> "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Deborah Harrell wrote: > >> "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? > > Deborah, I have made no such equation. > > Rather, I am referring to the fact that Roe vs. Wade > is the _original_ > "right to privacy case" in the United States. The > US Supreme Court in > that case, did not find a right to abortion in that > case - how could they? > - but rather found that 'the penumbra of the > Constitution' contains a right to privacy. <snip>
Thank you for the clarification. I also haven't read anything about the Limbaugh case, which is why I only commented on medicals records and privacy from a single perspective. There are, as others have pointed out, times when public safety outweighs doctor-patient confidentiality, but those situations are (and ought to be) quite circumscribed. Debbi __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now http://companion.yahoo.com/ _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
