He’s at it again — chipping away at privacy rights.  I’ll try to make this brief:  The main article to read is from the LA Times and it’s called Ashcroft Gunning for Peek at Private Medical Records.  If it’s gone, email me and I’ll post it here (email link is in the column to the right).  If you’re already following this story, then you know what follows here, just read the Times article.

It’s surprising how difficult it is to piece together the full background for this, but here goes:

• 11/6/03:  President Bush signed legislation Wednesday banning a certain type of abortion.  A federal judge immediately questioned the law’s constitutionality and issued a limited temporary restraining order against it. – link
• 12/17/03:  Two abortion rights groups and the American Civil Liberties Union filed lawsuits to try to block the ban. – link
• 2/9/04 – 2/18/04:  The Department of Justice issued subpoenas to seven major hospitals records regarding the number and nature of the abortions, and several are refusing to comply. – link.
  Ashcroft says the records are needed to prove if the abortions are “medically necessary”, as was stated in the lawsuits. – link
  Judge Denies Ashcroft’s Request for Patient Medical Records – link
• 3/10/04:  Feds drop bid to subpoena abortion records. – link.
  Note that they are still trying to get the records, but dropping the subpoena to do it.

That first times Times article that I referenced addresses what the requests are causing in the clinics, which may be what the intended effect was to be.  The quote below (link) addresses the reason that patient records shouldn’t be needed:

The government seeks these records on the possibility that it may find something therein which would affect the testimony of Dr. Hammond adversely, that is, for its potential value in impeaching his credibility as a witness.  What the government ignores in its argument is how little, if any, probative value lies within these patient records and the ready availability of information traditionally used to challenge the veracity of Dr. Hammond’s scientific assertions and medical opinions.  The presence or absence of medical risks, their likelihood and nature are undoubtably described and discussed in available medical literature.  Challenges to Dr. Hammond’s views would be readily available, as would the enlistment of experts supporting contrary opinions.  The search for the truth that any hearing or trial seeks to produce would hardly be infringed by finding that a physician-patient privilege exists in these circumstances.

At least there’s no records of gun purchases.