Northwestern escapes DOJ subpoena (Ashcroft wants patient records)

[kskiska]

Judge denies Ashcroft's request for patient medical records

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.

In a 16-page decision, U.S. Chief District Judge Charles Kocoras denied the government’s request to obtain patient medical records from Northwestern, citing the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) and Illinois’ medical privacy law.

Northwestern received the subpoena in December, a month after obstetrician/gynecologist Cassing Hammond, a member of Northwestern’s staff and medical school faculty, was served with subpoenas seeking his patient records. Hammond is one of seven doctors and three groups who has challenged the constitutionality of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. The American Civil Liberties Union is representing the National Abortion Federation; Planned Parenthood and the Center for Reproductive Rights, which are all filing challenges to the law. A hearing for all of the challenges has been scheduled for March 29 in U.S. District Court in New York.

more…
http://chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=11447

[Catshrink]

1. Now that is some scary shit...

Ashkkkroft strikes again. Was this under the Patriot Act?

[benfranklin1776]

7. You can say that again.

Unbelievable! The man's galling disrespect for people's individual rights and the evident desire to use the powers of his office to politically persecute opponents of this regime establishes him, to quote Johnathan Turley, as a constitutional menace. Using the power of the federal government to pry into the most personal records of patients of a doctor who had the temerity to lawfully challenge the constitutionality of an act of Congress smacks of a fishing expedition for political intimidation purposes to me. Chill those who would think of opposing the regime seems to be the object with this action and the action against the anitwar protestors. It is incontrovertible proof that having the next President appoint a new Attorney General is reason enough for any person, no matter what their political affiliation, who enjoys living in a land in which they have the protections of the Bill of Rights to vote Bush the hell out of office before this guy does any more damage.

[Just Me]

2. Geez,...I was being sacastic when I called these guys neo-Gestapo,...

,...but maybe I was being kinda' like,...prophetic-like. These people (the neocon members of this administration) really are extremists,...in every letter of that word. They are on a "witch hunt" or,...are the revival of an Inquisition or some combination of freaky!!!

[Hand]

3. Jesus Effing Christ...

This is as bad as it gets--it's the religious Gestapo in action. Ashcroft is a fucking religious bigot, a fanatic, and as far as I'm concerned a rogue AG who makes John Mitchell look like Mr. Peepers.

Thank heavens there are still some good judges left--but good god, does this have to turn on what judge you happen to get?

Folks, re-election is NOT an option.

:grr: :nuke:

[BeHereNow]

4. For what purpose?

That is the question.
Why does he want these records, to what end?
To me, the motive in seeking the records is far worse to consider
than the fact that he tried to.
What does he intend to do with them?
BHN

[LiberalFighter]

10. To reduce medicare and health care costs

If patients are scared to see their doctor then there isn't any service provided that needs to be paid.

[RainDog]

5. Why does Ashcroft need to violate doctor/patient confidentiality

to answer to a question of whether or not a law or whatever it is is constitutional?

This should make lots of friends for the Bush administration in the medical community and with everyone who has the money to go see a doctor.

This is not a conservative (get the govt off people's backs) administration.

Anyone who still says it is must have a unique relationship with reality. Or maybe god tells them its a conservative administration, and if god says it, that settles it.

[metisnation]

6. Better step of chicago

unless you want a pair of concrete shoes.

:kick:

[BeHereNow]

8. Anybody have any ideas on WHY?

Ashkkkroft wanted these records?
I am curious to know your thoughts.
I have my own, but would love to hear yours.
Specifically, to what use would he put them?
BHN

[UpInArms]

9. put this together with

wanting the Drake University list of anti-war protesters and you have a pattern of inquiry.

(if not a pattern, then a path)

why would this information be needed or how would it be used?

[Lars39]

11. All it would take is one, *Ooops* sorry for the leak,

and these womens' lives would be made an absolute living hell by the anti-choice brownshirts. They would be made examples.

[ant]

12. my theory...

...certainly I think the article's comments about wanting the files in order to find stuff to use against the doctors challenging the PBA ban makes sense. For instance, if doctor's are going to claim PBA is medically necessary then they're going to have to prove that with actual medical records. (Or maybe the govt has to prove it isn't medically necessary - not sure how the burden of proof goes in these cases.)

Anyway, if the PBA ban doesn't get struck down you're going to have to get these records in the future whenever you try to prosecute an individual doctor. I'm guessing that prosecutors today can get access to medical records when prosecuting someone, though I'm sure it's regulated somehow, but in this case we're talking about getting someone's medical records when prosecuting someone else.

Of course, we are just talking about women here, so who gives a fuck. It's not like we're full members of society deserving the same rights and protections as the menfolk. :eyes:

I hate you, Ashcroft.

[truthspeaker]

13. But they're not Nazis!

So stop saying that!

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1051.htm

[proud patriot]

14. Hey ashcroft

You're out of here ...get over it .

[leesa]

15. Fascist Psycho. Has this freak nothing better to do?

I'll bet Rush doesn't want those medical records released!