----- Original Message ----- From: "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2003 6:39 PM Subject: Re: Rush Limbaugh is a hypocrite
> At 01:45 PM 12/24/2003 -0800 Gautam Mukunda wrote: > >--- Robert Seeberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >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. > >> > >> xponent > >> Drift Maru > >> rob > > > >Your medical records are private not because of the > >Constitution, but because of doctor-patient > >confidentiality, which is a matter of law. There > >isn't anything in the Constitution on that topic. > > Actually medical records are somewhat private under the Consitution, as > they are protected by the Constitution from "unreasonable" search and seizure. > This is a question and not a challenge. If it were a doctor being investigated then I could see the constitutional protection. But can you show some reference that would support your claim that a patient has a constitutional protection in a case where the patient is being investigated for criminal activity? I've never seen the argument John is making presented before, and I'm quite curious as to how that would work. And why. xponent Lawfully Unknowledgeable Maru rob _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
