Ascroft is out of control

[txlovely]

Justice subpoenas Planned Parenthood records
Part of government defense in partial-birth lawsuitsThe Associated Press
Updated: 11:01 a.m. ET Feb. 27, 2004

WASHINGTON - The Justice Department has subpoenaed hundreds of medical records from six Planned Parenthood sites as part of the government’s defense in lawsuits challenging the Partial-Birth Abortion Act.

According to court documents, Justice Department lawyers say the records — which would be edited to remove names and other personal information — are essential to defend the law against the lawsuits brought by Planned Parenthood and doctor groups around the country.

The suits challenge the law that prohibits a procedure referred to by critics as partial-birth abortion but by medical organizations as “intact dilation and extraction.” During the procedure, a fetus’s legs and torso are pulled from the uterus before its skull is punctured.

Planned Parenthood has resisted producing the medical records, which critics of the subpoenas say threatens the privacy of patients and could intimidate doctors and clinics that provide abortions.

“We believe it is an invasion of confidential medical records,” Planned Parenthood spokeswoman Elizabeth Toledo said Thursday. “People ought to have a reasonable expectation of privacy.”

Toledo said several hundred records were being sought from Planned Parenthood affiliates that serve western Pennsylvania; San Diego; Los Angeles; New York City; Kansas/Mid-Missouri; and the Washington metro area. The Justice Department is focusing on those to produce a geographic sample and because many of Planned Parenthood’s expert witnesses work at the six sites.

Planned Parenthood Federation of America, founded in 1916 and based in New York, runs 900 health centers in 49 states and serves about 5 million people each year.

The Justice Department also is seeking similar records from six hospitals where doctors who are challenging the partial-birth abortion law did the procedure. The department is encountering resistance over privacy concerns.

The department recently filed a motion seeking to force Planned Parenthood to produce the records in U.S. District Court in San Francisco. The trial is scheduled to begin March 29.

Planned Parenthood and the Justice Department have reached an agreement on how to protect the identities of any records that do become a part of the case. Attorney General John Ashcroft has insisted that the government has no interest in learning the identity of any patient.

The lawsuits claim that the ban on this contested type of abortion is unconstitutional because it is too broad and lacks an exception for a woman’s health.

© 2004 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

This is an outrageous and egregious attack on right to privacy and it frightens me to think that it is even being considered. Can't our govenment focus on issues like the out-of-control national debt, failing school systems, the service men and women still fighting and dying overseas, etc.? Instead they're focusing on Janet Jackson's tit and violating privacy rights.

That's my rant for the aftenoon.

[seretogis]

Attorney General John Ashcroft has insisted that the government has no interest in learning the identity of any patient.

*blink blink* Don't you trust the government?

[tecoyah]

slippery slope....slippery slope

[Lebell]

Bush I am tolerating...barely...but Ashcroft has got to go.

[seretogis]

Originally posted by tecoyah
slippery slope....slippery slope

Is that the cue for a half dozen liberals to post on this thread berating the "slippery slope fallacy"?

[Ustwo]

I don't quite get why liberals get their panties in a bunch about Ascroft for doing his job of law enforcement. He isn't writing his own laws, and everything is still working in the courts. Take the 'abortion' out of the above mess and no one would give a shit about him going after doctors doing illegal operations.

[Lebell]

Originally posted by Ustwo
I don't quite get why liberals get their panties in a bunch about Ascroft for doing his job of law enforcement. He isn't writing his own laws, and everything is still working in the courts. Take the 'abortion' out of the above mess and no one would give a shit about him going after doctors doing illegal operations.

A lot of conservatives get their panties in a bunch over Ashcroft as well.

[Ustwo]

Originally posted by Lebell
A lot of conservatives get their panties in a bunch over Ashcroft as well.

With Libertarian style conservatives I see that, and I consider myself to be one, but I don't blame the man for doing the job he has. If you don't like it blame the laws, but I'd be more worried about an attorney general who decided which laws he wanted to enforce and which he would ignore.

[floydthebarber]

The man is scary. I'm sure glad you guys got him and not us.

[Lebell]

Originally posted by Ustwo
With Libertarian style conservatives I see that, and I consider myself to be one, but I don't blame the man for doing the job he has. If you don't like it blame the laws, but I'd be more worried about an attorney general who decided which laws he wanted to enforce and which he would ignore.

Well, that is a good point and of course, why I don't like Ashcroft.

[txlovely]

Originally posted by Ustwo
I don't quite get why liberals get their panties in a bunch about Ascroft for doing his job of law enforcement. He isn't writing his own laws, and everything is still working in the courts. Take the 'abortion' out of the above mess and no one would give a shit about him going after doctors doing illegal operations.

I disagree - my panties aren't in a bunch . Doctors need an incredible amount of regulation, some of which must be done by our government for the protection of all Americans. I just don't agree with a violation of doctor/patient privilege.

[tecoyah]

Originally posted by Ustwo
With Libertarian style conservatives I see that, and I consider myself to be one, but I don't blame the man for doing the job he has. If you don't like it blame the laws, but I'd be more worried about an attorney general who decided which laws he wanted to enforce and which he would ignore.

Hmmmm...you mean like ignoring the enron dabacle, sorry not ignoring, just not enforcing.

[filtherton]

Well, i guess as long as they aren't attempting to supeona the medical records of one rush limbaugh it is a-okay. Wait, is that a conservative double standard? hmmm.

[Ustwo]

Originally posted by filtherton
Well, i guess as long as they aren't attempting to supeona the medical records of one rush limbaugh it is a-okay. Wait, is that a conservative double standard? hmmm.

Actually no its not a double standard. While the Justice Department went the legal route to obtain the records, the DA in Florida issued a search warrant and seized them from the doctors offices. This is why they were re-sealed in the Rush case, and this was just one of MANY irregularities on how the DA down there had handled Rush's case.

[filtherton]

Damn, you've seen through my vast oversimplification of the issues!!

[onetime2]

Originally posted by filtherton
Well, i guess as long as they aren't attempting to supeona the medical records of one rush limbaugh it is a-okay. Wait, is that a conservative double standard? hmmm.

First off, all information that would identify the patient would be removed, so it's not anywhere near the same thing. Second, information about procedures (without patient ID's) is already VERY available. This would simply provide information specific to the procedures Planned Parenthood completed.

If these records were seeking the records including the personal information about the patients, I would be completely against it. According to this article that is not the case.