Abortion in Virginia - New Rules

[OkToBeTakei]

Hehe. But without going OT I am sure you now get the horror of reading the initial link...Which is what I felt.

I am also now googling NI in relation to Act 1967. Again ...had no idea. Terrible. At least we have P&O et al. Others? Worldwide? not so much :(

[treemom]

It was similar here in regards to Southern Ireland. Women crossed the border into Northern Ireland in order to have abortions. What is good about the system (although 'system' and good are not normally good together) Is that not only did these women have the ability to do that..they also got it free. I am unsure exactly of the Legalities in Southern Ireland right now.

My parents ..both in their late 70's ..used to do a 'Border' run for Condoms. That part of Ireland for a long time was very influenced by religion. Still is in many ways.

I think anywhere is OK..as long as you are allowed to feel comfortable, confident and respected. This should be a 'right' Hope Kansas gave you that.

Excep I could afford to travel to Kansas, many women can't. That is the problem with the patchwork system.

[OddlyAmused]

I'm absolutely horrified by this. The requirements for the buildings (which, according to the article, are not necessary for quite a few of the buildings affected), requiring records be handed over, it's all meant to make it more difficult for practitioners to perform abortions and for women to have them. I'm particularly concerned with the question of who would see the records and what they could potentially be used for.

[jessablessa4realz]

Isn't this a complete violation of the 4th Amendment. I would say all of this fits under "unreasonable search and seizure". Oh wait...that's right...the 4th Amendment hasn't existed since 2002.

[Kristelle]

Oklahoma has something like this and the argument is because it allows them to monitor sexually abused teens/preteens that clinics were not reporting.

Bullshit. They don't give a damn about sexual abuse, those that thought up these draconian laws couldn't care less about abused children. It's all about controlling women. I hate that they hide under this "we need to protect the children" banner when we all know that as long as it's not out in the open, sexual abuse is fine by them.

[fundyfunland]

This is so wrong, on so many levels. Who's next? People who visit a cancer clinic?

Well, of course, that would make perfect sense actually. Why shouldn't the health department be able to access patient info on people wanting to terminate their cancers. I mean...we're talking about LIVING cancer cells, right? How dare they want to radiate/excise them.

Laws like these....I can't even..... :angry-screaming:

[emmiedahl]

I think this will be shot down in courts easily. HIPAA is a federal thing, and states cannot just say "No Thank You!" to that shit.

right? RIGHT? I really hope that whole Constitution thing protects us from these egregious abuses of power.

[CanadianHippie]

Bullshit. They don't give a damn about sexual abuse, those that thought up these draconian laws couldn't care less about abused children. It's all about controlling women. I hate that they hide under this "we need to protect the children" banner when we all know that as long as it's not out in the open, sexual abuse is fine by them.

Just like those bullshit parental consent laws some states have. They claim it's about protecting the children, but for the girls most affected by the laws it's hardly any sort of protection. Sure some who get abortions underage who don't tell their parents for fear of retribution don't have anything to fear, but I'd say most have a perfectly valid reason to fear their parent(s) finding out they are pregnant/planning an abortion. And it sure as hell doesn't protect the ones whose own parents would seriously injure or kill them for getting pregnant in the first place.

[alba]

Just like those bullshit parental consent laws some states have. They claim it's about protecting the children, but for the girls most affected by the laws it's hardly any sort of protection. Sure some who get abortions underage who don't tell their parents for fear of retribution don't have anything to fear, but I'd say most have a perfectly valid reason to fear their parent(s) finding out they are pregnant/planning an abortion. And it sure as hell doesn't protect the ones whose own parents would seriously injure or kill them for getting pregnant in the first place.

Who was that teenager who died from a back-alley abortion because she didn't want to tell her parents? Belle something? IIRC, she actually had loving, supportive parents and was afraid of disappointing them. If the fear of disappointment was enough for her to risk (and, sadly, lose) her life, then it should come as no surprise that girls from less supportive families would do the same.

[2xx1xy1JD]

Once again, I'm having a flashback to my first D&C in 1998, when I noticed that my medical chart said "missed abortion" and when I was reading about the murder of Dr. Slepian.

At the time, I was paranoid about ever having to reveal my medical records to anyone, and at work just told clients that I had a "medical emergency". My fear was that someone, like a crazy client of mine, might see "missed abortion" and a D&C procedure and attack me, since the average person doesn't know that this is the medical term for a fetus that spontaneously dies in the uterus but is not expelled. Later, my diagnosis was "habitual aborter" - the medical term for someone who has suffered repeated miscarriages.

I had thought of my fears as just being a product of my grief and crazy thinking at the time...but the more I read, the less crazy it seems.

It only takes one employee to misuse private information, and feed it to the wrong people.

I'm still not sure that anti-abortion terrorists would ever bother to read a full medical file, instead of jumping to conclusions. I know my friend was referred to an abortion clinic when she had a stillbirth. I also know of clinics being used for women with life-threatening conditions who couldn't be treated while pregnant.

[Minerva]

Once again, I'm having a flashback to my first D&C in 1998, when I noticed that my medical chart said "missed abortion" and when I was reading about the murder of Dr. Slepian.

At the time, I was paranoid about ever having to reveal my medical records to anyone, and at work just told clients that I had a "medical emergency". My fear was that someone, like a crazy client of mine, might see "missed abortion" and a D&C procedure and attack me, since the average person doesn't know that this is the medical term for a fetus that spontaneously dies in the uterus but is not expelled. Later, my diagnosis was "habitual aborter" - the medical term for someone who has suffered repeated miscarriages.

I had thought of my fears as just being a product of my grief and crazy thinking at the time...but the more I read, the less crazy it seems.

It only takes one employee to misuse private information, and feed it to the wrong people.

I'm still not sure that anti-abortion terrorists would ever bother to read a full medical file, instead of jumping to conclusions. I know my friend was referred to an abortion clinic when she had a stillbirth. I also know of clinics being used for women with life-threatening conditions who couldn't be treated while pregnant.

I'm surprised no one has tried to change those medical definitions. I could see a fundy couple reading "habitual aborter" on their chart and flipping out and calling their lawyer. Is it unusual to read one's own medical chart?

[2xx1xy1JD]

If my chart is sitting right there, I'm going to read it. I have the right to see my own records.

I just googled "habitual aborter" and yes, some people do flip out when they see the medical terminology:

http://www.whattoexpect.com/forums/grie ... orter.html

[Terrasola]

As a non-American, am I correct in assuming that changing the new rule in Virginia would likely require the catalyst of a complaint?

[treemom]

As a non-American, am I correct in assuming that changing the new rule in Virginia would likely require the catalyst of a complaint?

Probably not.

[Terrasola]

Probably not.

So, who would point out that the new rule is likely not HIPPA compliant, in what forum, and who would investigate? Or is that not the most likely route towards a review of this new rule? If not, what would likely cause a lookey-loo at the rule?

Not trying to snark on snarkers, just trying to understand (in a theoretical thinking world) what the logical progression of events is likely to be.

[pomology]

I think this will be shot down in courts easily. HIPAA is a federal thing, and states cannot just say "No Thank You!" to that shit.

right? RIGHT? I really hope that whole Constitution thing protects us from these egregious abuses of power.

God, I hope so. It's a fucking terrifying law.

And, even if it was okay for the government to have a list of women who had had abortions (WHICH IT IS NOT AT ALL), this list wouldn't be limited to that:

"Under proposed permanent regulations, government "inspectors" will have the power to demand a year's worth of patient lists from women's health clinics that perform abortions."

So, if a woman gets a pap smear at a PP clinic that performs abortions, she ends up on this government list? What the ever loving fuck?

Seriously, I don't see how anybody can claim that this piece of shit legislation is protecting anybody from anything. Or isn't an attack on women. All women. Just... I don't even.

Also, I've known of situations where HIPPA has been a pain in the neck to deal with (I believe it was for my parents when my brother was starting grad school and needed his medical records and is irresponsible as far as that type of thing goes/was out of the country). But there is a reason it exists. THIS is why it exists.

[treemom]

So, who would point out that the new rule is likely not HIPPA compliant, in what forum, and who would investigate? Or is that not the most likely route towards a review of this new rule? If not, what would likely cause a lookey-loo at the rule?

Not trying to snark on snarkers, just trying to understand (in a theoretical thinking world) what the logical progression of events is likely to be.

Maybe I misunderstood your question. Yes, in order for it to be examined in federal courts someone would need to file a complaint that it is in violation of HIPPA. They would also have to have standing in the case.

[Terrasola]

Thanks Treemom. I get it now ... I think. So in the real world some poor woman would have to have the brass ovaries to subject herself to a total invasion of privacy and crucifixion by media (plus financial ruin) to attempt to overturn this horrible crap piece of legislation. At the last minute, after the damage is done, the state would likely backtrack (knowing it would lose in court) by saying something like "we will review the legislation as it appears it is not being implemented in the way intended and is having unanticipated effects, and in the meantime it is placed in abeyance" or some such CYA move.

Have I got the gist of it? I find the interplay of various legislation and various levels of government in the U.S. sometimes difficult to understand, but as America is a trendsetter in certain areas (certainly for Canada), it's important to have more than a superficial knowledge.

[samithemage]

As far as medical records and charts go, patients absolutely have a right to read them. However, the recommendation is that a patient read their records with their doctor or nurse present, so that something like "habitual aborter" doesn't get misunderstood by the patient. A lot of medical phrases can seem confusing or accusatory when they aren't. That's why it's preferred that patients read their records with a medical professional present, so that people don't freak out and think that some strange phrase means something completely different than what it really means.

[TinyDancer87]

Is there any reason for the government to be able to access health records from patients, and NOT be against HIPPA regulations? If so, what would an example be?

I'm just trying to understand how Virginia could think this is legal. Is their justification (whatever it may be) compliant with HIPPA regulations? Or are Virginia lawmakers completely oblivious or completely ignoring the rules?

Also, what will Virginia do with the names they recieve? I'm just so confused how this could be legal... my mind can't even comprehend...

[treemom]

The thing is it has accomplished what they want, which is scares women away from getting abortions. It doesn't matter if it is overturned or ever even used, just the perception will scare women.

[TinyDancer87]

The thing is it has accomplished what they want, which is scares women away from getting abortions. It doesn't matter if it is overturned or ever even used, just the perception will scare women.

How is promoting fear from your government ever a good idea? Shit... is Virginia asking for an uprising?

[CanadianHippie]

How is promoting fear from your government ever a good idea? Shit... is Virginia asking for an uprising?

Remember who supports this bill... To most of these people fear and respect are the same thing and they can't imagine anyone would think otherwise or act otherwise.

[Minerva]

How is promoting fear from your government ever a good idea? Shit... is Virginia asking for an uprising?

...yes.

If you ask me, anyway.

[GenerationCedarchip]

Is there any reason for the government to be able to access health records from patients, and NOT be against HIPPA regulations? If so, what would an example be?

I'm just trying to understand how Virginia could think this is legal. Is their justification (whatever it may be) compliant with HIPPA regulations? Or are Virginia lawmakers completely oblivious or completely ignoring the rules?

Also, what will Virginia do with the names they recieve? I'm just so confused how this could be legal... my mind can't even comprehend...

I haven't read the new law in detail, but depending on how it's drafted, it may possibly pass muster legally. HIPAA has exceptions for social services, public health purposes, and law enforcement in certain circumstances, and mandatory reporting requirements are also one of the few areas where HIPAA does not entirely preempt state law.

I can see why one might have an interest in knowing how many abortions go on in a jurisdiction without patient names being attached, but I can't think of any purpose(other than intimidation) for the government to know patients' names and personal identification data.