Judge Orders Release of Abortion Clinic Files

CINCINNATI (AP) -- The Cincinnati Planned Parenthood Clinic must give a family that is suing the clinic all records on abortion patients younger than 18, a judge ruled. The documents are being sought in a lawsuit by the family of a teenage girl.

http://wtol.com/Global/story.asp?S=5066465

If my daughter was one of those patients I wouldn't want my records turned over to some stranger so they could pick though them for lawsuit fodder.

Is this something they can appeal?

They cannot do this, even to minors. HIPAA, as far as I know, prohibits this kind of fishing expedition of medical records. They could get a subpoena for a named individual's medical records with an affidavit, but I don't think they will have to comply in the end with this stupid order. The higher courts will most overturn it. I hope.

"If my daughter was one of those patients I wouldn't want my records turned over to some stranger so they could pick though them for lawsuit fodder."

me either. i'd be wild. and i'd get a lawyer to go after the judge who is about to let my kid's records get turned over, and i'd go after the family that wants my child's medical records.

abortionists today. Union members tomorrow. The day after that - ??

load of BS--wonder how many of these families are going to be targeted by the hate groups?

How can this judge justify such an order? :mad:

This ruling must be overturned. It simply must.

(I do detect a little bit of politics here)

Like it's a free-for-all when it comes to anyones privacy with just about anything anymore, why should judges be any different :shrug:

their little moralistic daughter more carefully. Now they want access to others records that have nothing to do with their daughter.

Oh yes and those tramps who get abortions

The new republican battle cry

And Lincoln wept.

The clinic will be able to get a restraining order until the case can be heard.

This is bullshit. K&R because people need to know about this. Thanks for sharing.

Dinke - lacker...... poor baby ain't even got no "dinkie".....

:rofl:

out of their stupor. Yes, the religious right's war on women will affect YOUR daughter too.

I wonder if the people suing have thought of that.

Everybody knows that Republicans and their family members never ever get abortions.

:crazy:

They do, but they lie about it. The question is, did the use the PP clinic or go to a private provider?

How can the records of others have anything to do with their daughter? Trying to prove a pattern does not give them the right to go on a fishing expedition!! :mad:

I would tell my parents to fuck off and that my body is my own
and you don't own it and I'm not a breeding pig
just so you can control me!!!:mad:

This girl needs to stand up for herself because this is way out of line!!!
Her parents are assholes!!!:argh:

but they screwed up severly and rather than taking personal responsibility for their error in parenting, want to blame others.

If they were good parents, their daughter would have come to them when she found out she was pregnant because she would have felt comfortable discussing it with them, and would have felt confident that they would love her and support her, regardless of her decision.

But, like so many conSWERVEative parents, they don't want to take responsibility for their parenting actions. No, that nasty boyfriend all but forced their precious daughter to have sex and that horrible Planned Parenthood clinic must have strong-armed her into the abortion.

ter, just their fucking precious MORAL VALUES.

about the judge's decision. But it's not government invasion of privacy, and I have to assume that there'll be some restrictions on the plaintiffs.

"The records are needed to determine whether the clinic has a pattern of failing to notify parents, said attorney Brian Hurley, who represents the family. Patients' names would be blacked out on the documents to protect their privacy, Hurley said." I don't know how that would help, really, unless it was required either parent, guardian, or judge to sign. I'm assuming a judge can give the ok.

"The family's lawsuit alleges that the girl's 21-year-old boyfriend took her to the clinic and identified himself as her stepbrother, and the abortion was performed without notifying the girl's parents."

If they goofed once and gullibly believed the girl and her boyfriend that he was her guardian, it's a (stupid) mistake. If they constantly goofed, it's a pattern of negligence, possibly a willful one.

What the hey was your under-age daughter doing dating A TWENTY-ONE YEAR OLD IN THE FIRST PLACE?

:grr:

dg

with their demands to turn that information over to them. If their argument is they believe there is a pattern of negligence on the part of the clinic, then they should address the state about their concerns and let the state follow up on the matter legally (on behalf of the other parents)....which means that the family suing would have no connection to any private information obtained. I also agree with a previous poster, that by receiving this information, that these families of the girls listed and the girls themselves will likely be targeted for harassment by pro-lifers. And if the clinic is found guilty of anything involving not contacting the parents, then it should be up to the state to handle the issue with them and the specific parents....not this family that has nothing to do with them.

"must give a family that is suing the clinic all records on abortion patients younger than 18," this also doesn't say that all or any of the girls listed in this file DID NOT previously get their parents consent. And yet their information will be made public regardless to this "family" and their lawyer. Who claims the patients' names would be blacked out, and how does this protect their privacy? If they didn't know the names of the parents and the girls to begin with from this court order, how would their lawyer know how to verify anything? Info. they shouldn't have.

for the record: if I had a teenage daughter who was on this list, whether she got my consent or not beforehand, I would be p*ssed at this family, their lawyer and the GOP endorsed judge who felt they had a right to violate her privacy for their case. And I would go after all them in court and I would be very public about it! I'd also go after the state if it allowed it to continue. If this set of parents has a problem with the clinic for not contacting them..fine....then they should deal with the clinic on their behalf ONLY. And while they're at it, take the 21 yr old bf to court for giving false information & any other legals matters he may face, but leave the other girls and their privacy out of it.

..... The Fundies are doin' the happy dance.

before you get too hysterical over this.

But I totally agree - that they shouldn't HAVE TO release the information, period.

But if a girl lies - hey - how are they to know?

Maybe those parents should have done a better job of brainwashing their daughter, teaching her not to lie" - and not letting her date a 21 year old!

I gather they want to find out if the clinic has been notifying parents of under 18 women. But if all the other names are blacked out, how could they confirm who was notified in the other cases anyway?

And the NSA is only spying on Terrorists. Uh huh. :eyes:

get access to all abortion records in Kansas for any underaged girls. His claim was that he was trying to find out whether children were being secually abused.

The Kansas Supreme Court shot him right down.

and compile the numbers of those informed and those which weren't. The plaintiffs have every right to know if this clinic repeatedly violated the law or didn't. But conversly the patients do have a priviledge here which should be honored.

I'm kind of squishy on this in terms of whether a violation of privacy happens when one's medical condition is exposed but they remain for its and purposes anonymous.

First, I think the plaintiffs actually get less information that way since they presumedly can't really check on notification and second, I think that medical records contain enough other details that patients would have some reason to fear that people could determine who they were from just the records.

made public. That means more than names: it should include, addresses, finacial info, race, etc. they only thing that can be used is age and if parent was notified. Otherwise this judge has just violated the privacy of a lot of people who are not involved in this case.

necessary. Why should the plaintiff have access to others' files? A panel of judges or experts (physicians) could compile the numbers. But really, this is harassment. If a girl lies about her age, Planned Parenthood is not responsible (fake IDs are not difficult to come by).

She's younger than 18, and her boyfriend is 21? He got her pregnant, talked her into an abortion (or at least liked the plan enough to lie for it), took her there, and posed as her stepbrother to give consent?

I think they have larger issues than with Planned Parenthood. What, is Planned Parenthood supposed to run a background check on everyone saying they're family? That's ridiculous! This isn't the facility's fault--their daughter was dating a much older man, got pregnant, was too scared to tell her parents, and lied to get the procedure. Something tells me that's the common story they'll find in the records, and how is the facility supposed to know what are lies and what aren't?

Ohio passed a law which clearly requires the permission of a parent not just some adult.

Why would they let a "stepbrother" handle that, anyway? It is a medical procedure, and there are risks, minor though they are. If I found out my daughter did this, I'd be furious, but mostly at myself for her not feeling she could turn to me for this, not the facility.

thing. A brother or sister maybe but a step brother is another matter.

My stepbrothers wouldn't have ever helped me with anything like that. I'm sure there are stepsiblings closer than I am with mine, though.

http://privacyruleandresearch.nih.gov/patients.asp

Many people have concerns about who can see and use information about them, particularly information about their health. The U.S. Government created a rule, called the Privacy Rule, under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) to help protect your personal health information from being used or shared when it shouldn't be.

...

Will everyone who sees my personal health information have to protect it under the Privacy Rule?

Not always. There may be times when your personal health information is shared with someone who doesn't have to follow the Privacy Rule. Examples of people and organizations that may not have to follow the Privacy Rule are:

* Sponsors of the research study
* Makers of drugs for the study
* Some researchers

Even though some doctors, researchers, or organizations aren't covered entities under the Privacy Rule, many of them know it's important to keep your information private. They also may have to follow state or other national laws that protect your information.

...

If you think your privacy rights under the Privacy Rule were violated, you may complain to the "covered entity" (such as the doctor or hospital you visit for the research study). You may also complain to the Office for Civil Rights (OCR). Your complaint must be in writing. To complain to OCR:

* Send the complaint electronically by email to OCRComplaint@hhs.gov, or as a letter or fax to the OCR regional office where the possible violation happened. These regional offices are on the map and chart shown on the back cover, or you can find them on the OCR website at http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacyhowtofile.htm.
* Print and fill out the form found on the above website or send the same information to the OCR regional office. Name the person or organization you are complaining about, and describe how you think they didn't follow the Privacy Rule.
* Send in your complaint within 180 days of when you learned about the possible violation.
* Make sure that any possible violation happened on or after April 14, 2003, which is when the Privacy Rule protection started.

For more information on the Privacy Rule and for filing complaints go to the OCR website: http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/hipaa. You can also call OCR for free at 1 (800) 368-1019.

aside from the appalling lack of privacy and respect for a woman's right to her own body....I bust my ASS keeping compliant with the laws, cannot tell a cop who had an asshole let him get stuck with a used needle he did not tell the cop about in his pocket if he told our paramedics whether he was HIV positive or not....

Not only THAT, they are allowing the release of records of MINOR CHILDREN without the permission of the parents of said minor children (if you want to look at it in a weird way).

The level of work that goes into HIPAA compliance is daunting if you have never had to deal with it. And a judge just opened the window and pissed on the law itself. In front of everyone.

This goes farther up the justice food chain, I guarantee it.

and few priviledges are. For example, presumedly the cop who got stuck by the needle can have a judge compel the person to provide a blood test or a health department can inform the cop if he is indeed positive. If I get an AIDS test and it comes back positive any sexual partners of mine are informed that they are at risk. Not that I am positive but that they are at risk. In this case admittedly it is the same thing to tell the cop he is at risk and that this guy is positive but I presume the rule would still apply.

and puked on, etc. However, it would be NICE if we could say hey, he did not give us any listed drugs that are part of HIV maintenance, he SAID he was not HIV positive..etc. etc. However, the HIPAA compliance would allow me to provide the EMS report redacted...the ONLY thing I could show was the patients name. . . not vice verse with the patients name redacted and everything else open for view, based on the probable ability of the cop being able to associate the name of the person with that person's medical history....it gets so tricky when dealing with EMS and law enforcement...unlike the more sanitary and orderly HIPAA compliance of a doctor's office or clinic or hospital. It is more messy, more immediate, subject to tighter restrictions. We can really only give that information if the police do NOT know who the suspect is and the suspect/patient is deemed to be a dangerous and imminent threat to the well being of the community (same for health department inquiries as far as contagious diseases)...if the cops want the info, they gotta ducas tecum.

The exception can also make is for children's services....in the cases of child abuse...if they are called in, they get them immediately...but even they cannot share with the cops.

HIPAA aside...again I state that releasing the names of the MINOR patients treated, for whatever reason, by PP is in violation by releasing that information of a minor child without permission from said child's parents.

Now, you go to Texas (and I think portions of other states, even varying by county/city/village/parrish), and their state attorney, from what I understand, says their EMS do not have to be HIPAA complaint at all, even if they bill for services...go figure.

in that he should have looked at the records and provided plaintiff with the numbers of those who hadn't had parents asked for permission. That was the only relevent issue here. I also wonder if all the plaintiffs got was names redacted on forms that showed permission had been obtained. I feel for the EMS people, my brother is an xray tech and has been in similar positions. It seems some way should be found to inform the cops without violating hippa.

it is mostly by the seat of your pants...the word is, when in doubt, don't give it out. It is a mess...it just sucks to tell a spouse whose hubby or wife is in the hospital and they stop by to get a copy of the EMS report (and we even KNOW the person, maybe grew up with them) that they cannot have the report without it being totally redacted. Even TOUCHIER is a spouse who comes in and asks for the report and I say no, then they say their spouse died (maybe we did not know) and even though I can release them once a person dies, they have to have the coroner or a family physician call me and confirm the death or come in with a death certificate...not fucking pleasant no matter how compassionate you try to be.

HIPAA - good idea with good intentions written by everyone NOT in the medical field, and with a total combined common sense IQ of ZERO.

he needs to be ruined for this obscene ruling

they know others have occured at the very least. They are invading other's privacy to fish for the meat for their stupid lawsuit.

Let them explain how getting money from this place is going to remove the fact their daughter had an abortion. It won't and her name will eventually be leaked out.

a civil case? Ever? It's nigh impossible to get them in criminal proceedngs, I understand. I thought that like marriage, clergy and attorney-client privledges this was sanctrosanct.

Now being underage means one has no rights,
being from a different country,
being outside the country, means the same:
no American rights, no rights
even though we base our very existence on rights endowed by our creator;
a creator that transcends such political boundaries
in and from this concept that allows us to continue to exist.

We may find some temporary security,
but we have given away
our opportunity to survive as a nation.