| Author | Message | ||
     themp Citizen Username: Themp Post Number: 491 Registered: 12-2001 |
Northwestern escapes DOJ subpoena Judge denies Ashcroft's request for patient medical records By Mark Taylor A move by U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft to subpoena the medical records of 40 patients who received so-called partial-birth abortions at Northwestern Memorial Hospital in Chicago was halted—at least temporarily—when a Chicago federal judge quashed the information request. The ruling is the first in a series of subpoenas by the U.S. Justice Department seeking the medical records of patients from seven physicians and at least five hospitals, Crain's sister publication Modern Healthcare has learned. Besides Northwestern, Mr. Ashcroft is seeking patient records from University of Michigan Hospitals and Health Centers in Ann Arbor; Hahnemann University Hospital in Philadelphia, owned by Tenet Healthcare Corp.; Columbia Presbyterian Medical Center and Weill Cornell Medical Center of New York Presbyterian Hospital both of which are part of the New York-Presbyterian Healthcare System; and an unidentified San Francisco-area hospital. | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 1945 Registered: 5-2001  |
Taking a little break from hunting down the anthrax and ricin mailers, a guess. A guy's gotta have a little fun, doesn't he? | ||
| Addy Citizen Username: Addy Post Number: 40 Registered: 12-2003  |
He wants to try them for murder so he can execute them, of course. (It's not easy being a northern Republican with these idiots in power exposing their miniscule brains.) | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 895 Registered: 8-2003 |
He should just have some doctor with no relation to those women ask the hospital for thet records. It worked with Atkins. At least he's going with a subpoena, rather than just seizing them. Or stealing them. PS -- infanticide is against the law. | ||
| Montagnard Citizen Username: Montagnard Post Number: 413 Registered: 6-2003 |
It's not infanticide, as you know perfectly well. There are many valid reasons for late term abortion, and this is a private issue between a woman and her doctor. Ashcroft is way out of line on this. | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 898 Registered: 8-2003 |
Partial birth abortion is infanticide. I specifically borrowed that phrase from the conservative wacko Patrick Moynihan, and there's virtually no valid medical reason to perform one. The AMA said as much. And....it's against the law. | ||
| Montagnard Citizen Username: Montagnard Post Number: 415 Registered: 6-2003 |
Sorry. You're wrong again (surprise). Try http://www.ama-assn.org and look for Policy H-5.982, "Late-Term Pregnancy Termination Techniques." Article 2, "...The physician must, however, retain the discretion to make that judgment, acting within standards of good medical practice and in the best interest of the patient." | ||
| themp Citizen Username: Themp Post Number: 495 Registered: 12-2001 |
Looks like M's got you there. And don't you at least suspect that maybe this issue is being used as a big divider between good and bad by conservative political hacks? That it is a dreadful and agonizing reality that some women have to confront that is being dragged into politics so that people can win elections? | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 1953 Registered: 5-2001 |
Then they've got about 20 minutes after they're born before they're tossed out onto the street by the social Darwinians to fend for themselves. "Life is precious from conception all the way to birth." | ||
| themp Citizen Username: Themp Post Number: 496 Registered: 12-2001 |
So the lovers of small, unobtrusive government want a bunch of goons reading women's medical records so they can make some press-event arrests of "liberal" physicians? Is that what we got here? | ||
| bobk Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 4638 Registered: 5-2001 |
The legislation includes criminal penalties for those doctors who are judged in violation of the law. Interesting. Will this be like the medical marijuana cases on the West Coast? Interestingly the AG seemes to be going after major teaching hospitals who aren't affiliated with religious groups that oppose abortion. Really chilling. | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 899 Registered: 8-2003 |
From you own referenced site, Monty: 4) In recognition of the constitutional principles regarding the right to an abortion articulated by the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade, and in keeping with the science and values of medicine, the AMA recommends that abortions not be performed in the third trimester except in cases of serious fetal anomalies incompatible with life. Although third-trimester abortions can be performed to preserve the life or health of the mother, they are, in fact, generally not necessary for those purposes. Except in extraordinary circumstances, maternal health factors which demand termination of the pregnancy can be accommodated without sacrifice of the fetus, and the near certainty of the independent viability of the fetus argues for ending the pregnancy by appropriate delivery. Also a nice letter to Senator Santorum: http://www.alliance4lifemin.org/categorized_articles/abortion/ama_and_pba/ama_an d_pba.htm So.....I'm sure there are plenty of reasonable explanations for those procedures. Rash of severe fetal anomalies incompatible with life. But "life of the mother" is almost never, never, never the case. The pure convenience of killing the blob by ripping it apart in the womb doesn't work anymore either. It's against the law. | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 1958 Registered: 5-2001 |
SO he's investigating a violation of AMA recommendations? The subpoena is, I think, for records going back to 1999; but the law was just passed in 2003. | ||
| themp Citizen Username: Themp Post Number: 497 Registered: 12-2001 |
"and there's virtually no valid medical reason to perform one. The AMA said as much." From the material you quoted, it seems like you were wrong. "...except in cases of serious fetal anomalies incompatible with life. Although third-trimester abortions can be performed to preserve the life or health of the mother, they are, in fact, generally not necessary for those purposes." There are certainly exceptions in the AMA statement. The perverse thing is the implication from the right that there are all these bad people out there doing this for fun, and that it isn't a devastating experience. | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 1959 Registered: 5-2001 |
Re: serious fetal anomalies. Story about the baby born with two heads who died during surgery. Open at your own risk, the photo at the top of the page is gruesome. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/02/04/health/main597954.shtml | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 902 Registered: 8-2003 |
themp....I think excepting two-headed and tremendously damaged babies, there is virtually no reason to dismember a fetus before yanking it out. Health of the mother -- in that case they "are, in fct, generally not necessary for those purposes" per the AMA. There are exceptions? SURE! I'm sure there's a perfectly reasonable explanation for all this. Is that clearer? No one said they have fun commiting infanticide or human 'sacrifice' as the AMA writes. Just because it's more convenient than delivering life doesn't mean it's fun. | ||
| bobk Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 4640 Registered: 5-2001 |
Doesn't Bishop Ashcroft oppose virtually all abortions on religious grounds? As I posted earlier it is interesting that his minions are going after major teaching hospitals who do not have a religious affiliation with a faith that is opposed to abortion. My understanding is that Catholic affiliated hospitals don't allow abortions and I think this is true with some other religious affiliated hospitals as well. Is the purpose of these cases to investigate known incidents where there is a reasonable allegation that the law was broken or is it to put a chill on hospitals and doctors who perform legal abortions? Again, the list of hospitals being targeted is very, very interesting. | ||
| clkelley Citizen Username: Clkelley Post Number: 110 Registered: 6-2002 |
OK. Deep breath. I've written this twenty times, deleted it, this time I will submit. All of you are intellectualizing people who have to face third-trimester abortions. I am one of the people who had to face that possibility - and thankfully dodged the bullet. Let's just say that an early test on my baby was worrisome, and I didn't get a "clean bill of health" until after the start of the third trimester. Ironically, all of this was happening at the very same time that the partial birth abortion bill was being debated. My daughter was born in 1997. I went through a period of three months - from receipt of the first bad news until the final reciept of good news - not knowing if I would have to face this horrible prospect; while listening to the radio every day about how women like me were "evil" for even considering a terminated pregnancy. Note that the kinds of abnormalities that might have happened would not be included under the category of "disabled." I was prepared to raise a disabled child. What tom has included above is among the milder possibilities that I learned about at that time. I read about children born with no no stomach, no liver, no bladder, or even no brain. (My mother treated a baby with no brain when she was in nurse's training in the 1950s. The baby lived about a day. She said you could hold it up to the light and actually see light through its skull.) I also read about children born with a brain and spinal column, but no other bones. I read about "things" that really could have been called "blobs." Sure, these abnormalities are rare; but they happen to real people. I looked down the mouth of that beast - have you? Note that I wanted my child terribly, and this was without question the darkest period of my life. Maybe I treasure my daughter even more for having gone through this, but I suppose I would have adored her no matter what. Listening to rhetoric about "killing the blob by ripping it apart" was acutely painful to me then, and still is now. themp is right, the rhetoric from the right is wrong. They call themselves Christians. Well I'm a Christian too, but I understand my faith to mean that my first obligation is compassion towards my fellow humans. The parents going through these agonizing choices certainly deserve compassion. I know - because I was there. | ||
| harpo Citizen Username: Harpo Post Number: 1223 Registered: 6-2001 |
clkelley, I admire you endlessly for your post and respect all private decisions in this matter. Thanks for shedding light on why that respect and that privacy is so necessary and compassionate. Ashcroft using government in this way is abusive and cruel. | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 903 Registered: 8-2003 |
That post, while moving, fits neatly within the guidelines of what is allowable under the law, from what I can read. It's like you have to put the caveat in that all soldiers lives are precious but there have been few casualties in Iraq compared to other major conflicts in this nation's history. Still, partial birth abortion outside of those oh-so-few exceptions is illegal. And if that was done at these hospitals when that law was in effect, that's a problem. Ashcroft is enforcing the law, as well he should. | ||
| drewdix Citizen Username: Drewdix Post Number: 483 Registered: 7-2001 |
thanks clkelley. | ||
| clkelley Citizen Username: Clkelley Post Number: 111 Registered: 6-2002 |
cjc, however your rhetoric is terribly harmful to people who are innocent. And the current political landscape is such that even in such extreme circumstances, it is difficult to find a doctor who will perform a late-term termination. Ironically, cjc: Many women with news like mine would terminate early, rather than have to wait for the good/bad news and possibly have to opt for a late-term abortion. (because so much has been said about late-term abortions, and because it is so difficult to find a physician who will perform one.) Suppose I had done so. Suppose I had not waited for the tests that I needed. My beautiful, perfect child, the most precious piece of human life currently existing on this planet in my opinion, would not exist. Ashcroft's tactics will cause many more women to opt for the early choice. This is terribly wrong. | ||
| Nohero Citizen Username: Nohero Post Number: 2864 Registered: 10-1999  |
Okay, anybody who thinks that the subpoenas are being used to investigate a crime - somebody's been feeding you bad information. I went to the source of all knowledge - NEWSMAX - and this is how they describe the subpoenas: Full article: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/2/12/121124.shtml So, get the point? If you want to challenge the law, the Justice Department says it has a right to look into your patient records, to see if you can really be a plaintiff. Shorter version: "Get involved and we'll harrass your patients." The real issue with the subpoenas isn't abortion. The issue is intimidation. | ||
| clkelley Citizen Username: Clkelley Post Number: 112 Registered: 6-2002 |
My ob/gyn was at U Mich Hospital. That's where I got all my prenatal care. They dealt with many cases such as mine - my doctor was most experienced in such matters. Now I feel _really_ sick. | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 905 Registered: 8-2003 |
I can toss out all the caveats you want, clkelly, but I'm guessing you're against the partial birth ban. If I'm wrong, sorry. And I'm not sure how someone can be harmed when someone discusses a case that isn't theirs. What is your view of people who dismantle a perfectly fine baby at the last minute? This is not your case at all, this is theirs and what this law was intended to address. What is your view of that act, and those people who do it? Finally, can we at least say 'hey....sorry' to the aborted child? In all this, no one here has addressed who was lost, instead focusing solely on those who remain. | ||
| clkelley Citizen Username: Clkelley Post Number: 113 Registered: 6-2002 |
cjc, I am not opposed to a ban on late-term abortions with adequate safeguards - although I suspect my safeguards would be different than yours. I'd probably allow more cases than you would. Elective late-term terminations have always been rare in any case. I am pro-choice in general though, although I would never get an elective abortion myself. I do not believe that very many people would willingly "dismantle" a baby late-term. I'm guessing you have never borne a child, or you would understand this. Nor can I imagine a doctor who would perform one in such a case. The doctor who treated me at U Mich was one of the most life-affirming people I have ever met. I would never have come out of that dark place relatively unscathed without that doctor. No, this is not my case. However, Nohero points out that many of the records sought were from the University of Michigan Medical Center, where I received all of my prenatal care. And which has a very large unit devoted exactly to such cases. So I am guessing that many of these cases are quite comparable to mine (or rather, the situation that I nearly faced but didn't quite have to). In any case it is plausible to me that U Mich would be among the hospitals most likely to be involved in late-term abortions due to fetal abnormalities. I have addressed those who might be lost - see my last post. I am suggesting that paradoxically, more perfectly fine children will be aborted because of all this than would otherwise be the case. | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 908 Registered: 8-2003 |
clkelly -- give me a break. Men don't understand or love or get connected to children being born. Men are unscathed in abortions. Please. Sorry you have a tough time back then. Really am. You had a great doctor. That's good. It wasn't the case with you? Even better. That's why I wasn't talking ABOUT a case like yours. You can't imagine a doctor doing that? Well, they do! You can't imagine someone willingly doing it. Well, they do! It doesn't happen often -- great, but it does happen! We'll have to see just what's going on with this case as it unfolds. | ||
| clkelley Citizen Username: Clkelley Post Number: 114 Registered: 6-2002 |
cjc, if you had the slightest inkling what this was like for me or others in my situation, you'd tone the rhetoric way down. Those cases may not be like mine - but they may be. I have to assume that at least some are. You know this no more than I do. Why you can judge them so harshly without knowing one blessed thing about them, I can't imagine. | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 1960 Registered: 5-2001 |
cjc I can't imagine why you're going to the mat on this one. Ashcroft is a zealot and these tactics are going to hurt a lot of innocent people in nearly impossible circumstances. It doesn't sound to me like U Mich. is an abortion mill, so why are they being harassed? Zealotry. Big idea: find the anthrax mailer instead. | ||
| tjohn Citizen Username: Tjohn Post Number: 2269 Registered: 12-2001  |
So Ashcroft & Co. are getting the social conservatives all fired up. They will vote for Bush anyway. Meanwhile, anybody with a heart or even a memory of a heart is going to be moved by stories such as Clkelley's. This is going to be a net loss for Bush. It continues to astound me that a man who failed to win the popular vote has formed a government for the social conservative wing of his party rather than the center. He has used the smoke of war to support this move to the right. What monsters. | ||
| Michaela May Citizen Username: Mayquene Post Number: 68 Registered: 1-2004  |
The partial birth abortion ban signed into law by Bush, and already blocked by some courts, does NOT make an exception for the health of the mother. |
