babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » national news   » Supreme Court rejects abortion privacy case

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Supreme Court rejects abortion privacy case
Snuckles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2764

posted 29 April 2003 03:13 AM      Profile for Snuckles   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Read it here.
From: Hell | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Trisha
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 387

posted 29 April 2003 03:41 PM      Profile for Trisha     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
This is terrible. I can see no reason why patient records of abortions would need to be released, even if the clinic or doctors were under investigation. It should be a woman's choice to come forward in cases like that, not something imposed on her.

This legislation opens the possibility of using these specific records to discredit women in a variety of situations but especially in cases of abuse and sexual assault. It's also the first step in opening all medical records to be used against people. I can see rejections on medical grounds being used to justify refusal of loans, jobs, licencing of all kinds and education.

I know this is in the U.S. for now, but how far behind will Canada be if this policy becomes widely accepted? We need to worry when these things start, not after they are widespread.


From: Thunder Bay, Ontario | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
verbatim
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 569

posted 29 April 2003 10:42 PM      Profile for verbatim   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
I know this is in the U.S. for now, but how far behind will Canada be if this policy becomes widely accepted?
Very. I really can't see the Mclachlin SCC following the Scalia USSC on this particular path.

[ 29 April 2003: Message edited by: verbatim ]


From: The People's Republic of Cook Street | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
bevy
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3778

posted 30 April 2003 12:42 PM      Profile for bevy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Also in South Carolina ..

"Bill to Erect Statue to Memorialize Unborn Children
The South Carolina newspaper, The State, reports that the state legislature's House Ways and Means Property Tax Subcommittee approved a bill last week to erect a monument on state grounds memorializing "unborn children who have given their lives because of legal abortion."

The original decision included plans for 6-foot-tall statue of a fetus to be placed outside the State House, visible from a nearby street. However, many within the anti-choice movement believe that the image is too graphic and are now advocating for a more tamed-down icon: a statue of a few children at play with the inscription "what could have been, what should have been" and a call for the end of legalized abortion.

State Representative Ralph Davenport is sponsoring the measure because he believes the monument would demonstrate that "life is precious," he said.

"It's a gift God has given us to nurture and grow, not to destroy."

A state-appointed panel would oversee fund-raising for the monument, which would be built entirely with private donations. The state, however, would be responsible for maintaining the monument.

Leaders from the American Civil Liberties Union have not weighed in on whether the creation of such a monument will result in any legal problems, but say the government should spend less time erecting statues and more time aiding families.

"The focus ought to be on things like better prenatal care and day care, family planning, comprehensive sex education and other services that help families," Louise Melling, director of the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project in New York, told The State.

The Bill to create the monument is currently pending in the South Carolina House."

from womensnews http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/1306/context/archive


From: toronto | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Trisha
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 387

posted 30 April 2003 10:06 PM      Profile for Trisha     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
As if there weren't enough problems with bashing of people involved with abortions, now they want to make it even worse. They are obviously trying to criminalize abortion again, forgetting that many women died from that practice. We can get into another discussion for or against abortion but not allowing abortion can also be counted as murder of the many women who will go to back street butchers because they feel they don't have any other choice. Those who don't learn from history are fated to repeat it.
From: Thunder Bay, Ontario | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gir Draxon
leftist-rightie and rightist-leftie
Babbler # 3804

posted 30 April 2003 10:25 PM      Profile for Gir Draxon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
They beter not be trying to ban abortions again, because thats just stupid. It will just go underground again, with rather gruesome results.

But wow, thats a tough one. Privacy should be respected. But collecting the information like that might actually cause more thought to go into having an abortion as opposed to delivering the baby and then giving him/her up for adoption. I beleive in decreasing the number of abortions, not simply driving them underground. Perhaps this may be a way to do that? But there HAS to be a better solution.


From: Arkham Asylum | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 30 April 2003 10:41 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The state says that it is collecting this information to oversee abortion PROVIDERS, to insure they are offering a competent medical service. I think the Supreme Court says only that, where that is the objective, it is not unconstitutional to do so.

The statute does not appear to allow the release of any of the information. Even if it did, that in itself would not make the information admissible in a criminal trial.

Probably the decision is wrong, only because the real objective of the legislation may be different than what the Court decides it was.

Does anyone actually kinow, though, whether any information on a medicare-funded abortion in Canada is provided to the paying entity by the doctor? We may well be doing this here already.

[ 30 April 2003: Message edited by: jeff house ]


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca