If Rush loses the medical privacy battle, then Roe is in danger.

[Silverhair]

The only way to protect the rights for ourselves, is to protect them for our enemies also. Some posters are wanting Rush's medical records to be turned over to the state.

Remember, Roe was decided on the right to medical privacy. If the state gets to knock down his right to medical privacy, then Roe is in serious danger.

[msongs]

1. limbaugh may be violating CRIMINAL drug laws...dont think it is the

same issue.

Msongs
www.msongs.com/clark2008.htm

[Silverhair]

5. And if Roe is struck down, what do you think abortion will be?

The law recgonizes certain privledged relationships.

Attorney/client
Priest/subject
Marriage
Doctor/Patient

Even for criminal procedings, the doctor/patient is one of the protected relationships.

[kestrel91316]

20. I have a privileged relationship with my clients, as a veterinarian ......

BUT that privilege goes right out the window if there is any sort of criminal investigation going on. I am required to submit copies of records to the veterinary board upon demand if they wish to investigate a complaint.

I am, however, prohibited from going to the newspaper to tell all about how Mrs. Smith let her cat outside against my advice and it got hit by car and died after 2 weeks in the hospital and $2000 in medical bills.

Disclaimer: Mrs. Smith and the details here are fictional.

[SeattleGirl]

27. I, too, work in a field where I am bound by confidentiality, but

there are a few exceptions spelled out in the Release of Information form my clients have to fill out, one of being that I have to report to the proper authorities criminal activity. I don't know the details of the case against Limbaugh, but if there was criminal activity that can be shown by the medical records, well..... However, much as I abhor Limpballs, I would totally object to the disclosure of his medical records unless it was absolutely imperative that the information be released. I want my right to privacy protected, and Limipball's too. That right cannot be selective based on who someone is (and yes, I know, sometimes it IS selective, but I'll keep fighting for it NOT to be.)

[DefenseLawyer]

2. No offense

but Limbaugh's case has to do with claiming a privilege to avoid turning over medical records in a criminal investigation, not a general "right to medical privacy". I don't see a lot of merit in your comparison.

[Matariki]

3. I support Rush Limbaugh's right

to take his fill of whatever drug he wants - legal or not. It's his body. I say, go for it dude. In fact, the more, the better.

[chicagiana]

21. Not a right ...

Obviously the Supreme Court has not acknowledged this as a right.

For the record, I think this SHOULD be a right. But remember that there are rules about what people can ingest. And then there are rules about what you can sell and how you can sell it. You can acknowledge one without acknowleding the other.

[Matariki]

38. you understand i was making a joke?

right?

although i *do* FIRMLY believe that a person can put whatever they want into *their* body, even if it kills them. (sort of what i was suggesting for Mr. Limbaugh.)

[chicagiana]

46. jokes are often denoted ...

Since you can't "deliver" a joke with voice pattern and inflection, the winky smiley, ";-)" serves this purpose.

[leftofthedial]

4. BS, not related

medical privacy is well-adjudicated and is not protection from felonies.

[flyarm]

33. WASN' T IT THE MENENDEZ BROTHERS TRIAL WHERE

their shrink had to testify ?? because it was a crime not protected??
I am almost positive the menendez brothers shrink had to testify..but memory is slipping on that one..but i am almost sure of that!!

fly

[leftofthedial]

35. in limbaugh's case, "doctor shopping" is the crime

you can't make a doctor an accomplice to a crime in order to immunize yourself.

[Charlie Brown]

6. No, it isn't

The Fourth Amendment does not give you the right to conceal criminal activity. If investigators can show probable cause that you're concealing evidence or misconduct, they get a warrant and search. That's exactly what happened with Rush.

[DefenseLawyer]

9. Actually

it really isn't a 4th Amendment issue, it is a privilege issue. Privilege does give persons the right to conceal criminal activity when it applies. For example if a person confesses a crime to his priest, the priest cannot be forced to divulge that evidence, even if there is probably cause to show that he has such evidence, because the information is protected by a recognized legal privilege. The question in Limbaugh's case is whether he was obtaining prescription drugs by fraud, rather than as medical treatment, and thus ultimately whether a medical privilege could be used to conceal the records.

[Charlie Brown]

13. I knew priests and lawyers are protected by privilege

If Rush was taking advantage of the doctors to get the goods, does it still apply?

[DefenseLawyer]

17. Well, that's the issue

The government believed they had probable cause to obtain the records, so they went to a judge and got a search warrant and seized the records. Limbaugh's argument was that the records were privileged and their seizure violated his rights under a specific Florida law regarding disclosure of medical records. The courts have basically said that Limbaugh had no right to prior notice and a right to be heard before a warrant was issued and that privilege would not protect the seizure of the records where there is probable cause for fraud in obtaining the prescriptions. Of course like any criminal defendant (assuming he is charged) he could challenge the validity of the warrant and the admissibility of the evidence in the course of his criminal case.

[chicagiana]

23. If Limbaugh is protected ...

If Limbaugh was protected, than Quack Dope Scripters all across the nation could not be prosecuted. Evidence would ALL be ruled inadmissible because all of it would be covered by doctor-patient privelege.

[jobycom]

16. So would it have to be proven that he was committing fraud

before they could claim that his medical records aren't priveleged because of fraud? Sounds like a catch 22, is that part of the issue?

If so, is this a more important case than it first appears, or is this pretty standard?

[DefenseLawyer]

24. Well I don't know if it is as important as the ACLU thinks it is

Personally I think any case which gives the government broader power to seized a person's stuff is bad, but that being said I'm not sure this issue really creates much of a problem. Part of Limbaugh's beef is that he is a public figure and he wants his medical records kept secret for obvious reasons; he is basically arguing that privilege protects his record from being subject to seizure in the first place. The crux of his argument was that this Florida law on medical records gave him the right to prior notice and a hearing before his record could be seized. The government argued that they had probable cause and got a search warrant to obtain the records as part of a criminal investigation. Obviously if everyone was entitled to prior notice and a hearing before the execution of a search warrant there would be a lot of cocaine being flushed down toilets, etc. And that is what the courts have said so far. Now that doesn't mean ultimately that he can't claim a privilege as a bar to the admissibility of the records themselves in a criminal case or that he won't be able to challenge the validity of the search warrant either.

[kestrel91316]

22. I would think that the doctors have some sort of legal obligation

set forth by their state medical boards to cooperate with a criminal investigation??

[FreedomAngel82]

34. Yes

Them wanting to look at my medicial records for having an abortion isn't right because it isn't illegal. He's abusing the drugs and everything.

[Charlie Brown]

37. I think Limbaugh is suspected of doctor shopping

abusing pain killers is not illegal. Acquiring them dishonestly by doc-shopping, however, is a crime in FL.

He tried to pull a fast one on various doctors, got caught, and is hiding behind doctor-patient privilege laws and the constitution. I don't see how convicting Rush of unethically acquiring his dope jeoperdizes Roe.

[pitohui]

7. roe's already in danger

rush needs to go to prison, they should not be able to hide behind the protections that WE fought for when we are not enjoying these protections ourselves

do YOU know of a place in your area where you can obtain a legal abortion

i don't & it used to be my primary care physician was an ob/gyn who owned an abortion clinic, that is how far it's gone downhill

abortion rights for real women have been gone for yrs, poor ppl can't travel long distances for an abortion, as we just saw, they can't even get out of town to keep from being drowned in a hurricane, they're just screwed

rush must pay

i'm not interested in any excuses as to why he shouldn't pay

he must pay there must be consequences

[Silverhair]

8. Five abortion clinics in my metro area.

Until you asked I didn't know of any personally. One search in an online yellow pages found five.

I checked some other large metro areas. Each one had clinics. At this time, access is NOT a problem. You seem to want a clinic in every small town. That isn't going to happen as the demand just isn't there to support it.

I suspect that the main reason most have closed is for old fashioned business reasons rather than politics. They ARE still legal.

I am NOT willing to throw away any of our rights to silence Rush.

[pitohui]

11. is new orleans a small town? lol i guess it is now

i haven't had access in yrs

"each" metropolitan area in usa does not have clinics, you know that it is not right, some entire states only one have doctor that does terminations

:eyes:

[Silverhair]

14. I found three in the N.O. LA metro area.

Just a simple yellow pages search.

[jobycom]

18. According the "Katrina looked like a fetus people" there were 5 in NO, and

10 statewide.

[Scout]

41. 80% of the counties in the united states have NO abortion providers.

access is a HUGE problem, depending where you live, and if your state has those stupid mandatory waiting periods or not.

Many of those who have closed have done so not for old fashioned business reasons, but because their insurance has skyrocketed due to protests and attacks, or no one will rent to them because of the protests.

[Silverhair]

43. You hit several different issues at once.

Mandatory waiting periods - I am against those. I don't see what good they do.

80% of counties don't have a clinic. I don't see that as a major problem. You sound like you want one on every corner, two if possible. Counties are usually fairly small and going to the next county is not an arduous odyssey.

Insurance is part of old fashioned business reasons. And why do they need to RENT? Just buy a place. Buy a large enough place to be able to have security.

[Scout]

45. you really need to educate yourself on this issue...

and I don't have time to do so.

Was it you who told someone in another thread that they should educate themselves before posting? If so, take your own advice please. If it wasn't you who said that, just ignore these last 3 sentences.

ETA: changed my mind, I made the time. While reviewing these stats, keep in mind that Michigan is a BLUE state ... imagine if you were a woman with an unintended pregnancy in the boonies of a Red state...
http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/yourstate/whodecides/states/michigan/index.cfm
Abortion Bans UPDATED
Michigan has unconstitutional and unenforceable criminal bans on abortion.
IN DETAIL >>
Biased Counseling & Mandatory Delay UPDATED
Michigan law subjects women seeking abortions to biased counseling requirements and mandatory delays.
IN DETAIL >>
Counseling Ban/Gag Rule
Michigan prohibits certain state employees or organizations receiving state funds from counseling or referring women for abortion services.
IN DETAIL >>
Insurance Prohibition for Abortion
Michigan restricts insurance coverage of abortion.
IN DETAIL >>
Physician-Only Restriction
Michigan prohibits certain qualified health care professionals from performing abortions.
IN DETAIL >>
Refusal to Provide Medical Services
Michigan allows certain individuals or entities to refuse to provide women specific reproductive health services, information, or referrals.

IN DETAIL >>
Restrictions on Low-Income Women's Access to Abortion
Michigan restricts low-income women's access to abortion.
IN DETAIL >>
Restrictions on Young Women's Access to Abortion
Michigan law restricts young women's access to abortion services by mandating parental consent.

IN DETAIL >>
Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers (TRAP)
Michigan subjects abortion providers to burdensome restrictions not applied to other medical professionals.
IN DETAIL >>


http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/sfaa/pdf/michigan.pdf
Where Do Women Obtain
Abortions?
• In 2000, there were 1,819
abortion providers in the United
States. This represents an 11%
decrease from 1996, when there
were 2,042 abortion providers.
33% of these providers were
hospitals, 25% were abortion
clinics (clinics where more than
half of all patient visits were for
abortion), 21% were clinics where
fewer than half of all visits were
for abortion, and 21% were private
physicians’ offices. 71% of all
abortions were provided at
abortion clinics, 22% at other
clinics, 5% at hospitals and 2% at
private physicians’ offices.
• In 2000, there were 50 abortion
providers in Michigan. This represents
a 15% decrease from 1996, when there were 59
abortion providers.
• In 2000, 87% of U.S. counties
had no abortion provider. 1/3 of
American women lived in these
counties, which meant they
would have to travel outside their
county to obtain an abortion. Of
women obtaining abortions in
2000, 25% traveled at least 50
miles, and 8% traveled more than
100 miles.
• In 2000, 83% of Michigan
counties had no abortion
provider. 31% of Michigan
women lived in these counties. In
the Midwest census region, where
Michigan is located, 28% of
women having abortions traveled
at least 50 miles, and 10%
traveled more than 100 miles.
• In Michigan, 1 metropolitan
area lacks an abortion provider:
Jackson

[cynatnite]

10. Isn't the ACLU helping limpballs out on this?

I read it somewhere.

[Silverhair]

12. Yes, they are. The ACLU correctly understands the danger

to all of us if the state is able to break the Doctor/Patient protection.

[FreedomAngel82]

36. And here he claimed to hate them

:eyes:

[Turbineguy]

15. Aren't there exemptions

anyway, like a person having a highly contagious disease?

[chicagiana]

19. Privacy vs perogative ...

This is an issue about REVEALING something that is private. It's not about forcing Rush into a Drug Rehab clinic.

A perogative is different than and issue of private vs public information.

[dhinojosa]

25. YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY ...

RIGHT.....

It takes a smart person to think objectively like that. Too bad I didn't, shame on me. Thanks. Any petty grievance for one blowhard isn't worth bringing all of our own freedoms down.

Oh and recommended.

[mikelewis]

26. The Doctor Patient Priviledge is not an absolute...

Medical records can be summoned by a Grand Jury if there is sufficient evidence to prove that the medical records reveal the nature of the crime. With the advent of the Patriot Act, the government can now subpoena these records with a FISA court order which requires a lower burden of proof. Legally, they can subpeona his records and use them against him in a prosecution.

The only way they could use this case to undermine Roe would be to legally declare an abortion murder in which case the medical records would be permissable in court. A charge of murder cannot be charged in an abortion because the current legal definition is that life begins at birth. The case that should scare the shit out of you is the Lacy Peterson case. This seemingly bullshit runaway bride case sets a bad precedent in being able to bring charges of murder for an unborn child. Limbaugh V. THE GOP GOVERNMENT is well within legal boundaries. I do not support this type of intrusion but ironically the very laws Limbaugh supports can bury him.

[DesEtoiles]

28. Roe was not decided on medical privacy

[raysr]

31. Silencing Limbaugh

would seriously slow the repubs down, in-as-much as Rush is their only source of news.

[FreedomAngel82]

29. It personally in my opinion makes him a hypocrite

He wants his records private but not mine as a woman.

[dhinojosa]

32. That's right, but who is going to do the right thing?

Tough call. I'd hate for some Kansas attorney demand medical records for all women in his state and get what he wants just because it was satisfying to go after Rush at one point in time.


I'd drop the Rush thing if it means absolutely privacy for all women all the time.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

30. I bet Fatso doesn't think that way.......

....hmm....do you think he'd take the hit to save all the innocent unborn babies? What a dilemma for the Pigman.

[Silverhair]

39. LOL !! Love your response. NT

[Silverhair]

40. Thank you DUers for your knowledgeable responses and discussion.

Obviously, I am a layman when it come to the law. It is interesting to see the points made by those more legally skilled than I. Some of the legal hairs are just a bit too fine for me to split. I saw medical privacy as medical privacy. Obviously there are grades to it, and I thought there were not.

Since the ACLU is involved on Rush's side, then I still think that an important basic right is involved. They aren't going to waste valuable resources on him if there weren't. Sort of like the time they defended the KKK (Or was it a Neo-Nazi group?)getting a parade permit.

[bleedingheart]

42. I say let it happen to Rush...because then perhaps the conservatives

will suffer from what they have brought forth....

The problem is that we liberals are too smart for our own good. Conservatives seem to only learn if they are burned, sad but true.

[noonwitch]

44. Rush is entitled to the same privacy level I am, no more, no less

I really don't think he should be indicted, because I support decriminalizing most drug possession laws and legalizing marijuana (we need the revenue for children's services badly). I'd be a hypocrite if I thought only Rush should be indicted.

I think Rush should be mocked and humiliated whenever possible for his own hypocrisy on the subject, but it's really a waste of a prosecutor's time and resources to press on unless Rush is a ticket to a person who is distributing the drugs.