Proposed Tennessee law: What do you think of this proposal, regarding abortion records?

Question

Is it a violation of privacy and HIPAA? What about women who have miscarriages? Is it emotional terrorism?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070214/ap_on_re_us/abortion_death_certificates

I would not make the assumption it cannot happen- look at Florida's adoption laws from a few years back. This is the one where every woman who wanted to make a child eligible for adoption had to take out a newspaper ad detailing the potential circumstances of the child's conception in the hometown where the conception occurred. The law was aimed at preventing paternity suits. The outcome was that women who kept their children, and re-married later, were taking out ads in their college newspapers, detailing their sexual history, in order to get permission to have the child legally adopted by the new husband. They described it as the most humiliating experience they had ever encountered. These people's goals are to make women feel ashamed of their choices. What better way to do it?

Answer 1

This is another example of patriarchy trying to control women's bodies by creating laws in order to rule them. This is making what should be private into a public debate. Men are not made to go through these humiliating witch hunts yet they are fifty percent responsible and should also be accountable. This is another horrendous action by those crazy right wing religious fanatics. Women need to be strong and men and women who are feminist need to lobby government to stop this emotional rape from continuing.

Answer 2

It's extremely Bible-belt ignorant, but it pays to assume that it can be done. That way you might get a step ahead. It is possible to collect certain information without violating HIPAA, for example you can't give birth and keep it completely secret. What doesn't figure here is that they're requesting a death certificate without having a birth certificate. So the next move may be a "pre-birth" certificate, verifying that a woman is pergnant. Doctors would be required to provide information on a positive finding of pregnancy and a pregnancy test is probably required before every abortion. I'm surprised that they didn't think of introducing this first. They could trump up some reason for it, like ensuring that women got adequate prenatal care or tracking the rate of miscarriages, all for the public good of course. They could even bait the hook by providing some sort of prenatal benefits, in which case they could require knowledge of a pregnancy ending before birth in order to stop the benefits. Whether you actually used the benefits or not would be irrelevant as long as they were offered, and some would take them. That sets the stage for a certificate of fetal death.

Answer 3

I think it would lead to a lot of back-alley abortions and a huge increase in the number of women dying as a result of those procedures. There is a right to privacy in regard to medical procedures, and if the result of this legislation is that women who undergo the procedure will be identified publicly, many will opt for an abortion off the record.

I also wonder, what next? Do they want to write up a death certificate every time someone ovulates on the ground that it's the death of a potential life?

Ultimately, it's a silly bill that will never pass. The right to an abortion is based on a fundamental right to privacy, and this bill is a violation of that on its face.

EDIT: Since first answering this question, I spoke with my S.O. who used to work as an RN at an abortion clinic in Ohio. She informed me that in Ohio, a death certificate IS generated any time a later-term abortion is performed. She estimated they're issued when it's been 24+ weeks after conception. So I now agree that the bill shouldn't be dismissed (though I still consider the bill silly!).

There do seem to be a lot of conflicting policies involved, and many of the responders after me made some great points. It would seem that something would have to be recognized as a birth before a death certificate could be issued, but, like I said, Ohio apparently does this, and, to my knowledge, they don't ever acknowledge that anything was ever once alive. I don't know how Ohio justifies its policy of writing up a death certificate - it may have something to do with "public health" or some such.

The Tennessee bill clearly seems to have been designed for the purpose of publicly exposing women who choose abortion in the hope that they will decide against the procedure rather than be exposed. The bill's drafters might also have some idea that forcing the issuance of a death certificate might help women to realize that the procedure results in a death (or so they believe). If this is their motivation, they are sorely underestimating the intelligence of most women. And, if this is their motivation, then, yes, I do think the bill is a form of emotional terrorism. Further, like I said, women who don't want to be exposed will just have it done off the record... or we'll be hearing about an increase in the number of full-term babies stuffed into dumpsters.

It irritates me that people who sponsor bills like this still don't realize that restrictions on abortion DO NOT CUT DOWN ON THE NUMBER OF ABORTIONS! All they do is increase the number of deaths of women who try to get around such restrictions.

Answer 4

It's definitely a violation of privacy and possibly HIPAA as well. These folks are trying to go around the back door to limit a woman's access to abortion providers, so in that case, yes it is a form of emotional terrorism--trying to frighten a woman into making the choice they think is in her best interest. Remember that all this started with Griswold vs. Conneticut (1965), a Supreme Court case that guaranteed the right to privacy. The case came to court to challenge a Conneticut law that probited the right to use contraceptives. The court struck the law down 7-2 on the ground that it violated the "right to marital privacy"--yep, that's right, Estelle Griswold and her husband were legally married at the time! There are groups out now that want to challenge this Griswold v. Conneticut decision so they can decide what YOU can do with YOUR OWN BODY. Remember, as one of the founding fathers said, 'the price of freedom is eternal vigilance'.

Answer 5

Personally, I think that a lot of pro-lifers, if confronted with a pregnant 14 year old, would get the girl a quiet abortion. And by pregnant 14-year-old, I mean their own child or someone they got pregnant. So, I don't think this will go anywhere. If it was legislated, I suspect the courts would knock it down pretty quickly. And, frankly, people with money would get their abortions out of state, the way they used to send off pregnant girls to out-of-state homes to have the baby and give it up for adoption, saying the child was "visiting relatives."

Something like half of all women have an abortion or miscarriage in their lives, so this would mean harrassing a lot of women if the pro-lifers decided to make women miserable.

Answer 6

It's political first and foremost.

Emotional terrorism? I don't think the people they most want to hurt are the women or their children- they want to hurt their opponents... although I agree the women who have abortions are the ones who will be damaged the most if this passes. I think the legislators want to maintain their political seat by catering to the least common denominator of their constituencies.

Answer 7

It will never go anywhere: a person's medical records are completely private. Tennessee is kind of a kooky, backward place...that's where the infamous "Scopes Monkey Trial" took place in 1925.

EDIT:
"Fizzle" brought up some really good points: she wrote "Doctors would be required to provide information on a positive finding of pregnancy and a pregnancy test is probably required before every abortion" . I need to bring up the fact that sooooo many women miscarry early on: women miscarry sometimes without having known they were pregnant in the first place.

Answer 8

I dont know what it is but it is for sure not emotional terrorism. On the other hand iam against anything that gets in the way of abortion. If anything we should encourage girls to have even more abortions. We need to limit the output of thrashy peopel and useless eaters, the kind of people singel party girls who got pregnant by accident will rise.

Answer 9

I live in Tennessee and have for about 12 years, I have to say that I am completely shocked and ashamed! I've had 2 miscarriages before I had my two children, but they were both before 14 weeks. I was irate that i lost my babies, but even more so when they referred to me losing my babies as "Missed Abortions", because I didn't CHOOSE to have my babies taken from me like that......Unbelievable.

Answer 10

i do not see how they can acquire a father's consent with out first organising paternity (which maximum docs gained't even do previously the child is born, defeating the entire purpose of an abortion). even if in the experience that they conventional paternity, I nonetheless imagine it truly is a negative theory. there are such extremely some thoughts that this can pass incorrect, I actual don't have any doubts that the regulation will fail. it is her body, so it is her decision. even as a guy receives pregnant, then a guy can make that call. I comprehend the legislator's reason (if the guy fairly needs and is able to take care of the youngster notwithstanding the lady does no longer), yet he's going about it the incorrect way. A bill like this purely has such ability to be misused through ill-intentioned adult males who fairly do not care what occurs to the child so long because the lady suffers. And if that is meant as a preemptive degree (per chance reasoning that if it is more beneficial sturdy to get an abortion, then those who do not opt for to be mothers and fathers will be more beneficial careful in having sex), I thoroughly disagree with that as well. it would have 0 outcome on the fashion of unintentional pregnancies.