Ashcroft seeks Planned Parenthod Records

[FlaSoxxJim]

He's using the same argument he did in requesting medical record a few weeks ago. Medical professionals have protested the "partial-birth" ban, saying that the procedure is medically necessary in cases of emergencies. Do decide if this is indeed the case, the Justice Department has decided that medical privacy of thousands of patients should be invaded and the records examined.

 

The entire ABCnews story is here

 

The article raises an important point in that now the expectation of privacy for patients using Planned Parenthood is undermined by this action.

 

But Planned Parenthood officials say that patients' identities can be ascertained from medical records even if names and addresses are expunged. Less than 10 percent of the procedures the organization and its affiliates perform are abortion-related, they say, and they fear the subpoenas will scare away their patients.

 

"The women who come to Planned Parenthood are now going to be afraid that their medical records and procedures are not going to be private," said Jatrice Martel Gaiter, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood of Metropolitan Washington, D.C., one of the subpoenaed affiliates. "They are going to stop coming. They are going to stop getting reproductive health services that include breast exams, Pap smears and HIV testing and counseling."

[mreye]

"The women who come to Planned Parenthood are now going to be afraid that their medical records and procedures are not going to be private," said Jatrice Martel Gaiter, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood of Metropolitan Washington, D.C., one of the subpoenaed affiliates. "They are going to stop coming. They are going to stop getting reproductive health services that include breast exams, Pap smears and HIV testing and counseling."

 

And the world's going to end and the sky is going to fall and the Cubs are going to win the World Series...blah blah blah.

[southsider2k5]

Not to knitpick and all but, I wouldn't go a a doctor who wouldn't guarentee my privacy, espesially as a teen kid who might be into things that they shouldn't be.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Open ended access to medical records? I thought doctor-patient privilege was sacrosanct.

 

MrEye, this creates a slippery slope. If the government is allowed open access to these, then who is to say that they can't go after more and more medical records not related to this?

[mreye]

Not to knitpick and all but, I wouldn't go a a doctor who wouldn't guarentee my privacy, espesially as a teen kid who might be into things that they shouldn't be.

That's part of the problem with "Planned" Parenthood. A teen should NOT be guaranteed privacy in the first place. It undermines the parents authority.

[mreye]

"Ashcroft's actions are a sweeping invasion into medical privacy," Elizabeth Toledo, vice president of communications for Planned Parenthood Federation of America, told ABCNEWS. "He has been overzealous in his desire to attack access to legal abortions in this country."

 

 

Abortion rights opponents agree. "They're only interested in the medical facts and the proof that that procedure was, as these doctors allege, medically necessary," Rep. Melissa Hart, R-Pa., an Ashcroft ally and abortion rights foe, told ABCNEWS.

 

Look at these two quotes. See a problem? Let me help..."vice president of communications for Planned Parenthood Federation of America". OK, that's fine until this comes: "an Ashcroft ally and abortion rights foe". What does that have to do with anything? Why not label Ms. Toledo as a "Pro-Life foe"? Pathetic. :puke

[mreye]

Open ended access to medical records?  I thought doctor-patient privilege was sacrosanct.

 

MrEye, this creates a slippery slope.  If the government is allowed open access to these, then who is to say that they can't go after more and more medical records not related to this?

I understand your "slippery slope" point, and most definitely agree with it...BUT...

 

Two weeks ago, the Justice Department subpoenaed medical records from five university hospitals, stemming from a similar lawsuit against the Justice Department filed by a group of doctors. "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," the attorney general said on Feb. 12.

 

...isn't the government allowed to defend itself? Medical records are sobpoenaed all the time.

[Queen Prawn]

That's part of the problem with "Planned" Parenthood. A teen should NOT be guaranteed privacy in the first place. It undermines the parents authority.

I agree with this 10000000000% (yeah, my math is off, but gimme a break - I'm have a crappy day ). A teen needs parental permission for ear piercing and can't get a tatoo, but should be able to get an abortion without parental permission? That seems a little bassackwards to me...but then again I am half Polish .

[cwsox]

Oh life is so good in Father Knows Best Land

 

 

where fathers and more likely step fathers sexual molest their children/step children and Mom doesn't care because she's had so many men and this one is a good one and she doesn't want to lose him

 

and you would deny a young girl her right to privacy to get medical attention?

 

Give me a f***ing break, people who subsitute ideology and platitudes for where reality should be

 

now since I have worked with Planned Parenthood and worked for Catholic Family Services with children who were being abused by their parents I realise I know nothing however I really will suggest that this whole "parental authority" argument is a crock of s***.

 

You don't have the right to lock a child in the basement or keep a child in a cage. In the real world, where gets get pregannt by their stepfatehrs who beat them and even the moms beat them for being therefore sluts or a risk to the man that they want to keep,

 

and where the cliches about getting tattoos and ear piercings aren't all that true either - but where they are, there is a difference bewteen a voluntary tatoo and an incestuous pregnancy in the life of a 14 year ol,d and at some point f*** parental rights and recognise the rights of the child as an individual to get the help and medical attention she needs in privacy

[FlaSoxxJim]

I agree with this 10000000000% (yeah, my math is off, but gimme a break - I'm have a crappy day    ).  A teen needs parental permission for ear piercing and can't get a tatoo, but should be able to get an abortion without parental permission?  That seems a little bassackwards to me...but then again I am half Polish  .

The argument in favor of parental notification is important and valid for many reasons, I do not oppose the debate (not saying I think legally forcing notification of requiring consent is right - but I respect the debate), and I understand the desire of parents to be informed. But that is not the issue here.

 

The issue is the threat to the expectation of doctor-patient confidentiality for EVERY PATIENT serveed by Planned parenthood and similar agencies. Remember, 90% of the visits are NOT abortion-related. Patients will think twice before getting AIDS tests, cancer screanings, and regular OB/GYN stuff that these agencies do and these clients need. Is our nation's self-proclaimed commitment to a new era of proactive health care is just more lip service? It seems that way if teh Justice Department is allowed to bully doctors, clinics, and patients to the point that patients beging to opt against needed services (including the vital patient education that takes place during visits).

 

If the Justice Department wants data, they should commission a study NOW, that doesn't bully doctors and patients and doesn't compromise medical confidientality. Clinics could answer questions about each new early-second trimester abortion requested/performed on separate, non-identifying forms, and limiting responses to the necessity of the procedure. I mean, when you think about it, all JD says it is interested in is those relatively few specific cases. Why should the privacy of all first trimester/medical (chemical) abortion records be jeopardized? What about all the non-abortion records? The answer is that part of the reason this is happening is because Ashcroft means to intimidate the doctors and clinics who perform abortions and the women who receive them.

[Queen Prawn]

 

Sorry, cw, but kids can't legally (at least in the Chicago area) get their ears pierced or tatoos before the age of 18 without written parental consent. You can cuss and say it isn't true until you are blue in the face, it doesn't make you correct.

 

I pray that when I have kids they have enough intelligence to go to an adult before running off to a bunch of strangers to get an abortion.

 

Also, don't lecture me about sex abuse - I know about it all too well (no, I didn't experience it but I know several who have).

[Soxy]

Why can't these debated teens ask their parents for birth control? Wouldn't that save more than a few abortions? I mean the problem runs so much deeper than just abortion. There is so much in our society that creates no open dialogue about sexuality and sex--until those kind of discussions open up I'm confused as to how the problem will get better. I know it's not exactly the same issue--but I feel like it springs from the same well of not talking about the issue...

[Queen Prawn]

The argument in favor of parental notification is important and valid for many reasons, I do not oppose the debate (not saying I think legally forcing notification of requiring consent is right - but I respect the debate), and I understand the desire of parents to be informed.  But that is not the issue here.

I was responding to the tangent thread in here about teen kids having privacy.

 

I understand parents can be monsters, but to allow all teenage girls to get abortions without telling parents because of the few parents that are monsters is...I don't know what it is, but it isn't right . Many of these girls don't tell their parents what is going on because they are scared not because the parents are monsters (this is coming from someone who was a teenage girl at some point in the past - I never had an abortion, but I knew a few girls from HS that did).

[mreye]

and where the cliches about getting tattoos and ear piercings aren't all that true either - but where they are, there is a difference bewteen a voluntary tatoo and an incestuous pregnancy in the life of a 14 year ol,d and at some point f*** parental rights and recognise the rights of the child as an individual to get the help and medical attention she needs in privacy

Yep, All 14 year old abortions are because of incest?

 

Cw, I did not have a Father KNows Best life. I didn't have a worst case scenario either, but I still feel strongly about this. Kids can't get aspirin at school without the parents permission. Why not? It doesn't make sense.

[baggio202]

i dont see how anyone can argue that parents should not be informed of their daughter getting an abortion...making a lw that benefits 1 or 2% of the population at the expense of the other 98-99% is not helping society

[BrandoFan]

The argument in favor of parental notification is important and valid for many reasons, I do not oppose the debate (not saying I think legally forcing notification of requiring consent is right - but I respect the debate), and I understand the desire of parents to be informed.  But that is not the issue here.

 

The issue is the threat to the expectation of doctor-patient confidentiality for EVERY PATIENT serveed by Planned parenthood and similar agencies.  Remember, 90% of the visits are NOT abortion-related.  Patients will think twice before getting AIDS tests, cancer screanings, and regular OB/GYN stuff that these agencies do and these clients need.  Is our nation's self-proclaimed commitment to a new era of proactive health care is just more lip service?  It seems that way if teh Justice Department is allowed to bully doctors, clinics, and patients to the point that patients beging to opt against needed services (including the vital patient education that takes place during visits).

 

If the Justice Department wants data, they should commission a study NOW, that doesn't bully doctors and patients and doesn't compromise medical confidientality.  Clinics could answer questions about each new early-second trimester abortion requested/performed on separate, non-identifying forms, and limiting responses to the necessity of the procedure.  I mean, when you think about it, all JD says it is interested in is those relatively few specific cases.  Why should the privacy of all first trimester/medical (chemical) abortion records be jeopardized?  What about all the non-abortion records?  The answer is that part of the reason this is happening is because Ashcroft means to intimidate the doctors and clinics who perform abortions and the women who receive them.

What a world we live in, eh?

[LowerCaseRepublican]

i dont see how anyone can argue that parents should not be informed of their daughter getting an abortion...making a lw that benefits 1 or 2% of the population at the expense of the other 98-99% is not helping society

Many parents can get violent if they find out that their 14-15 yr. old has had sex. That's the natural reaction of parents...

 

Most parents (especially fathers) go absolutely apes*** when they find out a kid did something without their knowledge (i.e. get a bellybutton piercing, get caught drinking etc. etc.). I know because a friend of mine had to hid a tat she got because her dad would have went absolutely apes*** and get out of control being angry. Now, imagine that you find out your daughter got knocked up...odds are first thing parents would do is wanna beat the s*** out of the kid that did it and have a very potentially violent reaction.

 

So, if you were a kid would you want that sort of reaction to happen if you could help it? Its a protective measure against the possibility of violence that most parents would inflict and also the judgment that some parents would place on their kids.

[mreye]

Many parents can get violent if they find out that their 14-15 yr. old has had sex.  That's the natural reaction of parents...

 

Most parents (especially fathers) go absolutely apes*** when they find out a kid did something without their knowledge (i.e. get a bellybutton piercing, get caught drinking etc. etc.).  I know because a friend of mine had to hid a tat she got because her dad would have went absolutely apes*** and get out of control being angry.  Now, imagine that you find out your daughter got knocked up...odds are first thing parents would do is wanna beat the s*** out of the kid that did it and have a very potentially violent reaction.

 

So, if you were a kid would you want that sort of reaction to happen if you could help it?  Its a protective measure against the possibility of violence that most parents would inflict and also the judgment that some parents would place on their kids.

That entire reponse is absolute BS! "Most parents"? "Many parents"? "Odds are"? "Natural reaction"?

 

Come off of it. Not all or even most parents are violent. I feel sorry for you.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

That entire reponse is absolute BS! "Most parents"? "Many parents"? "Odds are"? "Natural reaction"?

 

Come off of it. Not all or even most parents are violent. I feel sorry for you.

Yeah and parents don't go absolutely apes*** when they find out their kid did something wrong like got busted for alcohol or what not. Right?

[Queen Prawn]

Yeah and parents don't go absolutely apes*** when they find out their kid did something wrong like got busted for alcohol or what not.  Right? 

My mom and dad didn't when my sister came home with news that she was pregnant (and not married) with a biracial child. They weren't happy about her being pregnant and not married (the biracial was a problem for my dad at first - now when my neph is over, my dad hogs his attention ), but they dealt and now love the little guy.

 

Nathan (neph)->

[IlliniBob72]

Jesus, Apu! Are you 13 years old? Abortions for minors without consent should be OK because Mommy and Daddy may get mad? Parents are supposed to go "apes***" when their kids get arrested for underage drinking "and whatnot". It shouldn't be the duty of the authorities to help Jimmy and Joanie keep it from their parents when they are caught doing what they shouldn't.

[Controlled Chaos]

Oh my god....Can most of you normal people here see how ridiculous liberals really are. The stuff I am hearing here is absolutely insane.

 

Anyway here are a few facts...I know the libs don't want to use facts, but here ya go

 

Abortions based on the mother's health account for 3% of abortions. Abortions based on the baby's health account for 3% of abortions. Total: 6% Abortions from rape or incest 1%.

 

Just look at the statitistics they don't lie...

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0904509.html

 

In 2000, 1.31 million abortions took place....1.3 MILLION

 

Anyway I think the parents should be notified. Will they be upset...hell yeah!! Will they beat their daughter....doubtful. If they did hit their duaghter over that then would hit them over other things as well....which just means they're bad parents.

 

 

Before I am pitted as some radical pro life right wing freak. Let me say I am not. I beleive abortion is valid in cases such as health,rape or incest, but I believe the statistics back me up that probably 90% of abortions performed now are out of convenience.

 

Anyway just my opinion

[baggio202]

Many parents can get violent if they find out that their 14-15 yr. old has had sex.  That's the natural reaction of parents...

 

Most parents (especially fathers) go absolutely apes*** when they find out a kid did something without their knowledge (i.e. get a bellybutton piercing, get caught drinking etc. etc.).  I know because a friend of mine had to hid a tat she got because her dad would have went absolutely apes*** and get out of control being angry.  Now, imagine that you find out your daughter got knocked up...odds are first thing parents would do is wanna beat the s*** out of the kid that did it and have a very potentially violent reaction.

 

So, if you were a kid would you want that sort of reaction to happen if you could help it?  Its a protective measure against the possibility of violence that most parents would inflict and also the judgment that some parents would place on their kids.

no no no no no

 

first off..any 14 or 15 year old girl that gets pregnant (outside of a rape) should expect their parents to be pissed..to go apes*** as you say...every parent would have a right to be extremely upset with thier daughter for that...its part of taking responsibility...you dont expect the parents to say...ohh look honey , our 14 year old daughter is sexually active and now shes gonna have a baby..yipeee...lets party!!!...

 

but because something might upset the parents YOU CAN NOT TAKE AWAY THEIR RIGHT TO PARENT THEIR CHILDREN...

 

a 14 year old girl in no way is mature enough to make a decision like abortion...do you know what kind of problems that leads to when those girls become adults and have to deal with the fact that they killed their unborn child???

 

when you have kids approaching sexually active years you'll understand

[Queen Prawn]

when you have kids approaching sexually active years you'll understand

I don't have kids, but I completely understand.

[FlaSoxxJim]

no no no no no

 

first off..any 14 or 15 year old girl that gets pregnant (outside of a rape) should expect their parents to be pissed..to go apes*** as you say...every parent would have a right to be extremely upset with thier daughter for that...its part of taking responsibility...you dont expect the parents to say...ohh look honey , our 14 year old daughter is sexually active and now shes gonna have a baby..yipeee...lets party!!!...

 

but because something might upset the parents YOU CAN NOT TAKE AWAY THEIR RIGHT TO PARENT THEIR CHILDREN...

 

a 14 year old girl in no way is mature enough to make a decision like abortion...do you know what kind of problems that leads to when those girls become adults and have to deal with the fact that they killed their unborn child???

 

when you have kids approaching sexually active years you'll understand

It will be pointless to initiate this debate again, and all sides chiming in now have done so in the past. For what it's worth, I think a lot of people who think women should have more say in their reproductive rights than the government think that there is something to be said for not propagating errors, perpetuating the cycle of a bad situation.

 

calling abortions matters of "convenience" (I know you did not here) is an epic understatement. Most abortions that are not done for reasons of health of mother or fetus are NOT things entered into lightly. On the contrary, this would be one of the most difficult decisions in a woman's life. 14 year old girls usually are not as mature as one would ideally hope when faced with a decision like that. But they are also not mature enough - let alone educated enough or psychologically and monetarily able to successfully take on motherhood. Similarly, many of them do not have a network of family support to fall back on. So, a legal solution forcing this girl to drop out of school and dash any hope of living above the poverty line to have a baby who has still less chance to succed in his/her own life? It's all so easy when you don't worry about considering any lives in the situation other than that of the fetus. Once the fetus pops out and is just another of the millions of

a poor, neglected, hopeless kids then screw it.

 

Unfortunately, girls can and do get pregnant at that age, and far too many of them at that. A reactive approach is to make damn sure that girl has that baby regardless of her ability to raise it or turn to family who can. A proactive approach is to address the disease an not the symptoms. A big, should-be obvious

part of the solution is education, access to honest information and effective birth control, etc. - as noted by Apu (who is apparently a very bright 13 year old if Bob was right about his age). It's infuriating whhen the people who so oppose reproductive choice are soooo often the same people that make sure sex education in the schools is firmly rooted in the 30s, and that condoms are not made freely and anonomously available to this at-risk sexually active age group because that somehow promotes/endorses/condones teen promiscuity. Teens have been having sex for 1000s of years and will continue to do so despite all efforts to stop it/ignore it/moralize against it, etc.

 

There isn't another person here who wishes that open dialog within loving, supportive families was the rule an not the exception as much as I do. Sadly, that's not the case.