Privacy in Peril
February 14, 2004
In an attempt to bolster its defense of the
unconstitutional Partial Birth Abortion Act of 2003, the
Bush administration has gone beyond its campaign to destroy
women's reproductive rights and has attacked the privacy
rights of all Americans.
This assault is being conducted through subpoenas the
Justice Department has issued demanding that at least six
hospitals in New York City, Philadelphia, Illinois and
elsewhere turn over hundreds of patient records for certain
abortions. This egregious intrusion on patients' privacy is
being pursued in the name of defending lawsuits against the
abortion ban. Not only is the information not needed to do
that, but it is also a flagrant example of why Congress and
the attorney general have no business second-guessing
sensitive medical decisions made by individuals and their
doctors.
Judges in New York and Nebraska have barred the
administration from enforcing the abortion law in response
to suits brought by groups of doctors, who have argued,
correctly, that the ban should be struck down because of
imprecise wording and the lack of an exception to protect a
woman's health. A narrow Supreme Court majority struck down
a state ban in 2000 for omitting a health exception.
Attorney General John Ashcroft says the fishing expedition
his department has started is justified to evaluate whether
the procedures covered by the law are ever necessary to
preserve a woman's health. In a sound ruling last week, a
federal judge in Illinois rebuffed this flimsy argument.
Citing state and federal law, as well as Supreme Court
precedent, the judge, Charles Kocoras, also rejected the
Ashcroft team's astonishing claim that no doctor-patient
privilege exists under federal law protecting patients from
public disclosure of their records.
Unfortunately, the federal judge in New York overseeing one
of the legal challenges to the new law does not grasp his
duty to protect patient privacy. That judge, Richard Conway
Casey of New York's Southern District, has threatened to
lift his injunction blocking enforcement of the abortion
ban if leading hospitals in New York City and elsewhere
fail to produce files on at least several dozen women's
abortions.
Underscoring the legally dubious nature of Judge Casey's
threat, the hospitals in question are not themselves
parties to the lawsuit. Nor, for that matter, are the women
whose personal privacy Mr. Ashcroft is so determined to
invade. Moreover, as Judge Kocoras aptly noted, redacting a
patient's name and identification number from her file
neither ends the harm to individuals of having intimate
details of their medical history publicly disclosed, nor
adequately protects the patients' identities.
We applaud those hospitals that are resisting Mr.
Ashcroft's privacy invasion, and encourage them to stand
firm until the legal proceedings run their course.
Meanwhile, Americans should see Mr. Ashcroft's intimidating
tactics for the dangerous threat to liberty and privacy
they really are.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/14/opinion/14SAT1.html?ex=1077787524&ei=1&en=dc44c89f8a568f21
February 14, 2004
In an attempt to bolster its defense of the
unconstitutional Partial Birth Abortion Act of 2003, the
Bush administration has gone beyond its campaign to destroy
women's reproductive rights and has attacked the privacy
rights of all Americans.
This assault is being conducted through subpoenas the
Justice Department has issued demanding that at least six
hospitals in New York City, Philadelphia, Illinois and
elsewhere turn over hundreds of patient records for certain
abortions. This egregious intrusion on patients' privacy is
being pursued in the name of defending lawsuits against the
abortion ban. Not only is the information not needed to do
that, but it is also a flagrant example of why Congress and
the attorney general have no business second-guessing
sensitive medical decisions made by individuals and their
doctors.
Judges in New York and Nebraska have barred the
administration from enforcing the abortion law in response
to suits brought by groups of doctors, who have argued,
correctly, that the ban should be struck down because of
imprecise wording and the lack of an exception to protect a
woman's health. A narrow Supreme Court majority struck down
a state ban in 2000 for omitting a health exception.
Attorney General John Ashcroft says the fishing expedition
his department has started is justified to evaluate whether
the procedures covered by the law are ever necessary to
preserve a woman's health. In a sound ruling last week, a
federal judge in Illinois rebuffed this flimsy argument.
Citing state and federal law, as well as Supreme Court
precedent, the judge, Charles Kocoras, also rejected the
Ashcroft team's astonishing claim that no doctor-patient
privilege exists under federal law protecting patients from
public disclosure of their records.
Unfortunately, the federal judge in New York overseeing one
of the legal challenges to the new law does not grasp his
duty to protect patient privacy. That judge, Richard Conway
Casey of New York's Southern District, has threatened to
lift his injunction blocking enforcement of the abortion
ban if leading hospitals in New York City and elsewhere
fail to produce files on at least several dozen women's
abortions.
Underscoring the legally dubious nature of Judge Casey's
threat, the hospitals in question are not themselves
parties to the lawsuit. Nor, for that matter, are the women
whose personal privacy Mr. Ashcroft is so determined to
invade. Moreover, as Judge Kocoras aptly noted, redacting a
patient's name and identification number from her file
neither ends the harm to individuals of having intimate
details of their medical history publicly disclosed, nor
adequately protects the patients' identities.
We applaud those hospitals that are resisting Mr.
Ashcroft's privacy invasion, and encourage them to stand
firm until the legal proceedings run their course.
Meanwhile, Americans should see Mr. Ashcroft's intimidating
tactics for the dangerous threat to liberty and privacy
they really are.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/14/opinion/14SAT1.html?ex=1077787524&ei=1&en=dc44c89f8a568f21