To them, "private" is merely a military rank

Another example of how in the world of Bush, ideology always trumps decency.

Washington, Feb. 11 (NYT) - The Justice Department is demanding that at least six hospitals in New York City, Philadelphia and elsewhere turn over hundreds of patient medical records on certain abortions performed there. ...

Sheila M. Gowan, a Justice Department lawyer, told Judge [Richard Conway] Casey [of Federal District Court in Manhattan] that the demand for the records was intended in part to find out whether the doctors now suing the government had actually performed procedures prohibited under the new law, and whether the procedures were medically necessary "or if it was just the doctor's preference to perform the procedure."

The law in question was enacted in November to ban an abortion procedure called intact dilation and extraction, misleadingly labeled by opponents as "partial birth" abortion. A group of doctors nationwide has challenged the ban. Now the Shrub team wants to invade doctor-patient privacy and pore through individual health records to see if they can second-guess the personal and medical judgments of those involved in order to play to the far right wing of the GOP constituency.

And what is the argument for this?

Citing federal case law, the [Justice] department said in a brief that "there is no federal common law" protecting physician-patient privilege. In light of "modern medical practice" and the growth of third-party insurers, it said, "individuals no longer possess a reasonable expectation that their histories will remain completely confidential."

Is that what you thought? That the government could rifle through your medical records because you have "no reasonable expectation" they'd remain privileged? In fact, the argument is totally bogus. Remember those forms you signed when you went to the hospital or the doctor's office, the ones where you specifically said you authorized the release of medical information for the purpose of processing your insurance claim? In the absence of such a statement, the hospital/doctor would not give the insurance company the information it required to make payment. That is, you had to "opt in" to foregoing confidentiality to get the insurance benefits.

Now did you think that by signing that form, by opting in, in that particular situation, you were surrendering any "reasonable expectation" that the Justice Department wouldn't also be poring over those records? Neither did I. But that is exactly what DOJ is arguing.

Astonishingly - well, no, I take that back, none of this astonishes me any more - Casey is going along with the feds. He approved the subpoena and is now threatening the doctors' lawyers with sanctions if they don't cough up the records immediately.

All is not gloom and doom, however. Ashcroft's minions also subpoenaed the Northwestern University Medical Center as part of the same case. The chief federal judge in Chicago threw it our last week, calling it a "significant intrusion" on patient privacy.

A woman's relationship with her doctor and her decision on whether to get an abortion "are issues indisputably of the most sensitive stripe," and they should remain confidential "without the fear of public disclosure," the judge, Charles P. Kocoras, wrote....

Props to Kocoras.