Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Judge Orders Release of Abortion Clinic Files

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
LiberalHeart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-22-06 02:39 PM
Original message
Judge Orders Release of Abortion Clinic Files
CINCINNATI (AP) -- The Cincinnati Planned Parenthood Clinic must give a family that is suing the clinic all records on abortion patients younger than 18, a judge ruled. The documents are being sought in a lawsuit by the family of a teenage girl.

http://wtol.com/Global/story.asp?S=5066465
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ThomCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-22-06 02:42 PM
Response to Original message
1. That is a horrible violation of privacy.
If my daughter was one of those patients I wouldn't want my records turned over to some stranger so they could pick though them for lawsuit fodder.

Is this something they can appeal?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Scairp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-22-06 11:46 PM
Response to Reply #1
43. This is HIPAA violation
They cannot do this, even to minors. HIPAA, as far as I know, prohibits this kind of fishing expedition of medical records. They could get a subpoena for a named individual's medical records with an affidavit, but I don't think they will have to comply in the end with this stupid order. The higher courts will most overturn it. I hope.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
orleans Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-23-06 02:09 PM
Response to Reply #1
47. i completely agree
"If my daughter was one of those patients I wouldn't want my records turned over to some stranger so they could pick though them for lawsuit fodder."

me either. i'd be wild. and i'd get a lawyer to go after the judge who is about to let my kid's records get turned over, and i'd go after the family that wants my child's medical records.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Doctor_J Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-22-06 02:42 PM
Response to Original message
2. Uh-oh
abortionists today. Union members tomorrow. The day after that - ??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
niyad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-22-06 02:43 PM
Response to Original message
3. WTF do the records of others have to do with THEIR daughter? what a
load of BS--wonder how many of these families are going to be targeted by the hate groups?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Avalux Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-22-06 02:46 PM
Response to Original message
4. This is not legal. Her records maybe, but not others.
How can this judge justify such an order? :mad:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-22-06 02:46 PM
Response to Original message
5. WHAT?
This ruling must be overturned. It simply must.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nolabels Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-22-06 02:47 PM
Response to Original message
6. Judges should preside over their courtrooms in the buff
(I do detect a little bit of politics here)

Like it's a free-for-all when it comes to anyones privacy with just about anything anymore, why should judges be any different :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sadie5 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-22-06 04:30 PM
Response to Reply #6
24. Perhaps they should have been watching
their little moralistic daughter more carefully. Now they want access to others records that have nothing to do with their daughter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saigon68 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-22-06 02:49 PM
Response to Original message
7. Guns God and Gays
Oh yes and those tramps who get abortions

The new republican battle cry

And Lincoln wept.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SCantiGOP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-22-06 02:49 PM
Response to Original message
8. won't happen
The clinic will be able to get a restraining order until the case can be heard.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Caoimhe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-22-06 02:56 PM
Response to Original message
9. Can anyone say "ACTIVIST JUDGE"?
This is bullshit. K&R because people need to know about this. Thanks for sharing.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KansDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-22-06 02:57 PM
Response to Original message
10. Judge endorsed by GOP
Judges come, judges go

Two veteran judges have been tapped by the Hamilton County Republican Party to run for Appeals Court judgeships that open this year due to retirements.

Current Common Pleas Court Judge Patrick Dinkelacker and Domestic Relations Court Judge Penelope Cunningham have been endorsed by the GOP to replace the retiring 1st District Court of Appeals judgeships now held by Robert Gorman and Rupert Doan.

The GOP also endorsed its incumbent judges running for re-election Common Pleas Court Judges Dennis Helmick and Steve Martin, Juvenile Court Judge Karla Grady and Appeals Court Judges Howard Sundermann, Jr., and Mark Painter.


http://frontier.cincinnati.com/blogs/gov/2006_01_08_def...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzteris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-22-06 04:13 PM
Response to Reply #10
19. So THAT's his problem . . .
Dinke - lacker...... poor baby ain't even got no "dinkie".....

:rofl:


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LiberalFighter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-22-06 05:41 PM
Response to Reply #10
29. He practiced Real Estate law as an attorney
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AmandaRuth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-22-06 02:59 PM
Response to Original message
11. maybe this will shake some Cincinnati republican familes
out of their stupor. Yes, the religious right's war on women will affect YOUR daughter too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndyOp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-22-06 03:23 PM
Response to Reply #11
14. Damn good point! There are going to be GOP girls on the list, too.
I wonder if the people suing have thought of that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TroglodyteScholar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-22-06 03:56 PM
Response to Reply #14
18. No way...
Everybody knows that Republicans and their family members never ever get abortions.

:crazy:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Supersedeas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-22-06 04:20 PM
Response to Reply #11
21. we are talking about OH Repubbies...remember
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ilsa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-22-06 05:15 PM
Response to Reply #11
27. Yep. We know they've been using services as well.
They do, but they lie about it. The question is, did the use the PP clinic or go to a private provider?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ceile Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-22-06 03:09 PM
Response to Original message
12. unbelievable!
How can the records of others have anything to do with their daughter? Trying to prove a pattern does not give them the right to go on a fishing expedition!! :mad:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlueIris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-22-06 03:16 PM
Response to Original message
13. Has Kline escaped from Kansas to violate women in Ohio now?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Megahurtz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-22-06 03:24 PM
Response to Original message
15. If I were this girl that got an abortion
I would tell my parents to fuck off and that my body is my own
and you don't own it and I'm not a breeding pig
just so you can control me!!! :mad:

This girl needs to stand up for herself because this is way out of line!!!
Her parents are assholes!!! :argh:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iamjoy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-23-06 12:32 PM
Response to Reply #15
46. Her Parents Are Not A**Holes
but they screwed up severly and rather than taking personal responsibility for their error in parenting, want to blame others.

If they were good parents, their daughter would have come to them when she found out she was pregnant because she would have felt comfortable discussing it with them, and would have felt confident that they would love her and support her, regardless of her decision.

But, like so many conSWERVEative parents, they don't want to take responsibility for their parenting actions. No, that nasty boyfriend all but forced their precious daughter to have sex and that horrible Planned Parenthood clinic must have strong-armed her into the abortion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
williesgirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-23-06 07:57 PM
Response to Reply #46
51. Yes, they are greedy, vindictive assholes who don't care about their daugh
ter, just their fucking precious MORAL VALUES.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Megahurtz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-26-06 04:52 PM
Response to Reply #46
56. Hence why they are assholes! eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Igel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-22-06 03:42 PM
Response to Original message
16. I can see why they'd seek them; not sure
about the judge's decision. But it's not government invasion of privacy, and I have to assume that there'll be some restrictions on the plaintiffs.

"The records are needed to determine whether the clinic has a pattern of failing to notify parents, said attorney Brian Hurley, who represents the family. Patients' names would be blacked out on the documents to protect their privacy, Hurley said." I don't know how that would help, really, unless it was required either parent, guardian, or judge to sign. I'm assuming a judge can give the ok.

"The family's lawsuit alleges that the girl's 21-year-old boyfriend took her to the clinic and identified himself as her stepbrother, and the abortion was performed without notifying the girl's parents."

If they goofed once and gullibly believed the girl and her boyfriend that he was her guardian, it's a (stupid) mistake. If they constantly goofed, it's a pattern of negligence, possibly a willful one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WolverineDG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-23-06 12:05 PM
Response to Reply #16
45. Oh hello, parents?
What the hey was your under-age daughter doing dating A TWENTY-ONE YEAR OLD IN THE FIRST PLACE?

:grr:

dg
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Brethren Donating Member (853 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-23-06 07:34 PM
Response to Reply #16
49. I don't agree at all
with their demands to turn that information over to them. If their argument is they believe there is a pattern of negligence on the part of the clinic, then they should address the state about their concerns and let the state follow up on the matter legally (on behalf of the other parents)....which means that the family suing would have no connection to any private information obtained. I also agree with a previous poster, that by receiving this information, that these families of the girls listed and the girls themselves will likely be targeted for harassment by pro-lifers. And if the clinic is found guilty of anything involving not contacting the parents, then it should be up to the state to handle the issue with them and the specific parents....not this family that has nothing to do with them.

"must give a family that is suing the clinic all records on abortion patients younger than 18," this also doesn't say that all or any of the girls listed in this file DID NOT previously get their parents consent. And yet their information will be made public regardless to this "family" and their lawyer. Who claims the patients' names would be blacked out, and how does this protect their privacy? If they didn't know the names of the parents and the girls to begin with from this court order, how would their lawyer know how to verify anything? Info. they shouldn't have.

for the record: if I had a teenage daughter who was on this list, whether she got my consent or not beforehand, I would be p*ssed at this family, their lawyer and the GOP endorsed judge who felt they had a right to violate her privacy for their case. And I would go after all them in court and I would be very public about it! I'd also go after the state if it allowed it to continue. If this set of parents has a problem with the clinic for not contacting them..fine....then they should deal with the clinic on their behalf ONLY. And while they're at it, take the 21 yr old bf to court for giving false information & any other legals matters he may face, but leave the other girls and their privacy out of it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stinky The Clown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-22-06 03:51 PM
Response to Original message
17. Fucking Activist Judges
..... The Fundies are doin' the happy dance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzteris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-22-06 04:16 PM
Response to Original message
20. Please note: all names would be blacked out......
before you get too hysterical over this.

But I totally agree - that they shouldn't HAVE TO release the information, period.

But if a girl lies - hey - how are they to know?

Maybe those parents should have done a better job of brainwashing their daughter, teaching her not to lie" - and not letting her date a 21 year old!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
daleo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-22-06 04:21 PM
Response to Reply #20
23. If the names are blacked out, how could they check anything?
I gather they want to find out if the clinic has been notifying parents of under 18 women. But if all the other names are blacked out, how could they confirm who was notified in the other cases anyway?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Le Taz Hot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-22-06 06:05 PM
Response to Reply #20
33. Yyyyyeah!
And the NSA is only spying on Terrorists. Uh huh. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tblue37 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-22-06 04:20 PM
Response to Original message
22. The buttheaded winger attorney general here in Kansas tried to
get access to all abortion records in Kansas for any underaged girls. His claim was that he was trying to find out whether children were being secually abused.

The Kansas Supreme Court shot him right down.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-22-06 04:32 PM
Response to Original message
25. I fail to see why the judge couldn't just look at the records
and compile the numbers of those informed and those which weren't. The plaintiffs have every right to know if this clinic repeatedly violated the law or didn't. But conversly the patients do have a priviledge here which should be honored.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rinsd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-22-06 05:21 PM
Response to Reply #25
28. Do you think the blacked out names don't go far enough?
I'm kind of squishy on this in terms of whether a violation of privacy happens when one's medical condition is exposed but they remain for its and purposes anonymous.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-22-06 06:03 PM
Response to Reply #28
31. Not really
First, I think the plaintiffs actually get less information that way since they presumedly can't really check on notification and second, I think that medical records contain enough other details that patients would have some reason to fear that people could determine who they were from just the records.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jwirr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-22-06 10:52 PM
Response to Reply #28
42. All identifying materials should be blacked out if they are
made public. That means more than names: it should include, addresses, finacial info, race, etc. they only thing that can be used is age and if parent was notified. Otherwise this judge has just violated the privacy of a lot of people who are not involved in this case.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lindisfarne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-22-06 05:14 PM
Response to Original message
26. Major privacy violation. This will go all the way to the US Supreme Ct if
necessary. Why should the plaintiff have access to others' files? A panel of judges or experts (physicians) could compile the numbers. But really, this is harassment. If a girl lies about her age, Planned Parenthood is not responsible (fake IDs are not difficult to come by).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
knitter4democracy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-22-06 05:49 PM
Response to Original message
30. She had a 21 year old boyfriend? I think that's a larger problem.
She's younger than 18, and her boyfriend is 21? He got her pregnant, talked her into an abortion (or at least liked the plan enough to lie for it), took her there, and posed as her stepbrother to give consent?

I think they have larger issues than with Planned Parenthood. What, is Planned Parenthood supposed to run a background check on everyone saying they're family? That's ridiculous! This isn't the facility's fault--their daughter was dating a much older man, got pregnant, was too scared to tell her parents, and lied to get the procedure. Something tells me that's the common story they'll find in the records, and how is the facility supposed to know what are lies and what aren't?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-22-06 06:04 PM
Response to Reply #30
32. actually it is their fault in part
Ohio passed a law which clearly requires the permission of a parent not just some adult.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
knitter4democracy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-22-06 07:16 PM
Response to Reply #32
35. Really? Well, that is a problem.
Why would they let a "stepbrother" handle that, anyway? It is a medical procedure, and there are risks, minor though they are. If I found out my daughter did this, I'd be furious, but mostly at myself for her not feeling she could turn to me for this, not the facility.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-22-06 07:42 PM
Response to Reply #35
36. Frankly a step brother is a fairly far relative to be doing this sort of
thing. A brother or sister maybe but a step brother is another matter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
knitter4democracy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-23-06 07:54 AM
Response to Reply #36
44. That's what I was thinking, too.
My stepbrothers wouldn't have ever helped me with anything like that. I'm sure there are stepsiblings closer than I am with mine, though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BadgerKid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-22-06 06:11 PM
Response to Original message
34. HIPPA applicability?
http://privacyruleandresearch.nih.gov/patients.asp

Many people have concerns about who can see and use information about them, particularly information about their health. The U.S. Government created a rule, called the Privacy Rule, under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) to help protect your personal health information from being used or shared when it shouldn't be.

...

Will everyone who sees my personal health information have to protect it under the Privacy Rule?

Not always. There may be times when your personal health information is shared with someone who doesn't have to follow the Privacy Rule. Examples of people and organizations that may not have to follow the Privacy Rule are:

* Sponsors of the research study
* Makers of drugs for the study
* Some researchers

Even though some doctors, researchers, or organizations aren't covered entities under the Privacy Rule, many of them know it's important to keep your information private. They also may have to follow state or other national laws that protect your information.

...

If you think your privacy rights under the Privacy Rule were violated, you may complain to the "covered entity" (such as the doctor or hospital you visit for the research study). You may also complain to the Office for Civil Rights (OCR). Your complaint must be in writing. To complain to OCR:

* Send the complaint electronically by email to OCRComplaint@hhs.gov, or as a letter or fax to the OCR regional office where the possible violation happened. These regional offices are on the map and chart shown on the back cover, or you can find them on the OCR website at http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacyhowtofile.htm .
* Print and fill out the form found on the above website or send the same information to the OCR regional office. Name the person or organization you are complaining about, and describe how you think they didn't follow the Privacy Rule.
* Send in your complaint within 180 days of when you learned about the possible violation.
* Make sure that any possible violation happened on or after April 14, 2003, which is when the Privacy Rule protection started.

For more information on the Privacy Rule and for filing complaints go to the OCR website: http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/hipaa . You can also call OCR for free at 1 (800) 368-1019.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mtnester Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-22-06 08:22 PM
Response to Reply #34
37. As a HIPAA compliance officer where I work, this PISSES me off
Edited on Thu Jun-22-06 08:22 PM by mtnester
aside from the appalling lack of privacy and respect for a woman's right to her own body....I bust my ASS keeping compliant with the laws, cannot tell a cop who had an asshole let him get stuck with a used needle he did not tell the cop about in his pocket if he told our paramedics whether he was HIV positive or not....

Not only THAT, they are allowing the release of records of MINOR CHILDREN without the permission of the parents of said minor children (if you want to look at it in a weird way).

The level of work that goes into HIPAA compliance is daunting if you have never had to deal with it. And a judge just opened the window and pissed on the law itself. In front of everyone.

This goes farther up the justice food chain, I guarantee it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-22-06 08:26 PM
Response to Reply #37
38. No laws are absolute
and few priviledges are. For example, presumedly the cop who got stuck by the needle can have a judge compel the person to provide a blood test or a health department can inform the cop if he is indeed positive. If I get an AIDS test and it comes back positive any sexual partners of mine are informed that they are at risk. Not that I am positive but that they are at risk. In this case admittedly it is the same thing to tell the cop he is at risk and that this guy is positive but I presume the rule would still apply.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mtnester Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-22-06 08:38 PM
Response to Reply #38
39. That is true, a judge can order it....we have guys get stuck all the time
and puked on, etc. However, it would be NICE if we could say hey, he did not give us any listed drugs that are part of HIV maintenance, he SAID he was not HIV positive..etc. etc. However, the HIPAA compliance would allow me to provide the EMS report redacted...the ONLY thing I could show was the patients name. . . not vice verse with the patients name redacted and everything else open for view, based on the probable ability of the cop being able to associate the name of the person with that person's medical history....it gets so tricky when dealing with EMS and law enforcement...unlike the more sanitary and orderly HIPAA compliance of a doctor's office or clinic or hospital. It is more messy, more immediate, subject to tighter restrictions. We can really only give that information if the police do NOT know who the suspect is and the suspect/patient is deemed to be a dangerous and imminent threat to the well being of the community (same for health department inquiries as far as contagious diseases)...if the cops want the info, they gotta ducas tecum.

The exception can also make is for children's services....in the cases of child abuse...if they are called in, they get them immediately...but even they cannot share with the cops.

HIPAA aside...again I state that releasing the names of the MINOR patients treated, for whatever reason, by PP is in violation by releasing that information of a minor child without permission from said child's parents.

Now, you go to Texas (and I think portions of other states, even varying by county/city/village/parrish), and their state attorney, from what I understand, says their EMS do not have to be HIPAA complaint at all, even if they bill for services...go figure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-22-06 08:43 PM
Response to Reply #39
40. i agree the judge messed up here
in that he should have looked at the records and provided plaintiff with the numbers of those who hadn't had parents asked for permission. That was the only relevent issue here. I also wonder if all the plaintiffs got was names redacted on forms that showed permission had been obtained. I feel for the EMS people, my brother is an xray tech and has been in similar positions. It seems some way should be found to inform the cops without violating hippa.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mtnester Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-22-06 08:56 PM
Response to Reply #40
41. I hear you...street HIPAA compliance is a bitch
it is mostly by the seat of your pants...the word is, when in doubt, don't give it out. It is a mess...it just sucks to tell a spouse whose hubby or wife is in the hospital and they stop by to get a copy of the EMS report (and we even KNOW the person, maybe grew up with them) that they cannot have the report without it being totally redacted. Even TOUCHIER is a spouse who comes in and asks for the report and I say no, then they say their spouse died (maybe we did not know) and even though I can release them once a person dies, they have to have the coroner or a family physician call me and confirm the death or come in with a death certificate...not fucking pleasant no matter how compassionate you try to be.

HIPAA - good idea with good intentions written by everyone NOT in the medical field, and with a total combined common sense IQ of ZERO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anotherdrew Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-23-06 03:06 PM
Response to Original message
48. yank that judge off the bench, he's a criminal not a judge.
he needs to be ruined for this obscene ruling
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
williesgirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-23-06 07:48 PM
Response to Original message
50. They're on a fishing expedition, they should have to provide proof
they know others have occured at the very least. They are invading other's privacy to fish for the meat for their stupid lawsuit.

Let them explain how getting money from this place is going to remove the fact their daughter had an abortion. It won't and her name will eventually be leaked out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nealmhughes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-23-06 11:50 PM
Response to Original message
52. When have supposedly confidential records ever been turned over for
a civil case? Ever? It's nigh impossible to get them in criminal proceedngs, I understand. I thought that like marriage, clergy and attorney-client privledges this was sanctrosanct.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Festivito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-26-06 09:37 AM
Response to Original message
53. We USed to protect the unprotected even more than ourselves.
Now being underage means one has no rights,
being from a different country,
being outside the country, means the same:
no American rights, no rights
even though we base our very existence on rights endowed by our creator;
a creator that transcends such political boundaries
in and from this concept that allows us to continue to exist.

We may find some temporary security,
but we have given away
our opportunity to survive as a nation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
w4rma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-26-06 01:43 PM
Response to Original message
54. Might be best to shred those documents, soon. (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
McCamy Taylor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-26-06 03:56 PM
Response to Original message
55. Appeal it. Where is the AMA and State Medical Society?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Nov 21st 2017, 05:18 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC