> "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Robert Seeberger wrote:
> >I think the point Tom is riffing on is that Rush > has repeatedly > >claimed that there is no constitutional right to > privacy. > >That would likely apply also to medical records. > Why does arguing that there is no constitution right > to privacy to have > abortions or homosexual relationships at all apply > to the execution of the > laws of Florida regarding medical records? > > Or more generally, what is so inconsistent about > saying that there is no > right to privacy to have an abortion or a homosexual > relationship, but that > there is a right to privacy that protects one from a > government's > unreasonable search of your medical records? <jaw dropping> How can you *possibly* equate sexual activity between consenting adults to abortion? Especially since homosexual sex has *no* chance of leading to abortion? While I support the right-to-choose as a necessity, I have posted that in my version of an ideal world, all sexually active adults (all teens would wait until "legal" age) would use 100%-effective types of birth control, all sex would be consensual, and there would be little need for abortion except in case of the mother's life being uncorrectably endangered (in my ideal world, birth defects would be identified and corrected prenatally, and there wouldn't be any rape either). Of course, my ideal world *has* never and *will* never exist, although we might come close in some respects. What happens between consenting adults in their own homes is certainly not the government's business. I personally find the practice of wife/husband swapping disgusting, but have no interest in any law against it - although 'the law' might conceivably become involved if frex there is a paternity question. :P *Graphic terms warning this paragraph* And abortion is a medical procedure, so it falls under the medical records umbrella. I personally think that parts of medical records, such as injuries sustained in a physical assault or caused accident, do need to be allowable in court; however, intimate detailed accounts such as Miss Brown being sodomized by a beer bottle, or Mr. Smith having his genitals shredded by a viciously swung chainsaw, should not be made public (seal the records for 50-100 years? Forever?). As I have previously posted, medical personnel have *already* deliberately omitted recording certain things, that have no _current_ relevance, in the medical record because insurance companies have used them to deny coverage, and/or employers have gained access to sensitive information and used it against an employee. [Examples of things that might be omitted: trying pot once or twice in youth (but regular use of any illicit drug or IV drug use can have future consequences, so those must be written); clinical depression, as after the death of a child, that is diagnosed in retrospect; remote history of being abused as a child, if therapy has already been completed in the past. I have heard of each of these examples causing significant current problems for a person, even though the situations were resolved in the remote past.] Debbi __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now http://companion.yahoo.com/ _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
