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:
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..
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.
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.
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.
By the way, the big papers — New York Times & Washington Post — have finally written articles on the issue
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 . . .
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?
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:
Pingback: Crescat Sententia
Pingback: DFMoore: Pizzazz, Panache, and a Phoenix
Pingback: blargblog
Pingback: Sappho's Breathing