« What Causes Rape? Anatomy of a rape culture

Home
Iraqi women’s rights: Send a letter to George W. Bush »

Ashcroft goes after medical records of women who have had abortions

Posted by Ampersand | February 11th, 2004

Lis at Riba Rambles has highlighted an interesting news story. The case is National Abortion Federation vs. John Ashcroft, in which the NAF is trying to get the so-called “partial birth” abortion ban overturned. One of the parties suing is a doctor who performs late-term abortions.

Ashcroft’s lawyers tried to subpheona the medical records of the doctor’s patients from the hospital. Although they agreed to let the hospital strike off the patients’ names, they reserved the right to try and get further identifying information from the hospital later.

Happily, the court slapped the attempt down - Lis has quotes from the ruling. Still, it’s scarey stuff, and yet another example of how little Ashcroft seems to understand the notion of “privacy.” Especially, of course, as applied to pregnant women.

Update Will Baude responds:

Why is it that people feel compelled to accuse Ashcroft of not understanding “privacy” rather than, say, understanding perfectly well, but disagreeing about what should be private?

I think Will overestimates how literal my readers are. I trust that “Alas, a Blog” readers, being smartish sorts, realize that a smart, accomplished politician like Ashcroft comprehends arguments that he disagrees with. They would therefore not take my words literally.

What if I had said something along the lines of Will’s suggestion? “Ashcroft understands privacy perfectly well, of course, while disagreeing with me on what is private.” That version would better suit literal-minded readers, but would have failed to effectively communicate my disdain for Ashcroft and the (in my opinion) anti-women views he represents.

My original version isn’t as literal, but better communicates my attitude.

Of course, if I were engaged in direct debate with Mr. Ashcroft, that would be a reason to choose the more polite version. But I think expressing disdain (and in this case, heartfelt disdain) for the views of public figures is perfectly reasonable rhetoric.

SECOND UPDATE: This cracked me up. My, this post has generated some odd criticisms. Anyhow, point well taken; I’ve made a correction.

| This entry was posted by Ampersand and is filed under "Partial Birth" Abortion, Abortion & reproductive rights. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

11 Responses to “Ashcroft goes after medical records of women who have had abortions”

  1. Crescat Sententia Writes:
    February 11th, 2004 at 10:16 pm

    Comprehension and Disagreement
    Why is it that people feel compelled to accuse Ashcroft of not understanding “privacy” rather than, say, understanding perfectly well, but disagreeing about what should be private?…

    This comment was written by Crescat Sententia.
    Report this comment to the moderators
  2. DFMoore: Pizzazz, Panache, and a Phoenix Writes:
    February 12th, 2004 at 5:18 am

    Referencing a blog with a comma in the title
    (Note - I must come up with better titles of posts) In reading this post from Will, I stumbled on this odd sentence structure here: I think Will overestimates how literal my readers are. I trust that Alas, a Blog…

    This comment was written by DFMoore: Pizzazz, Panache, and a Phoenix.
    Report this comment to the moderators
  3. karpad Writes:
    February 12th, 2004 at 7:42 am

    might I propose a third option?
    “Mr. Ashcroft understands privacy perfectly well, but feels he has no reason to respect the privacy of others, and therefore simply disregards privacy on the whole”

    medical records are one of the few things in our culture that are inarguably private. if anyone is serious proposing that someone might “disagree” with the privacy afforded by Doctor-patient privalege, then they are not in simple disagreement, they’re dead wrong.

    This comment was written by karpad.
    Report this comment to the moderators
  4. Stentor Writes:
    February 12th, 2004 at 8:40 am

    DF Moore’s comment and your correction presuppose the answer to an important issue: are blog titles italicized, or put in quotation marks? I would lean toward italicizing a blog title, on the grounds that usually when you have a larger work made up of subparts, the larger work is italicized whereas the subparts get quotes. So the song “Electrolite” was on New Adventures in Hi-Fi, the story “Man Bites Dog” ran in The New York Times, and the post “Ashcroft goes after medical records …” appeared in Alas, a Blog.

    This comment was written by Stentor.
    Report this comment to the moderators
  5. Beth Writes:
    February 12th, 2004 at 8:47 am

    Actually they are not “inarguably” private. That’s a persistent misconception, but medical records are subject to subpoena in many situations, and at times patient information can become part of the public record without the patient having ever consented to disclosure. (Think medical malpractice suits, some criminal cases, even cases where someone testifies as a witness but has medical issues that might impeach their perception or credibility.)

    I’m not in any way suggesting that the disclosure of these abortion records is okay — frankly, it horrifies me — but it also worries me that Americans are so convinced that their medical records are sacred, when it’s just not so.

    This comment was written by Beth.
    Report this comment to the moderators
  6. Lis Writes:
    February 12th, 2004 at 9:11 am

    By the way, the big papers — New York Times & Washington Post — have finally written articles on the issue

    This comment was written by Lis.
    Report this comment to the moderators
  7. acm Writes:
    February 12th, 2004 at 9:44 am

    ugh, imagine these prosecutors tracking down each woman to determine whether they were “encouraged or pressured” to have a particular procedure. as though any of them would want to discuss this with a legal beagle. I suppose they could be subpoenaed? (with spelling caveats and panics)

    just evil, that Ashcroft. let’s talk about a sense of entitlement and lack of empathy . . .

    This comment was written by acm.
    Report this comment to the moderators
  8. acm Writes:
    February 12th, 2004 at 10:29 am

    Actually, this is sort of a Catch-22: how do you prove that late-term abortions are “medically necessary” (as the doctors contend) without reference to the files/histories of the women whose health necessitated such a procedure? Obviously, you don’t want to open those women to Ashcroftian abuse, but you need to be able to present facts/data in the case…

    Thoughts?

    This comment was written by acm.
    Report this comment to the moderators
  9. Lis Writes:
    February 12th, 2004 at 11:39 am

    Actually, this is sort of a Catch-22: how do you prove that late-term abortions are “medically necessary” (as the doctors contend) without reference to the files/histories of the women whose health necessitated such a procedure?

    That’s directly addressed in Judge Kocoras’ ruling:

    The government seeks these records on the possibility that it may find something therein which would affect the testimony of Dr. Hammond adversely, that is, for its potential value in impeaching his credibility as a witness. What the government ignores in its argument is how little, if any, probative value lies within these patient records and the ready availability of information traditionally used to challenge the veracity of Dr. Hammond’s scientific assertions and medical opinions. The presence or absence of medical risks, their likelihood and nature are undoubtably described and discussed in available medical literature. Challenges to Dr. Hammond’s views would be readily available, as would the enlistment of experts supporting contrary opinions. The search for the truth that any hearing or trial seeks to produce would hardly be infringed by finding that a physician-patient privilege exists in these circumstances.

    This comment was written by Lis.
    Report this comment to the moderators
  10. blargblog Writes:
    February 12th, 2004 at 12:23 pm

    Patient Rights Aborted
    The U.S. Department of Justice—you know, the one run by crisco-annointed John Ashcroft—has demanded hundreds of patient medical records of women who have had an abortion. Why? So they can defend the ban on so-called “partial-birth abortions” from a leg…

    This comment was written by blargblog.
    Report this comment to the moderators
  11. Sappho's Breathing Writes:
    February 12th, 2004 at 4:22 pm

    What I’ve been reading while I haven’t been writing
    So much interesting writing, so little time: (1) I’m riding Atrios’ coattails’ by providing this link, but Gail Sheedhy’s New York Observer article about the questions not being asked in the 9/11 commission makes me ill. I’m warning you: it’s…

    This comment was written by Sappho's Breathing.
    Report this comment to the moderators

Leave a Reply

If you have questions about the moderation policies here, please read this post. Short version: treat other posters with respect.

(Need to know how to create blockquotes and links, i.e., linked text?)

If your submitted comment fails to appear, without even an error or "waiting for moderation" message, then our spam-blocking program may have blocked your comment by mistake. When this happens, please contact the moderators right away so we can rescue your comment!