• Protecting women’s privacy Protecting women’s privacy The Justice Department’s intrusive demand for the medical records of hundreds of women who had abortions is an invasion of privacy that shows disdain for the doctor-patient relationship. The Justice Department has subpoenaed
• Protecting women’s privacy
Protecting women’s privacy
The Justice Department’s intrusive demand for the medical records of hundreds of women who had abortions is an invasion of privacy that shows disdain for the doctor-patient relationship.
The Justice Department has subpoenaed the records of six hospitals across the country as part of its legal defense of the new federal law criminalizing “partial-birth” abortion.
Attorney General John D. Ashcroft said that every precaution would be made to protect the identities of the women, although the Chicago Tribune reports that the original subpoena to Northwestern Memorial Hospital did not make that exception. The government says it needs the women’s medical histories to show that this method of abortion is never medically necessary in order to protect a woman’s health. That call belongs to medical professionals, not the federal government.
Doctors have persuaded the federal courts to put the “partial-birth” law on hold, arguing that it fails to include an exception for the health of the mother. The doctors maintain that the dilation and extraction method of abortion is often the safest way to abort a badly deformed fetus in the later stages of pregnancy. The Justice Department says it cannot defend the law against that claim without the women’s records.
Federal courts have split on whether the government should get the information. A judge in New York said yes; another in Chicago said no. The Chicago judge said the scant information that the government could obtain from the records was outweighed by the importance of protecting the confidentiality of the doctor-patient relationship.
The Justice Department is dismissive of the doctor-patient relationship. “In light of modern medical practice,” it argues, “. . . individuals no longer possess a reasonable expectation that their histories will remain completely confidential.”
That’s an Orwellian argument but not entirely unexpected. The “partial-birth” abortion law itself damages the doctor-patient relationship by threatening criminal punishment for a doctor performing the medical procedure he or she deems safest for the patient.
Women’s and abortion rights groups are understandably alarmed by the subpoenas because of Mr. Ashcroft’s strong opposition to abortion. They also point out that some anti-abortion activists go to extraordinary lengths to determine the identities of women who have had abortions. There is no doubt that some women justifiably would believe their privacy had been violated. Some might even feel traumatized if the details of their medical histories were placed in the hands of abortion foes, Justice Department officials and, inevitably, the press, even if their names were not disclosed.
The Supreme Court has stated emphatically and often that abortion regulations must have an exception for the health of the woman. But Congress refused to include the exception, instead making a congressional “finding” that this method of abortion is never necessary to protect a woman’s health, as if Congress saying it makes it so.
The Justice Department needs to have enough information to defend the law. But the federal courts should narrow the subpoena and protect the privacy of the women. When a woman meets with her physician to make an agonizing decision that terminates a pregnancy, she doesn’t need John Ashcroft or President George W. Bush snooping over her shoulder or second-guessing medical professionals.
St. Louis Post-Dispatch
