xkcd

by **LaserGuy** » Tue Mar 20, 2012 3:35 am UTC

A newly introduced Tennesse bill called the Life Defense Act of 2012 would release the names of doctors who provide abortions in the state, as well as detailed demographic information on every woman who has an abortion. Such information would be publicly available on the department of health website.

The reports would not report patient names, but would include, for every abortion:

(1) Identification of the physician who performed the abortion and the
physician’s office, clinic, hospital or other facility where the abortion was
performed;
(2) The county and state in which the woman resides;
(3) The woman’s age, race and marital status;
(4) The number of prior pregnancies and prior abortions of the woman;
(5) The gestational age in number of weeks of the unborn child at the time
of the abortion;
(6) The type of procedure performed or prescribed and the date of the
abortion; and
(7) Pre-existing medical conditions of the woman which would complicate
pregnancy, if any, and, if known, any medical complication which resulted from
the abortion itself.

Pro-choice groups are concerned that this information could be used to intimidate physicians and could potentially lead to violence.

From Huffington Post:

Spoiler:

A new bill moving through the Tennessee House of Representatives would require the state to publish the names of each doctor who performs an abortion and detailed statistics about the woman having the procedure, which opponents worry will spur anti-abortion violence in the state.

The Life Defense Act of 2012, sponsored by state Rep. Matthew Hill (R-Jonesboro), mandates that the Tennessee Department of Health make detailed demographic information about every woman who has an abortion available to the public, including her age, race, county, marital status, education level, number of children, the location of the procedure and how many times she has been pregnant. Each report would also have to include the name of the doctor who performed the procedure.

Several health organizations, including the Tennessee Medical Association and Planned Parenthood, are concerned that the bill will make doctors and women vulnerable to attacks, especially considering the murder of Dr. George Tiller, a Kansas abortion provider, by an anti-abortion activist in 2009.

"We live in an environment where there is a lot of violence against abortion providers, clinics, and clinic staff," said Jeff Teague, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood of Middle and Eastern Tennessee. "We've had physicians who provide abortion care murdered in the past few years. This is an attempt to intimidate physicians who provide abortion care and the women who seek abortions and to terrorize them."

Rep. Gary Odom (D-Nashville) called the bill "very dangerous," and said the Republicans who voted it out of a House subcommittee offered "no explanation as to why this was something that needed to be done."

"It puts a target on women's and physicians' backs," he told HuffPost. "I think it's a very dangerous piece of legislation and serves no purpose I can tell other than trying to intimidate women and physicians."

Hill, the bill's sponsor, did not respond to a request for comment. Nor did Tennessee Right To Life, the anti-abortion group that first suggested the bill to conservative state lawmakers. But at a subcommittee hearing on the bill earlier this month, Hill said, "I think it's fair for folks on both sides to see how prevalent abortion is in our counties and in our communities."

The House Health and Human Resources Committee is expected to vote on the bill Wednesday, and Odom said he expects it to pass in the GOP-dominated House. It will then move to the state Senate, where Republicans are also in the majority.

by **Xeio** » Tue Mar 20, 2012 3:46 am UTC

What the fuck? I'm sure this wouldn't stand up in any court. But WHAT THE FUCK?

Good thing it's secret! I mean, having a complete list of every doctor/woman related in any way to abortions and their complete medical file on record wouldn't be a target at all for activists. I'm sure this'll be under TOP security.

by **ahammel** » Tue Mar 20, 2012 4:35 am UTC

What the actualy fuck is this shit?

Isn't it extremely fucking illegal to release any healthcare information that could identify the patient without their consent? Like, say, their age, race and marital status?

And is there any possible justification for this bullshit aside from "hopefully somebody will kill some abortion doctors"?

Fucking seriously?

by **sardia** » Tue Mar 20, 2012 5:07 am UTC

ahammel wrote:What the actualy fuck is this shit?

Isn't it extremely fucking illegal to release any healthcare information that could identify the patient without their consent? Like, say, their age, race and marital status?

And is there any possible justification for this bullshit aside from "hopefully somebody will kill some abortion doctors"?

Fucking seriously?

The fear of being named could scare abortion doctors away from being abortion doctors. Yay, intimidation.

by **Red Hal** » Tue Mar 20, 2012 9:49 am UTC

: osd.png (100.6 KiB) Viewed 2998 times

Okay, commentary. The lurch toward religious fundamentalism in some parts of America is greatly disturbing. I see battle-lines being drawn and increasingly fervent rhetoric being employed on an alarmingly regular basis. Perhaps it is my cynicism, but I sense a storm in the air.

by **Dark Avorian** » Tue Mar 20, 2012 11:05 am UTC

Wow...what the fuck is wrong with my country. I give up. Fuck all of them.

by **Diadem** » Tue Mar 20, 2012 11:25 am UTC

It's not the barbarism that gets me. It's the outright, unashamed barbarism. It's the open corruption.

by **sourmìlk** » Tue Mar 20, 2012 1:49 pm UTC

I'm pretty sure this is an egregious violation of medical confidentiality. I don't know where doctor-patient confidentiality is legally defined, but this really is unacceptable. Whereas with other abortion bills you could at least pretend there were a moral or medical backing for them, this is blatantly designed just to shame people. I have stopped being surprised by how fundamentalist some states are, and I wish they would leave.

by **Dauric** » Tue Mar 20, 2012 1:56 pm UTC

Problem is that, though it's blatantly illegal to release that medical information, If this thing fucking passes the list has to be out there and it has to harm someone (to some degree) before it can be taken up in court.

by **TheGrammarBolshevik** » Tue Mar 20, 2012 2:29 pm UTC

Guys, this is a proposed law. Unless there's a constitutional defect, I don't think you're going to have an easy time arguing that it's illegal.

by **Ghostbear** » Tue Mar 20, 2012 2:32 pm UTC

Dauric wrote:Problem is that, though it's blatantly illegal to release that medical information, If this thing fucking passes the list has to be out there and it has to harm someone (to some degree) before it can be taken up in court.

Not necessarily: a judge could put an injunction on the law while it goes through the legal process. I believe that will actually be one of the early steps of any legal proceeding actually -- an initial court action to determine whether to put a hold on the law while the rest of the stuff slowly meanders on.As far as I know, the only laws that specifically require you to be affected by them before they can be brought to court is taxes.

TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:Guys, this is a proposed law. Unless there's a constitutional defect, I don't think you're going to have an easy time arguing that it's illegal.

Federal law supersedes state law. Aren't medical privacy laws federal? If they are, then the proposed law would, in fact, be illegal.

As for the law itself, it's really quite terrible. What's with all the state governments doing a hardcore swerve to the social right during an election year? I can't see it as good election year politics at all. Did they see all the outrage over Virginia and decide that they wanted to get in on that or something?

by **TheGrammarBolshevik** » Tue Mar 20, 2012 2:33 pm UTC

Actually, yeah, I guess there would probably be federal privacy law restrictions.

by **sourmìlk** » Tue Mar 20, 2012 2:37 pm UTC

Ghostbear wrote: What's with all the state governments doing a hardcore swerve to the social right during an election year? I can't see it as good election year politics at all. Did they see all the outrage over Virginia and decide that they wanted to get in on that or something?

Well the Republicans used to go on about how Obama was destroying the economy, but the economy is getting much better, so that's not working. So now they're trying to energize their constituents by depriving women of their rights.

by **The Great Hippo** » Tue Mar 20, 2012 2:38 pm UTC

How likely is it that this is one or two politicians' baby; an attempt to re-establish their 'anti-abortion' stance to their pro-life constituency? This sort of thing always pops up when elections are coming close and someone wants to remind their voters as to the 'stakes'. Not that that makes it any less awful, but it may be reasonable to assume that the rest of Tennessee's government is just as horrified about it as we are. Or maybe they're jaded, and accept it as the sort of annual 'putting up the Christmas decorations' event of the election cycle. "Throw up some garland on the tree, watch the pro-life candidates try to rile up their single-issue base with some obscenely offensive bill that will never get passed..."

by **Arrian** » Tue Mar 20, 2012 3:04 pm UTC

LaserGuy wrote:The reports would not report patient names, but would include, for every abortion:

(1) Identification of the physician who performed the abortion and the
physician’s office, clinic, hospital or other facility where the abortion was
performed;
(2) The county and state in which the woman resides;
(3) The woman’s age, race and marital status;
(4) The number of prior pregnancies and prior abortions of the woman;
(5) The gestational age in number of weeks of the unborn child at the time
of the abortion;
(6) The type of procedure performed or prescribed and the date of the
abortion; and
(7) Pre-existing medical conditions of the woman which would complicate
pregnancy, if any, and, if known, any medical complication which resulted from
the abortion itself.

Actually,if you redact the doctor's name, the specifics of facility location (but maybe keep in city or county, not sure about that) the county of the woman's residence and the specific date (maybe publish the stats monthly or quarterly) this would be a tremendously useful data set for a social science researcher. The specific date and county of the woman's residence is too much information, it's enough information to determine a woman's identity, at least in sparsely populated locations and could run afoul of HIPAA.

Yes, as written, the law is a blatant attempt to frighten doctors and women away from abortions. But there is also a silver lining in that a lot of this is very useful information for people studying the social phenomenon of abortion.

by **Dark Avorian** » Tue Mar 20, 2012 3:10 pm UTC

Arrian wrote:
LaserGuy wrote:The reports would not report patient names, but would include, for every abortion:

(1) Identification of the physician who performed the abortion and the
physician’s office, clinic, hospital or other facility where the abortion was
performed;
(2) The county and state in which the woman resides;
(3) The woman’s age, race and marital status;
(4) The number of prior pregnancies and prior abortions of the woman;
(5) The gestational age in number of weeks of the unborn child at the time
of the abortion;
(6) The type of procedure performed or prescribed and the date of the
abortion; and
(7) Pre-existing medical conditions of the woman which would complicate
pregnancy, if any, and, if known, any medical complication which resulted from
the abortion itself.

Actually,if you redact the doctor's name, the specifics of facility location (but maybe keep in city or county, not sure about that) the county of the woman's residence and the specific date (maybe publish the stats monthly or quarterly) this would be a tremendously useful data set for a social science researcher. The specific date and county of the woman's residence is too much information, it's enough information to determine a woman's identity, at least in sparsely populated locations and could run afoul of HIPAA.

Yes, as written, the law is a blatant attempt to frighten doctors and women away from abortions. But there is also a silver lining in that a lot of this is very useful information for people studying the social phenomenon of abortion.

Just like the NSA releasing all of everyone's communications would be great for people studying linguistics and the evolution of casual speech and text.

by **The Great Hippo** » Tue Mar 20, 2012 3:57 pm UTC

Yeah, I mean, there's some clear benefit to anonymous medical information to people interested in social and medical research, and I think there's a conversation to be had about how we can provide that information to those spheres while simultaneously respecting the concerns of the people from whom that data is gleaned--but this isn't that conversation. The 'silver lining' you're talking about is like a silver lining in a enormous, steaming shit-burger--yes, maybe my shit-burger has some pretty good gourmet mustard on it. But it's still a shitburger. Mentioning the gourmet mustard is just downright bizarre.

by **addams** » Tue Mar 20, 2012 4:15 pm UTC

Dark Avorian wrote:Wow...what the fuck is wrong with my country. I give up. Fuck all of them.

Yeah. And; Then, Fuck Them, again.

The country runs on fear. Fear of an unwanted pregnancy is not enough?

What ever happened to the high ideal of "Every child a wanted child"?
It has all been said before.

A blob of tissue must be protected? But, a living breathing aware human is disposable, if, that person was not born into a family with money? Just how wrong headed is that?

We live in the Twenty-First Century. These ideas seem to have come sideways through time from the Dark Ages. It is like a Witch Hunt, only modern.

Yes. Some information provided to researchers is a good thing. California was a compulsive record keeper. The guy that wrote Freakenomics used their records to draw some interesting conclusions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freakonomics

That was a fun book for me. Researchers have responsibilities. Researchers must leave a trail. Researchers must propose what will be done with the information and show that is what was done with it.

The poor, poor women of Tennessee. The wealthy will still do as they please.
Back in the bad old days women with money did have abortions and still will.

1. Leave the state for the procedure.
2. The doctor records the procedure as something else.
3. The staff is told, "This is Confidential! One word and you will lose your job and your license!"

I have seen all of the above done. This is an economic issue. Poor people are too busy being poor to be important constituents.

by **Garm** » Tue Mar 20, 2012 4:42 pm UTC

This is the same information as was being floated by anti-abortion groups. Said information was used by Scott Roeder (killed Dr. Tiller) and others like him. Shameful that these legislators would bond with a movement that will endanger their constituents.

by **XTCamus** » Tue Mar 20, 2012 4:57 pm UTC

addams wrote:
Dark Avorian wrote:Wow...what the fuck is wrong with my country. I give up. Fuck all of them.

Yeah. And; Then, Fuck Them, again.

The country runs on fear. Fear of an unwanted pregnancy is not enough?

What ever happened to the high ideal of "Every child a wanted child"?
It has all been said before.

A blob of tissue must be protected? But, a living breathing aware human is disposable, if, that person was not born into a family with money? Just how wrong headed is that?

We live in the Twenty-First Century. These ideas seem to have come sideways through time from the Dark Ages. It is like a Witch Hunt, only modern.

Yes. Some information provided to researchers is a good thing. California was a compulsive record keeper. The guy that wrote Freakenomics used their records to draw some interesting conclusions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freakonomics

That was a fun book for me. Researchers have responsibilities. Researchers must leave a trail. Researchers must propose what will be done with the information and show that is what was done with it.

The poor, poor women of Tennessee. The wealthy will still do as they please.
Back in the bad old days women with money did have abortions and still will.

1. Leave the state for the procedure.
2. The doctor records the procedure as something else.
3. The staff is told, "This is Confidential! One word and you will lose your job and your license!"

I have seen all of the above done. This is an economic issue. Poor people are too busy being poor to be important constituents.

A blob of tissue > an aware human?... Poor people too busy being poor... Great points. (You know, righteous anger looks very good on you.)

by **addams** » Tue Mar 20, 2012 5:07 pm UTC

Dauric wrote:Problem is that, though it's blatantly illegal to release that medical information, If this thing fucking passes the list has to be out there and it has to harm someone (to some degree) before it can be taken up in court.

Off Topic

Spoiler:

A blob of tissue > an aware human?... Poor people too busy being poor... Great points. (You know, righteous anger looks very good on you.)

Huh? Thanks? What can we do? What can I do?
I did speak up. It was my duty. It got me targeted.
So, the people of Tennessee can go back to quietly attempting to help one another. Very quietly.
Thank the Gods for the internet.
Hard times bring out both the best and the worse in people.

by **nitePhyyre** » Tue Mar 20, 2012 5:27 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:How likely is it that this is one or two politicians' baby; an attempt to re-establish their 'anti-abortion' stance to their pro-life constituency? This sort of thing always pops up when elections are coming close and someone wants to remind their voters as to the 'stakes'. Not that that makes it any less awful, but it may be reasonable to assume that the rest of Tennessee's government is just as horrified about it as we are. Or maybe they're jaded, and accept it as the sort of annual 'putting up the Christmas decorations' event of the election cycle. "Throw up some garland on the tree, watch the pro-life candidates try to rile up their single-issue base with some obscenely offensive bill that will never get passed..."

^This.^ You know how you can tell? \/This \/

Arrian wrote:Actually,if you redact the doctor's name, the specifics of facility location (but maybe keep in city or county, not sure about that) the county of the woman's residence and the specific date (maybe publish the stats monthly or quarterly) this would be a tremendously useful data set for a social science researcher. The specific date and county of the woman's residence is too much information, it's enough information to determine a woman's identity, at least in sparsely populated locations and could run afoul of HIPAA.

If a politician actually wanted to 'Name names' they would have not targeted abortion. They would have collected this (and more!) data for all procedures, having the bill pass without any real attention. Then they would have someone else compile the hit list. That way they could get what they wanted without having their name attached to a shitstorm. Instead they would have their name attached to a bill that reduces cost of medical care, that creates billions of dollars worth of research data, and creates a bunch of jobs.

by **Telchar** » Tue Mar 20, 2012 5:41 pm UTC

The stark naked intimidation attempt is really staggering. I understand wanting to collect the data, but making it available to the public? What is the public's "right to know"? Even a specious government funding argument doesn't work. The fact that this can operate so obviously with relatively little backlash is the reason the US, and to a greater extent the South, is labelled is being backwards idiots.

by **Belial** » Tue Mar 20, 2012 5:52 pm UTC

Well, it doesn't operate. It's a proposed law. Key word "proposed".

by **Dauric** » Tue Mar 20, 2012 6:38 pm UTC

Belial wrote:Well, it doesn't operate. It's a proposed law. Key word "proposed".

Even so, Telchar's point still stands.

Huffington post article wrote:The House Health and Human Resources Committee is expected to vote on the bill Wednesday, and Odom said he expects it to pass in the GOP-dominated House. It will then move to the state Senate, where Republicans are also in the majority.

The bill's been sponsored, so a politician decided to attach his name to it (which in turn means he's fairly sure he can get votes this way), and it's gotten out of a subcommittee to reach the H&HR Committee. It may be just "proposed" but it's already passed a number of hurdles and those watching the state congress think it'll go even farther.

by **mike-l** » Tue Mar 20, 2012 7:52 pm UTC

The text of the bill specifically says the specific information is NOT to be made public. What will be public is an annual statistical report.

Terrible bill wrote: (c)
(1) The commissioner of health shall prepare a comprehensive annual statistical report for the general assembly based upon the data gathered under subsection (a). Such report shall not lead to the disclosure of the identity of any person filing a report or about whom a report is filed, and shall be available for public inspection and copying and shall be posted on the department’s web site. In addition to whatever other information the commissioner of health includes in the annual report, the commissioner shall include the number of abortions performed in each county of the state and the number of facilities in each county, as well as aggregate statistics based on the data gathered under subdivisions (a)(2) - (a)(6) including but not limited to abortion rates by age and race.

(2) Reports filed pursuant to subsection (a) shall be confidential in nature and shall not be accessible to the public, except that disclosure may be made to law enforcement officials upon an order of court after application showing good cause therefore. The court may condition disclosure of the information upon any appropriate safeguards it may impose.

(3) Original copies of all reports filed under subsection (a) shall be available to the board of medical examiners and the board of osteopathic examination for use in the performance of their official duties.

(4) Any person who willfully discloses any information obtained from reports filed pursuant to subsection (a), other than that disclosure authorized under subdivision (c)(1), (c)(2) or (c)(3) or as otherwise authorized by law, commits a misdemeanor.

Not that this makes the bill any less ridiculous, as it's already required for physicians to report to the commissioner whenever they perform an abortion.

This section replaces the current, much shorter, section that says

Replacing wrote:A physician performing an abortion shall keep a record of each operation and shall make a report to the commissioner of health with respect thereto at the time and in the form as the commissioner may reasonably prescribe. Each record and report shall be confidential in nature and shall be inaccessible to the public.

The bill only serves to store more identifying information and make it closer to being public.

by **Ipsum** » Tue Mar 20, 2012 9:26 pm UTC

This is... really fucked up.

Screw it, I'm starting a new country, one where blatant intimidation and institutionalized misogyny doesn't exist. Anyone else wanna come?

by **Роберт** » Tue Mar 20, 2012 9:42 pm UTC

Ipsum wrote:This is... really fucked up.

Screw it, I'm starting a new country, one where blatant intimidation and institutionalized misogyny doesn't exist. Anyone else wanna come?

Once you let people in your country, you're gonna have problems.

by **Bharrata** » Tue Mar 20, 2012 9:43 pm UTC

The impression I get from a lot of these bills lately, and the politicians' comments on them, is that most of them are not even fully aware of what is in the bills. I imagine this is another one drawn up in a backroom by 10 zealots somewhere then handed to the guy whose campaign they heavily funded or threatened with funding his next opponent if he didn't put it forward. edit: it is also completely possible that the guy is fully aware and supports it in this case, or in any of the other types of bills...but I'm sure some representatives have had their arms politically twisted...at least I hope

I would like to know who is funding all of these state politicians, as not even the polls for the Republican primaries lead me to believe that there are truly so many backassward fuckheads in all of these states who are voting for these representatives.

But then again it's probably also a case of people barely giving enough of a damn to show up for the Presidential elections, let alone every year for state and town elections.

This year's madness brought to you by the smell Apathy.

by **Роберт** » Tue Mar 20, 2012 10:00 pm UTC

Bharrata wrote:Apathy.

Seriously, though, I do not see why this bill is so terrible.

by **Xeio** » Tue Mar 20, 2012 10:12 pm UTC

Government collecting personal information on people's medical procedures (this information can all be directly correlated to a specific person in many cases)?

Aggregated anonomized data probably wouldn't be disagreeable (for that matter, it's pretty common) but this is a list personally identifiable medical procedures, in an area where historically such lists are used for death threats (or actual murders).

by **Роберт** » Tue Mar 20, 2012 10:21 pm UTC

Xeio wrote:Government collecting personal information on people's medical procedures (this information can all be directly correlated to a specific person in many cases)?

Aggregated anonomized data probably wouldn't be disagreeable (for that matter, it's pretty common) but this is a list personally identifiable medical procedures, in an area where historically such lists are used for death threats (or actual murders).

So it's basically because of the trust issues we already have with the government, then?

Nobody's freaked out about the aggregated anonomized data that this bill is going to produce, but they are freaked out because they don't trust the info to be used only for that?

by **Gelsamel** » Tue Mar 20, 2012 10:23 pm UTC

Arrian wrote:Actually,if you redact the doctor's name, the specifics of facility location (but maybe keep in city or county, not sure about that) the county of the woman's residence and the specific date (maybe publish the stats monthly or quarterly) this would be a tremendously useful data set for a social science researcher.

Yeah, I don't know about making a law that requires all that be public but I would actually be interested to see scientific research done with respect to those details.

by **Xeio** » Tue Mar 20, 2012 10:59 pm UTC

Роберт wrote:Nobody's freaked out about the aggregated anonomized data that this bill is going to produce, but they are freaked out because they don't trust the info to be used only for that?

If that's all it's going to be used for, why not collect the anonomized/aggregated data directly? What use could the exception for subpoena for law enforcement officials have?

Context is important, this law does not exist in a vaccum.

by **dhokarena56** » Wed Mar 21, 2012 4:58 am UTC

I have an idea. If you propose a law in your state, or vote for a law, that is flagrantly unconstitutional, you are fired. You may not run again. You may not pass Go. You may not collect $200.

by **sourmìlk** » Wed Mar 21, 2012 5:07 am UTC

Great. Now give us an objective measure for flagrantly

by **Bharrata** » Wed Mar 21, 2012 8:44 am UTC

sourmìlk wrote:Great. Now give us an objective measure for flagrantly

How about directly infringing upon the safety of non-service member citizens?

I realize that a lawyer would probably call that a horrible definition (if one is even possible) but it works for me.

by **addams** » Wed Mar 21, 2012 8:59 am UTC

Роберт wrote:
Ipsum wrote:This is... really fucked up.

Screw it, I'm starting a new country, one where blatant intimidation and institutionalized misogyny doesn't exist. Anyone else wanna come?

Once you let people in your country, you're gonna have problems.

Yeah. I want to go. Not all people are fucked up. It, just, seems that way.

by **nitePhyyre** » Wed Mar 21, 2012 11:51 am UTC

dhokarena56 wrote:I have an idea. If you propose a law in your state, or vote for a law, that is flagrantly unconstitutional, you are fired. You may not run again. You may not pass Go. You may not collect $200.

sourmìlk wrote:Great. Now give us an objective measure for flagrantly

Option A: Remove 'flagrant'.
Option B: If the judges decide it is unconstitutional in anything other than a split decision, it shall be considered flagrant.

I really like this idea, btw.

by **Belial** » Wed Mar 21, 2012 12:31 pm UTC

Роберт wrote:So it's basically because of the trust issues we already have with the government, then?

Nobody's freaked out about the aggregated anonomized data that this bill is going to produce, but they are freaked out because they don't trust the info to be used only for that?

I also think acting like it's happening in a vacuum is probably not a super great choice if you're planning to understand what's happening. This is being proposed by people who want to get rid of abortion entirely, in a state where they have power. You can, uhh...probably take a guess that it's not about statistics or medical reporting or any of those other things that those same lawmakers could not possibly give one fewer fuck about when abortion isn't concerned.

Who is online