved in the case say the state has no right to such personal information and are fighting the request in the Kansas Supreme Court.

But Attorney General Phill Kline insisted Thursday he needs the records because he has "the duty to investigate and prosecute child rape and other crimes in order to protect Kansas children."

So he's trying to force his way into their medical records to protect them.

Sex involving someone under 16 is illegal in Kansas, and it is illegal in the state for doctors to perform an abortion after 22 weeks unless there is reason to believe it is needed to protect the mother's health.

So is he looking for victims or potential defendents?

The clinics said Kline demanded their complete, unedited medical records for women and girls who sought abortions at least 22 weeks into their pregnancies in 2003. Court papers did not identify the clinics.

The records sought include the patient's name, medical history, details of her sex life, birth control practices and psychological profile.

The clinics are offering to provide records with some key information, including names, edited out.

You know, after looking at how the law may be abused by an overly zealous AG, I may actually be forced to admit that Rush Limbaugh is right about something . Of course, in Rush's case, he pretty much admitted to being an addict.

Now from this document (PDF) from health and human services, it appears that the AG would require victims consent to release documents related to an abuse investigation, so his first argument that he is seeking these womens information to protect them won't fly.

Will this HIPAA Privacy Rule make it easier for police and law enformcement agencies to get my medical information?

Answer
No. The Rule does not expand current law enforcement access to individually identifiable health information. In fact, it limits access to a greater degree than currently exists, since the Rule establishes new procedures and safeguards that restrict the circumstances under which a covered entity may give such information to law enforcement officers.

For example, the Rule limits the type of information that covered entities may disclose to law enforcement, absent a warrant or other prior process, when law enforcement is seeking to identify or locate a suspect. It specifically prohibits disclosure of DNA information for this purpose, absent some other legal requirements such as a warrant. Similarly, under most circumstances, the Privacy Rule requires covered entities to obtain permission from persons who have been the victim of domestic violence or abuse before disclosing information about them to law enforcement. In most States, such permission is not required today.

Where State law imposes additional restrictions on disclosure of health information to law enforcement, those State laws continue to apply. This Rule sets a national floor of legal protections; it is not a set of “best practices.”

Even in those circumstances when disclosure to law enforcement is permitted by the Rule, the Privacy Rule does not require covered entities to disclose any information. Some other Federal or State law may require a disclosure, and the Privacy Rule does not interfere with the operation of these other laws. However, unless the disclosure is required by some other law, covered entities should use their professional judgment to decide whether to disclose information, reflecting their own policies and ethical principles. In other words, doctors, hospitals, and health plans could continue to follow their own policies to protect privacy in such instances.

This document from the same source actually says that providers can be forced to give up the information.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by richlevy

Well, the abortion debate in Kansas has certainly heated up with this .

Well, your durn tootin. All life is precious so the Attorney General should track these women down and kill them.

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Well, your durn tootin. All life is precious so the Attorney General should track these women down and kill them.

I don't think he wants to murder them. A scarlet letter and some time in the stocks would probably suffice for him. Of course, he could just find the ones who were raped and have them relive it over and over in a courtroom.

[xoxoxoBruce]

I don't believe he won't persecute to the best of his ability, otherwise he wouldn't have started this crap.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

I don't believe he won't persecute to the best of his ability, otherwise he wouldn't have started this crap.

Don't you have a way with words.

Sad, eloquent, true.