Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Planned Parenthood leader blasts Kline's abortion records probe

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread		 This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
atommom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-05 01:25 PM
Original message
Planned Parenthood leader blasts Kline's abortion records probe
From a press conference this morning...

TOPEKA — The head of Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri today said Atty. Gen. Phill Kline is seeking the clinic records clinic of 29 women, most of whom are adults.

Peter Brownlie, president and chief executive of the Overland Park clinic which performs abortions, said Kline's investigation, which has gained national attention, was producing fear and outrage among women.

"Investigate us, if he must, we have nothing to hide. He doesn't have the right to invade the privacy and confidentiality of women who are not subjects of the investigation," Brownlie said.

Brownlie, several legislators and a doctor held a news conference blasting Kline for his investigation into the Planned Parenthood clinic and a Wichita clinic well-known for performing late-term abortions.

http://www.ljworld.com/section/legislature/story/199177
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
whistle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-05 01:29 PM
Response to Original message
1. Is Atty. Gen. Phill Kline preparing a public hit list of women
...in his state who he wishes to expose as having had abortions? He should be held personally responsible for the safety of these women and for the people who work at the clinics he is exposing. This is abuse of power at its worst.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beam me up scottie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-05 01:34 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. This is not just about Kansas women...
women from all over the US go there for late-term procedures.
This affects all of us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
whistle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-05 01:40 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Precisely, it is an abuse of power by Klein's office, but worse....
...it exposes the clinic to become the target of potential of exposure by fundie terrorist groups.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beam me up scottie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-05 01:53 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. Dr. Tiller was already shot by a whacko .
Yet he risks his life daily to provide women with this neccessary and LEGAL procedure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
atommom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-05 02:35 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. ...which makes him a perfect target for Kline.
In addition to providing late-term abortions to women from Kansas and other states, he also donated money for anti-Kline ads in an attempt to keep him from winning the AG election. Tiller is also involved in a local pro-choice PAC, ProKanDo. http://www.prokando.org/index.html I'm sure Kline would love to put him out of business.

Kline hates late-term abortions, and is especially eager to do away with late-term abortions that are performed because of the mother's mental health. Not a valid reason, he says...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uppityperson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-05 01:31 PM
Response to Original message
2. Good for him.They have NO right or need for this information
No need. No right. Patient confidentiality is necessary for ALL medical procedures, ALL of them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-05 01:41 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. this could be dangerous if allowed to happen----a marker of what is to
come in this next for years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beam me up scottie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-05 02:42 PM
Response to Reply #5
8. Yep. And just think,
they want all of our medical records to be kept in computers.
Terrifying isn't it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
atommom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-05 02:45 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. I have to confess, I had the same thought when they started
going on and on about computerized records. Will that information really be private? :tinfoilhat:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mithras61 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-05 02:50 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. Whether the info is private or not will...
depend VERY heavily on HOW the records are computerized.

If, for example, the records are digitized and stored on a smart card of some sort with a PIN required to access them, it would be a much different situation than if the records were stored in an undisclosed location in a Federal repository of abortion records... excuse me... medical records that is accessed remotely when required for prosecution... sorry... medical treatment...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beam me up scottie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-05 03:09 PM
Response to Reply #10
13. Saaaaaaaaaaaaay,
that's really good. Now do an impersonation of a repuke telling us that collecting our dna is no different than having fingerprints.
:evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beam me up scottie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-05 02:53 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. Nope. And I'll bet we won't be given a choice in
the matter either.
Hell, next they'll be inserting microchips into our foreheads to prevent "terra-ism" and identity-theft. They'll say it's all for our own good too. Help keep us safer. Use it to locate victims. Catch molesters.
etc. etc. etc.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mithras61 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-05 03:13 PM
Response to Reply #11
14. I suspect that it will be RFIDs...
and I don't think it's all THAT far away. The big selling point will probably be like the fingerprints-to-purchase deal going on in Germany, and when folks like EFF holler about privacy, they'll lay out some line of B.S. that SOUNDS good (sort of like SSNs only being legal to use for SSA identification... funny how THAT'S never enforced, huh?).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beam me up scottie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-05 03:21 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. Too true.
And I thought all those science fiction books I read as a child were make-believe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uppityperson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-05 09:46 PM
Response to Reply #11
23. Such a product is alreay offered, to keep kids safe.
though the microchip is inserted into an upper arm I believe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beam me up scottie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-05 10:43 PM
Response to Reply #23
24. Yikes.
10 years ago I would have thought it a brilliant idea. Knowing what I know now, never. I would have to trust that only certain information relevant to identifying a child would be on that chip and nothing else.
And what's to stop them? They are pushing for national id's but if we don't go quietly they'll have to pursue other options-such as id chips (but only to keep us safe from the terrorists of course)
Tin foil theory I know, but I really can't put anything past the new and improved big brother.
aaaaah, what the hell-I'll wear the hat
:tinfoilhat:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Arkansas Granny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-05 05:37 PM
Response to Reply #9
20. There is no way
that I will voluntarily have my medical records computerized. And who would keep these records anyway? Choicepoint?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beam me up scottie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-05 07:54 PM
Response to Reply #20
22. Nor will I, Arkansas Granny, you said a mouthful.
Welcome to DU!

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
UCLA Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-05 03:06 PM
Response to Original message
12. Its called HIPAA, they have no right to those records.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
atommom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-05 03:28 PM
Response to Reply #12
16. But under HIPAA, medical records can sometimes be released...
I'm no attorney, but here is some info from HHS.

The Privacy Rule is balanced to protect an individual’s privacy while allowing important law enforcement functions to continue. The Rule permits covered entities to disclose protected health information (PHI) to law enforcement officials, without the individual’s written authorization, under specific circumstances summarized below. For a complete understanding of the conditions and requirements for these disclosures, please review the exact regulatory text at the citations provided. Disclosures for law enforcement purposes are permitted as follows:

To comply with a court order or court-ordered warrant, a subpoena or summons issued by a judicial officer, or a grand jury subpoena. The Rule recognizes that the legal process in obtaining a court order and the secrecy of the grand jury process provides protections for the individual’s private information (45 CFR 164.512(f)(1)(ii)(A)-(B)).

To respond to an administrative request, such as an administrative subpoena or investigative demand or other written request from a law enforcement official. Because an administrative request may be made without judicial involvement, the Rule requires all administrative requests to include or be accompanied by a written statement that the information requested is relevant and material, specific and limited in scope, and de-identified information cannot be used (45 CFR 164.512(f)(1)(ii)(C)).

More info at:
http://tinyurl.com/6r2ny
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
0007 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-05 03:35 PM
Response to Original message
17. Great article, this crap needs to come to a screeching halt immediately
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
atommom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-05 04:35 PM
Response to Original message
18. Background on PP and DOJ subpoenas ... disturbing
A federal judge ruled last year that the DOJ could not seize abortion records from Planned Parenthood clinics. But clearly, they are not giving up yet.

On March 5, 2004, in a victory for women's health and the sacred trust necessary to the doctor-patient relationship, a federal judge in San Francisco ruled that the Department of Justice (DOJ) did not have the right to view some 900 medical records of women who had abortions at Planned Parenthood affiliates around the country. The DOJ requested these records as part of its attempt to defend the unconstitutional federal abortion ban passed by Congress and signed into law by the president in November 2003. The demand for the records was just one more effort in the administration's attempt to limit our reproductive health options, this time by undermining our privacy and intimidating us from seeking medical care for fear of having our most personal and private secrets exposed to the government's view.

The federal abortion ban could outlaw the safest abortion procedures used as early as the 12th-15th week of pregnancy, including a procedure, D&E, used in more than 95 percent of second-trimester abortions. Its true aim is to undermine or overturn the landmark Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade, which legalized abortion nationwide.

Planned Parenthood immediately filed suit against the law in order to protect our patients and our doctors. In a sweeping invasion of medical privacy, Ashcroft demanded access to hundreds of confidential medical records of women who had abortions at six Planned Parenthood affiliates. The DOJ had no solid legal argument for trying to obtain the records. The information contained in them was only marginally relevant to the case, and would have jeopardized the privacy of almost a thousand women who had done nothing but exercise their constitutionally protected right to choose abortion.

But the DOJ's actions in this case threaten much more than women's reproductive health. Over the past few months, the DOJ has asserted that federal law does not recognize the doctor-patient privilege, and that individuals no longer have a reasonable expectation of medical privacy. These are chilling statements, ones that affect not just Planned Parenthood patients, but all Americans.

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp2/portal/files/portal/media/privacy-040406-medical-bkgrd.xml
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
havocmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-05 05:20 PM
Response to Original message
19. Somebody in Kansas, please ask the SOB if everybody in the state
is current in their child support payments. Has he make sure every single court ordered support payment has been made? Everybody obeying the law regarding responsibility for children? Take care of the kids and let patients and their doctors worry about the fetuses.

If there are areas of law enforcement which are neglected in the state. hammer his ass with questions about why HE isn't doing the job he is supposed to. Tell the ass he does not get to make medical decisions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beam me up scottie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-05 07:51 PM
Response to Reply #19
21. That is SUCH a good point.
:spank:
nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Tue May 07th 2024, 05:09 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC