?

Log in

No account? Create an account
entries friends calendar profile Elf Sternberg's Pendorwright Projects Previous Previous Next Next
More for the Tyranny file - Elf M. Sternberg
elfs
elfs
More for the Tyranny file
According to this article, John Ashcroft has subpoena'd the patient records of doctors who challenged the constitutionality of the Partial Birth Abortion Act of 2003.

No crime is indicated in the article. As near as I can tell, this is strictly a fishing trip by Ashcroft's jackboots to find out who had an abortion before the law was passed. The Justice Depravement claims that it needs the records to test whether or not the procedure is ever "medically necessary" in its defense of the PBAA. This is the first time I've ever heard the Justice Depravement using subpoena power against acknowledged innocent people in a civil case over constitutional powers.

The willingness of the Bush administration to pass the Health Information Privacy Act and then casually violate that act should terrify people.

Current Mood: furious

7 comments or Leave a comment
Comments
bayushi From: bayushi Date: February 14th, 2004 03:37 am (UTC) (Link)
Hell, it bloody well terrifies me.
warstoke From: warstoke Date: February 14th, 2004 04:19 am (UTC) (Link)
realy i like bush but i hate ashcroft thats one of the people who shouldnt come back if bush gets reelected
mouser From: mouser Date: February 14th, 2004 05:47 am (UTC) (Link)
The next step:

"We're thinking of making xxxxx illegal, so we're going to be subpoena your credit card bills to determine if you've ever bought/sold/used xxxxx. Just in case..."
yarnaddict From: yarnaddict Date: February 14th, 2004 06:27 am (UTC) (Link)
Just about everything Shrub, Incorporated does terrifies me.
(Deleted comment)
unmutual From: unmutual Date: February 14th, 2004 03:32 pm (UTC) (Link)
Since HIPAA was passed, no matter where I go - to the doctor's office, to the ER, to the pharmacy to pick up my prescription - I'm asked to sign a little something that authorizes the place to share my information with third parties. Every time I've asked what "third party" they mean, I'm told it's just my insurance company. I guess "third parties" means the government, too.

The last time I went to the pharmacy I refused to sign. "But you have to sign," they said.

"No," I told them, "I don't. This says that you're going to share my information, and I don't want you to."

The cashier waved her hand in the air as if she could wave off my concerns. "Oh no, this is just to say that you've picked up your prescription."

I pointed to the small print. "It says right here that I would authorize you to share my information if I sign. With whom would you be sharing it?"

The grammar seemed to have thrown her off. She paused for a second, then came back with, "Your insurance company."

I had a comeback prepared for that - I looked her right in the eye and said, "Not five minutes ago you told me that my insurance company doesn't cover this prescription. Why should they be entitled to know what I'm purchasing, if they have nothing to do with it?"

It went back and forth like that until finally she admitted that I could write "Refuse To Sign" in the signature box.

I am never authorizing any sharing of any of my information again. Thanks for this link. (Fortunately, a judge denied Ashcroft's request *because* of HIPAA.)
dion From: dion Date: February 14th, 2004 07:52 pm (UTC) (Link)

Bush and Ashcroft

Thanks for the link Elf.

So does anybody really think that re-selecting Bush would somehow lead to a curtailment of Ashcroft's stomping on the Constitution?
7 comments or Leave a comment