[Med-privacy] USA Today editorial: Medical privacy falls victim to fierce abortion fight

Thu, 19 Feb 2004 23:38:11 EST

-------------------------------1077251891
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

USA TODAY Feb 19, 2004
Medical privacy falls victim to fierce abortion fight 
Regardless of how one views the law banning the procedure that has become 
known as partial-birth abortion, the Justice Department's intrusive attempts to 
enforce it raise chilling threats to medical privacy that could reach far 
beyond this rare procedure.
The government is fighting claims by several physicians and abortion rights 
groups that the 2003 ban is unconstitutional because it doesn't allow an 
exception to protect the health of the mother. But in defending the ban, it has 
ordered hospitals and doctors to turn over hundreds of records on patients who 
received late-term abortions up to three years before the law even passed. 
Moreover, the government is pursuing sensitive charts on the grounds that "no 
federal common law" protects patient-doctor confidentiality. It says "individuals no 
longer possess a reasonable expectation that their histories will remain 
completely confidential" in today's world of medicine.
That view is sure to alarm the 92% of Americans who oppose government access 
to their medical data without consent, according to a 2000 Gallup Poll. It 
also is at odds with a Bush administration pledge to protect the privacy of 
records. In December, Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson said 
"patients will benefit enormously" from tighter confidentiality regulations that 
went into effect last year.
The government says it needs the abortion records to challenge doctors who 
claim that the partial-birth procedure is occasionally necessary to protect the 
mother's health. A federal judge in Chicago this month quashed government 
subpoenas for the records. But another federal judge in New York ruled the 
government could obtain the medical data.
While the government says it would let hospitals shield patient identities, 
that's little comfort for those whose histories would be released. What's more, 
the government says it could subpoena additional information that identifies 
patients in the future.
These actions are particularly curious since the government doesn't need 
patients' records to defend the law. It could secure expert opinions from doctors 
who support its view that partial-birth abortions never are medically 
necessary. The judge in Chicago urged that very course in ruling that the government 
subpoenas violate Illinois' stringent privacy laws.
Government lawyers argue that the claims of physicians challenging the ban 
can be evaluated only by examining the details of the abortions they performed. 
That explanation suggests the government's tactics are aimed at intimidating 
women who've had partial-birth abortions and doctors who've performed them.
But the Justice Department's cavalier dismissal of medical privacy provides a 
stark warning to all patients who expect the government to protect their 
health records.
A legal battle over partial-birth-abortion bans was predictable after 
Congress refused to allow exceptions when the mother's health is at risk. Sweeping 
bans have been declared unconstitutional at the state level 21 times because of 
similar flaws.
What's surprising, though, is that in its zeal to defend this law, the 
government has chosen to undercut its promise to safeguard medical data. That's 
hardly the impression Thompson left when he said the government would be a 
champion of privacy rights.

Find this article at: 
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2004-02-19-our-view_x.htm 

-------------------------------1077251891
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<HTML><HEAD>
<META charset=3DUS-ASCII http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; cha=
rset=3DUS-ASCII">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1276" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; BACKGROUND-COLOR: #fffff=
f">
<DIV>
<TABLE cellSpacing=3D0 cellPadding=3D0 width=3D635 border=3D0>
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3Dinside-head><STRONG><FONT size=3D5>USA TODAY Feb 19, 2004=
</FONT></STRONG></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3Dinside-head><STRONG><FONT size=3D5>Medical privacy falls=20=
victim to fierce abortion fight </FONT></STRONG></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=3Dintro-copy>Regardless of how one views the law banning the proc=
edure that has become known as partial-birth abortion, the Justice Departmen=
t's intrusive attempts to enforce it raise chilling threats to medical priva=
cy that could reach far beyond this rare procedure.</DIV>
<P class=3Dinside-copy>The government is fighting claims by several physicia=
ns and abortion rights groups that the 2003 ban is unconstitutional because=20=
it doesn't allow an exception to protect the health of the mother. But in de=
fending the ban, it has ordered hospitals and doctors to turn over hundreds=20=
of records on patients who received late-term abortions up to three years be=
fore the law even passed. Moreover, the government is pursuing sensitive cha=
rts on the grounds that "no federal common law" protects patient-doctor conf=
identiality. It says "individuals no longer possess a reasonable expectation=
 that their histories will remain completely confidential" in today's world=20=
of medicine.</P>
<P class=3Dinside-copy>That view is sure to alarm the 92% of Americans who o=
ppose government access to their medical data without consent, according to=20=
a 2000 Gallup Poll. It also is at odds with a Bush administration pledge to=20=
protect the privacy of records. In December, Health and Human Services Secre=
tary Tommy Thompson said "patients will benefit enormously" from tighter con=
fidentiality regulations that went into effect last year.</P>
<P class=3Dinside-copy>The government says it needs the abortion records to=20=
challenge doctors who claim that the partial-birth procedure is occasionally=
 necessary to protect the mother's health. A federal judge in Chicago this m=
onth quashed government subpoenas for the records. But another federal judge=
 in New York ruled the government could obtain the medical data.</P>
<P class=3Dinside-copy>While the government says it would let hospitals shie=
ld patient identities, that's little comfort for those whose histories would=
 be released. What's more, the government says it could subpoena additional=20=
information that identifies patients in the future.</P>
<P class=3Dinside-copy>These actions are particularly curious since the gove=
rnment doesn't need patients' records to defend the law. It could secure exp=
ert opinions from doctors who support its view that partial-birth abortions=20=
never are medically necessary. The judge in Chicago urged that very course i=
n ruling that the government subpoenas violate Illinois' stringent privacy l=
aws.</P>
<P class=3Dinside-copy>Government lawyers argue that the claims of physician=
s challenging the ban can be evaluated only by examining the details of the=20=
abortions they performed. That explanation suggests the government's tactics=
 are aimed at intimidating women who've had partial-birth abortions and doct=
ors who've performed them.</P>
<P class=3Dinside-copy>But the Justice Department's cavalier dismissal of me=
dical privacy provides a stark warning to all patients who expect the govern=
ment to protect their health records.</P>
<P class=3Dinside-copy>A legal battle over partial-birth-abortion bans was p=
redictable after Congress refused to allow exceptions when the mother's heal=
th is at risk. Sweeping bans have been declared unconstitutional at the stat=
e level 21 times because of similar flaws.</P>
<P class=3Dinside-copy>What's surprising, though, is that in its zeal to def=
end this law, the government has chosen to undercut its promise to safeguard=
 medical data. That's hardly the impression Thompson left when he said the g=
overnment would be a champion of privacy rights.</P>
<DIV class=3Dinside-copy><I></I></DIV></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<DIV>
<TABLE cellSpacing=3D0 cellPadding=3D0 width=3D"100%" border=3D0>
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD>&nbsp;</TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD bgColor=3D#cccccc><IMG title=3D"" height=3D2 alt=3D"" src=3D"http://imag=
es.clickability.com/pti/spacer.gif" width=3D2></TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD>&nbsp;</TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></DIV>
<DIV>
<TABLE cellSpacing=3D0 cellPadding=3D0 width=3D"100%" border=3D0>
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD class=3Dfont-cn>&nbsp;</TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD class=3Dfont-cn><SPAN class=3Dfonttitle><STRONG><FONT face=3DVerdana siz=
e=3D2>Find this article at:</FONT></STRONG></SPAN> <BR>http://www.usatoday.c=
om/news/opinion/editorials/2004-02-19-our-view_x.htm </TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD>&nbsp;</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>

-------------------------------1077251891--