Oklahoma REALLY doesn't want Women to have Abortions

[Lonestar_logic]

Why is it a scare tactic? If you see nothing wrong with killing an unborn child then why would public opinion matter?

One, the details of the abortions being performed by any medical practitioner aren't any of your business.

Two, the information can easily be used to harass medical facilities which terminate pregnancy.

Three, it also may be a violation of HIPPA which prohibits dissemination of medical information absent the signing of a HiIPPA-compliant authorization.

*edit*

just saw that Luissa already educated you.

killing unborn babies is now called terminating pregnancies?

Why would anyone harrass a facility that would kill unborn children? Geez I don't know, maybe it's because they're killing unborn children!! The true character of a person really shows when you see who they're willing to protect. Forget about the innocent lives that are, in your words "terminated", let's protect those that are guilty of the act of terminating the lives of unborn children. You people disgust the hell out of me. Almost makes me wish your parents believed in abortion!

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Of course I wouldn't want any laws to be broken. But they can amend their state constitution that would make it pefectly legal. And seeing that we're talking about the lives of unborn children it should be a no-brainer. I'm amazed that there are people out there that don't value the life of an unborn child.

Point is, this isn't the way to do it. Governmental power creeps. Once you authorize the government to start posting private health data in this situation, what's to stop them from posting your private health data in other situations?

I agree we need to work to prevent mothers from getting abortions. Its just this is not the way to do it at all.

 

[Immanuel]

Of course I wouldn't want any laws to be broken. But they can amend their state constitution that would make it pefectly legal. And seeing that we're talking about the lives of unborn children it should be a no-brainer. I'm amazed that there are people out there that don't value the life of an unborn child.

Point is, this isn't the way to do it. Governmental power creeps. Once you authorize the government to start posting private health data in this situation, what's to stop them from posting your private health data in other situations?

I agree we need to work to prevent mothers from getting abortions. Its just this is not the way to do it at all.

AGI (The Alan Guttmacher Institute) posts the exact same kind of information that would be posted here, albeit underreported, all the time.

Nobody complains when AGI posts this stuff.

Immie

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Of course I wouldn't want any laws to be broken. But they can amend their state constitution that would make it pefectly legal. And seeing that we're talking about the lives of unborn children it should be a no-brainer. I'm amazed that there are people out there that don't value the life of an unborn child.

Point is, this isn't the way to do it. Governmental power creeps. Once you authorize the government to start posting private health data in this situation, what's to stop them from posting your private health data in other situations?

I agree we need to work to prevent mothers from getting abortions. Its just this is not the way to do it at all.

I could understand it if personal data was being asked for like your name, address and telephone number. I don't consider the date, what county you reside in, your age, marital status, race, education level, state or country, number of previous pregnancies as being personal when there is no name attached to it.

For example :
1. Date of abortion----10/8/09
2. County in which abortion performed-----Brazoria
3. Age of mother---------30
4. Marital status of mother--------never married
(married, divorced, separated, widowed, or never married)
5. Race of mother----------white
6. Years of education of mother----------12
(specify highest year completed)
7. State or foreign country of residence of mother--------Texas
8. Total number of previous pregnancies of the mother
Live Births----3
Miscarriages---0
Induced Abortions----0

Now that just doesn't seem like personal data to me.

 

[Luissa]

Of course I wouldn't want any laws to be broken. But they can amend their state constitution that would make it pefectly legal. And seeing that we're talking about the lives of unborn children it should be a no-brainer. I'm amazed that there are people out there that don't value the life of an unborn child.

Point is, this isn't the way to do it. Governmental power creeps. Once you authorize the government to start posting private health data in this situation, what's to stop them from posting your private health data in other situations?

I agree we need to work to prevent mothers from getting abortions. Its just this is not the way to do it at all.

AGI (The Alan Guttmacher Institute) posts the exact same kind of information that would be posted here, albeit underreported, all the time.

Nobody complains when AGI posts this stuff.

Immie

and the people who it is reporting about signed a waiver for their information to be shared.

 

[Luissa]

Of course I wouldn't want any laws to be broken. But they can amend their state constitution that would make it pefectly legal. And seeing that we're talking about the lives of unborn children it should be a no-brainer. I'm amazed that there are people out there that don't value the life of an unborn child.

Point is, this isn't the way to do it. Governmental power creeps. Once you authorize the government to start posting private health data in this situation, what's to stop them from posting your private health data in other situations?

I agree we need to work to prevent mothers from getting abortions. Its just this is not the way to do it at all.

I could understand it if personal data was being asked for like your name, address and telephone number. I don't consider the date, what county you reside in, your age, marital status, race, education level, state or country, number of previous pregnancies as being personal when there is no name attached to it.

For example :
1. Date of abortion----10/8/09
2. County in which abortion performed-----Brazoria
3. Age of mother---------30
4. Marital status of mother--------never married
(married, divorced, separated, widowed, or never married)
5. Race of mother----------white
6. Years of education of mother----------12
(specify highest year completed)
7. State or foreign country of residence of mother--------Texas
8. Total number of previous pregnancies of the mother
Live Births----3
Miscarriages---0
Induced Abortions----0

Now that just doesn't seem like personal data to me.

how are they going to access this information? maybe by looking at their medical files which cannot be released without the person's permission. I have already posted the federal hipaa law regarding this. It doesn't matter what your opinion is, they legally cannot release this information without the person's consent.

 

[Luissa]

"those people also sign a waiver allowing their medical records to be used,"

And you know this how? How does anyone know when answering a 3 page form to see a doctor if ANYTHING on it is going to be used or not? You sign you name at the bottom of that form you're GIVING the info to the doctor to USE. As long as it is ONLY the statistical facts being reported there is NO VIOLATION of anyone's rights. Doctors put statistical data out that they saw 26 women on Jan.20th and out of those 26, 10 were treated for herpes. NO NAMES, NO ADDRESSES, but I'd bet not a damn one of those 10 signed some waiver saying that the fact they were in the 10 out of the 26 treated for herpes was or wasn't to be used.

because I worked in the health care field and we had to take a two day class just on hipaa laws and other laws protecting us and the patients. and when you go to the doctor and fill out your personal information you are never signing it over to be used to be for anything other than medical purposes.
I can post the law for the third time if you like.

 

[Immanuel]

Point is, this isn't the way to do it. Governmental power creeps. Once you authorize the government to start posting private health data in this situation, what's to stop them from posting your private health data in other situations?

I agree we need to work to prevent mothers from getting abortions. Its just this is not the way to do it at all.

AGI (The Alan Guttmacher Institute) posts the exact same kind of information that would be posted here, albeit underreported, all the time.

Nobody complains when AGI posts this stuff.

Immie

and the people who it is reporting about signed a waiver for their information to be shared.

Really?

AGI supposedly reports the total number of abortions performed as well as all the demographics stated as being requested above. Therefore either a) "ALL" women who have abortions sign those waiver b) AGI is breaking the law or c) AGI is lying about the total number of abortions performed annually or d) it is not required for the reporting of Demographics.

There is no private information requested by that law that AGI does not report.

So what is your beef?

Immie

 

[Luissa]

Why is it a scare tactic? If you see nothing wrong with killing an unborn child then why would public opinion matter?

One, the details of the abortions being performed by any medical practitioner aren't any of your business.

Two, the information can easily be used to harass medical facilities which terminate pregnancy.

Three, it also may be a violation of HIPPA which prohibits dissemination of medical information absent the signing of a HiIPPA-compliant authorization.

*edit*

just saw that Luissa already educated you.

killing unborn babies is now called terminating pregnancies?

Why would anyone harrass a facility that would kill unborn children? Geez I don't know, maybe it's because they're killing unborn children!! The true character of a person really shows when you see who they're willing to protect. Forget about the innocent lives that are, in your words "terminated", let's protect those that are guilty of the act of terminating the lives of unborn children. You people disgust the hell out of me. Almost makes me wish your parents believed in abortion!

we are willing to protect their rights which are also protected by the federal government. the fact you want someone's rights violated because you don't agree with what their doing shows more about you than it does us. First it is women who are termnating a pregnancy, but where does it stop? Do you want your doctor's office releasing your medical records so they can be used for political reasons?

 

[DiamondDave]

You got to fill out more than that to qualify for many government programs.... the government gathers many pieces of information for statistics in man y ways and makes the results public...

If the government were posting that Woman X and Mary Q Public were getting abortions for 'the specific reasons', I would be against it... as it is now, this is not something that is objectionable

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Point is, this isn't the way to do it. Governmental power creeps. Once you authorize the government to start posting private health data in this situation, what's to stop them from posting your private health data in other situations?

I agree we need to work to prevent mothers from getting abortions. Its just this is not the way to do it at all.

I could understand it if personal data was being asked for like your name, address and telephone number. I don't consider the date, what county you reside in, your age, marital status, race, education level, state or country, number of previous pregnancies as being personal when there is no name attached to it.

For example :
1. Date of abortion----10/8/09
2. County in which abortion performed-----Brazoria
3. Age of mother---------30
4. Marital status of mother--------never married
(married, divorced, separated, widowed, or never married)
5. Race of mother----------white
6. Years of education of mother----------12
(specify highest year completed)
7. State or foreign country of residence of mother--------Texas
8. Total number of previous pregnancies of the mother
Live Births----3
Miscarriages---0
Induced Abortions----0

Now that just doesn't seem like personal data to me.

how are they going to access this information? maybe by looking at their medical files which cannot be released without the person's information. I have already posted the federal hipaa law regarding this. It doesn't matter what your opinion is, they legally cannot release this information without the person's consent.

There's more than one way to skin a cat. Either change the laws or find another way of discouraging people from killing unborn children.

 

[Immanuel]

What is it that you on the left fear about this law?

Is it that those who report the number of abortions performed annually will be found to be frauds and that the actual number of abortions performed in the U.S. is much higher than reported?

2 or 3 million? 5 Million? 10 Million?

Wouldn't that maybe horrify many people who trusted AGI?

Immie

 

[veritas]

It's funny that the same people who hate abortion, like wars and the death penalty. I don't see them supporting education or welfare either. I don't see many of them adopting children.

It's almost as if we need more children so they can grow up and send them to war, uneducated and ill prepared for regular society. Is this a round about way of avoiding the draft?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

One, the details of the abortions being performed by any medical practitioner aren't any of your business.

Two, the information can easily be used to harass medical facilities which terminate pregnancy.

Three, it also may be a violation of HIPPA which prohibits dissemination of medical information absent the signing of a HiIPPA-compliant authorization.

*edit*

just saw that Luissa already educated you.

killing unborn babies is now called terminating pregnancies?

Why would anyone harrass a facility that would kill unborn children? Geez I don't know, maybe it's because they're killing unborn children!! The true character of a person really shows when you see who they're willing to protect. Forget about the innocent lives that are, in your words "terminated", let's protect those that are guilty of the act of terminating the lives of unborn children. You people disgust the hell out of me. Almost makes me wish your parents believed in abortion!

we are willing to protect their rights which are also protected by the federal government. the fact you want someone's rights violated because you don't agree with what their doing shows more about you than it does us. First it is women who are termnating a pregnancy, but where does it stop? Do you want your doctor's office releasing your medical records so they can be used for political reasons?

You got things fucked up. First of all I never stated I wished laws to be broken. I said if laws were being broken then the laws need to be changed. And secondly the woman isn't the only one involved in terminating her pregnancy, if it were then why would she need an abortion doctor? I would gladly allow the information that was asked to be released. Hell I'll release that information right now.

Date - 10/08/09
County - Brazoria
Age - 48
Marital status - widowed
Race - white
Years of education - G.E.D.
State - Texas
Total number of previous pregnancies - 0

lf I were a woman I would see nothing personal about the above information.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

It's funny that the same people who hate abortion, like wars and the death penalty. I don't see them supporting education or welfare either. I don't see many of them adopting children.

It's almost as if we need more children so they can grow up and send them to war, uneducated and ill prepared for regular society. Is this a round about way of avoiding the draft?

Who likes wars?

The death penalty isn't on par with the killing of innocent unborn children.

The rest of your diatribe is pure fiction.

 

[DiamondDave]

It's funny that the same people who hate abortion, like wars and the death penalty. I don't see them supporting education or welfare either. I don't see many of them adopting children.

It's almost as if we need more children so they can grow up and send them to war, uneducated and ill prepared for regular society. Is this a round about way of avoiding the draft?

Killing of innocent life is the same as: defending the country??? eliminating the enemies who are attacking, have attacked, or are planning to attack the country??? Taking of a non-innocent life as a result of being guilty of committing the most heinous of crimes??? Horseshit

Since when don't we support education?? Maybe not free education after you become an adult and are supposed to be responsible for yourself....

And why should anyone support involuntary wealth redistribution known as 'welfare'??

And back up your assumption that conservatives or republicans or whatever other group you are looking to bash, do not adopt children

The last statement in your post is just pure, unabashed bullshit

 

[veritas]

Thanks for neg rep, sissy dave.

Please leave Maryland. We don't want you.

 

[Luissa]

here is the definition of medical records:
"The portion of a client’s health record that is made by physicians and is a written or transcribed history of various illnesses or injuries requiring medical care, including inoculations, allergies, treatments, prognoses, and frequently health information about immediate family, occupation, and military service."

previous pregnancy would be covered under that.
and I will post the hipaa law one more time since none of you get it.


Limits on Use of Personal Medical Information. The privacy rule sets limits on how health plans and covered providers may use individually identifiable health information. To promote the best quality care for patients, the rule does not restrict the ability of doctors, nurses and other providers to share information needed to treat their patients. In other situations, though, personal health information generally may not be used for purposes not related to health care, and covered entities may use or share only the minimum amount of protected information needed for a particular purpose. In addition, patients would have to sign a specific authorization before a covered entity could release their medical information to a life insurer, a bank, a marketing firm or another outside business for purposes not related to their health care.


Prohibition on Marketing. The final privacy rule sets new restrictions and limits on the use of patient information for marketing purposes. Pharmacies, health plans and other covered entities must first obtain an individual's specific authorization before disclosing their patient information for marketing. At the same time, the rule permits doctors and other covered entities to communicate freely with patients about treatment options and other health-related information, including disease-management programs.


Stronger State Laws. The new federal privacy standards do not affect state laws that provide additional privacy protections for patients. The confidentiality protections are cumulative; the privacy rule will set a national "floor" of privacy standards that protect all Americans, and any state law providing additional protections would continue to apply. When a state law requires a certain disclosure -- such as reporting an infectious disease outbreak to the public health authorities -- the federal privacy regulations would not preempt the state law.


Confidential communications. Under the privacy rule, patients can request that their doctors, health plans and other covered entities take reasonable steps to ensure that their communications with the patient are confidential. For example, a patient could ask a doctor to call his or her office rather than home, and the doctor's office should comply with that request if it can be reasonably accommodated.


Complaints. Consumers may file a formal complaint regarding the privacy practices of a covered health plan or provider. Such complaints can be made directly to the covered provider or health plan or to HHS' Office for Civil Rights (OCR), which is charged with investigating complaints and enforcing the privacy regulation. Information about filing complaints should be included in each covered entity's notice of privacy practices. Consumers can find out more information about filing a complaint at http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/hipaa or by calling (866) 627-7748.
HEALTH PLANS AND PROVIDERS
The privacy rule requires health plans, pharmacies, doctors and other covered entities to establish policies and procedures to protect the confidentiality of protected health information about their patients. These requirements are flexible and scalable to allow different covered entities to implement them as appropriate for their businesses or practices. Covered entities must provide all the protections for patients cited above, such as providing a notice of their privacy practices and limiting the use and disclosure of information as required under the rule. In addition, covered entities must take some additional steps to protect patient privacy:

Written Privacy Procedures. The rule requires covered entities to have written privacy procedures, including a description of staff that has access to protected information, how it will be used and when it may be disclosed. Covered entities generally must take steps to ensure that any business associates who have access to protected information agree to the same limitations on the use and disclosure of that information.


Employee Training and Privacy Officer. Covered entities must train their employees in their privacy procedures and must designate an individual to be responsible for ensuring the procedures are followed. If covered entities learn an employee failed to follow these procedures, they must take appropriate disciplinary action.


Public Responsibilities. In limited circumstances, the final rule permits -- but does not require --covered entities to continue certain existing disclosures of health information for specific public responsibilities. These permitted disclosures include: emergency circumstances; identification of the body of a deceased person, or the cause of death; public health needs; research that involves limited data or has been independently approved by an Institutional Review Board or privacy board; oversight of the health care system; judicial and administrative proceedings; limited law enforcement activities; and activities related to national defense and security. The privacy rule generally establishes new safeguards and limits on these disclosures. Where no other law requires disclosures in these situations, covered entities may continue to use their professional judgment to decide whether to make such disclosures based on their own policies and ethical principles.


Equivalent Requirements For Government. The provisions of the final rule generally apply equally to private sector and public sector covered entities. For example, private hospitals and government-run hospitals covered by the rule have to comply with the full range of requirements.

Protecting the Privacy of Patients' Health Information

 

[Luissa]

so whoever made the statement doctors can release information with out the patients permission to pharma companies was also wrong.

"Prohibition on Marketing. The final privacy rule sets new restrictions and limits on the use of patient information for marketing purposes. Pharmacies, health plans and other covered entities must first obtain an individual's specific authorization before disclosing their patient information for marketing. At the same time, the rule permits doctors and other covered entities to communicate freely with patients about treatment options and other health-related information, including disease-management programs"

 

[Luissa]

and this is why they can only release the number of people they have treated for say herpes but not release other information.
"Stronger State Laws. The new federal privacy standards do not affect state laws that provide additional privacy protections for patients. The confidentiality protections are cumulative; the privacy rule will set a national "floor" of privacy standards that protect all Americans, and any state law providing additional protections would continue to apply. When a state law requires a certain disclosure -- such as reporting an infectious disease outbreak to the public health authorities -- the federal privacy regulations would not preempt the state law."