The Abortion "Registry" and Privacy

"Courts have used this analysis of (1) determining whether an individual has a legitimate expectation of privacy or of confidentiality in information, and (2), if so, whether the government’s interest in the information outweighs the individual’s privacy interest to determine whether governmental data collection activities violate one’s right to informational privacy."

The http://www.pcpd.org.hk/english/infocentre/files/kendall(formatted).doc">Gathering, Analysis, and Sharing of Criminal Justice Information (.doc) from the Department of Justice is helpful because it explores how the government's interests sometimes outweighs personal privacy concerns. You can Google the title if you'd rather read the Google HTML version, but it does not include valuable footnotes.

There is no doubt that medical information has a legitimate expectation of privacy, so the question will be if the state's "compelling interest" outweighs that expectation of privacy. The state will likely argue that for various reasons the state's interests outweighs the personal privacy interests.

I don't expect this post to get any recs but thought some might find the linked article helpful, particularly the discussion of medical privacy and how the state's interest can outweigh personal privacy interests. This may not be an open shut case and the SCOTUS may permit it at least in part if case law is any indication.

I doubt very much this has anything to do with medical research or the 'public good', and everything to do with intimidating women and making it much more difficult for them to even consider abortion, let alone have one.

The SCOTUS may look into that, but the law is presumed valid and the legislative intent is presumed to be what the state says it is. The burden will be on the opponents to prove otherwise.

I had an abortion back in 1971. Who cares? Personally I think that today's decline in women willing to speak up in favor of choice is more threatening.

might have in tracking demographic information, the problem with this legislation is that it will be published.

Even if names are withheld, that could easily violate medical confidentiality.

I guarantee you that if I needed abortion services in OK before the challenge strikes this turkey down, I'd lie like a rug.

It's doubtful the state could force someone to tell the truth either, like forcing them to sign the document under penalty of perjury or fraud. That could be a good argument for striking the whole thing down since the government's stated intent would not likely be reliable and accurate.

unless they, at some point in the future, wish to prosecute the women. And it is too easy to get supposedly "private" information, no system is safe. I just had my professional and personal ID stolen via a "against company protocol download info to take home to work on oops the laptop got stolen" insurance co thing.

I see NO reasonable arguement that state's interests outweighs the personal privacy interests as far as privacy with abortions go.

Under federalism, the SCOTUS is obliged to permit states to be "experimental laboratories." It will be up to opponents to prove the state wrong on all points and argue against a narrower drafting of the law if the SCOTUS is inclined to agree in part with the opponents and in part with the state. It may not be easy to strike the law altogether.

according to your post.

while I appreciate what you are doing, the justifications for the OK law, whatever they are, are more than a little creepy.

I wonder what those legislators in OK would say if a law were passed that every prostate exam, every viagra prescription, every penile extension, etc., was made public?