Tennesse Abortion Bill to Name Names

[eran_rathan]

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.

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.

I vote for Option B, but with a slight change: instead of a even split, it has to be by at least 2/3rds majority (i.e. 6/3 decision). Incidentally, very few SCOTUS cases are 5-4, and those are usually the most divisive ones nationally anyways.

[Iulus Cofield]

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.

Generally, when politicians want to outlaw something but can't, they make it harder to do it, less appealing to do it, or increase the visibility of it in an effort to make it shameful, and typically using flimsy pretenses to support these measures. This has been happening a lot in the past year or two with abortion.

It also happened about five years ago with the bankruptcy reform (I know a lot about that because my father is a bankruptcy attorney). All done under the pretense of preventing "abuse" and "fraud" that our well paid legislators must surely have known much about, they added needless hoops and an arbitrary test to sniff out those who allegedly were trying to con their way out of faithfully repaying their debts. I bring it up because, unlike abortion and privacy, which I do believe are constitutionally protected under the intentionally vague Ninth Amendment, Bankruptcy is actually specifically mentioned in the Constituion. It doesn't specifically guarantee it, but coupled with the the 200+ years of thusly authorized laws, it would be on par with outlawing copyrights. There was too much inertia and popular support, not to mention economic necessity, to do what they really wanted, so they added bizarre, nonsensical hoops, just as Tennessee is trying to do. So I have learned that whenever there is legislation that adds additional steps before a perfectly legal, firmly precedented, constitutional action, it probably means that something is rotten in the state of Tennessee.

[Роберт]

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.

Well, imagine I'm a GOOD PERSON who wants to stay within the appropriate bounds of government, but who dislikes abortion and wants to reduce abortions without stepping on women's rights. (I'm not asking you to believe this is the case, so bear with me.)

I want to collect statistical data on abortions to try to find out why the are happening and provide useful alternatives. (Look, county X has terrible access to birth control and has 80% more abortions than county Y, maybe we should work to increase access to birth control! Look, county 1 has abstinence only sex education and county 2 has a more comprehensive education... and county 1 has 350% more teen abortions, maybe we should work on more comprehensive education solutions!)

There's no real way to collect this data already with the details already anonymous. You need the raw data available to do the number crunching, but you don't want to invade people's privacy, so in the bill you state that all the release data needs to be made such that you can't figure out personal information from it. Perfect.



Nobody would be upset if that was going on, but there's already a lot of trust issues; even though the bill itself seems fine, it freaks people out because it is seen as likely to not be kept appropriately anonymous. Yes?

[Angua]

You don't need the names of the doctors doing the abortions. If you want to do such a thing, you generally need consent from the women to participate in the study, and let them know exactly what information you're obtaining.

[Dauric]

Well, imagine I'm a GOOD PERSON who wants to stay within the appropriate bounds of government, but who dislikes abortion and wants to reduce abortions without stepping on women's rights. (I'm not asking you to believe this is the case, so bear with me.)

I want to collect statistical data on abortions to try to find out why the are happening and provide useful alternatives. (Look, county X has terrible access to birth control and has 80% more abortions than county Y, maybe we should work to increase access to birth control! Look, county 1 has abstinence only sex education and county 2 has a more comprehensive education... and county 1 has 350% more teen abortions, maybe we should work on more comprehensive education solutions!)

There's no real way to collect this data already with the details already anonymous. You need the raw data available to do the number crunching, but you don't want to invade people's privacy, so in the bill you state that all the release data needs to be made such that you can't figure out personal information from it. Perfect.

Nobody would be upset if that was going on, but there's already a lot of trust issues; even though the bill itself seems fine, it freaks people out because it is seen as likely to not be kept appropriately anonymous. Yes?

The other problem is one of data mining. The thing is that anonymous data isn't a safeguard to privacy if that data can be correlated to other data sets. A single data set might not provide names itself, but if any particular line can be linked to another line in a different data set, and that second data set can be linked to a third data-set, etc., etc., then you can start to pick out individuals. Thing is big corporations do this all the time with their marketing materials and commercial software exists to do any amount of data mining you'd want to do.

It's entirely possible that the sponsor/supporters of the bill just see it as 'innocent' statistical data, but releasing datasets for public consumption that weren't commonly available before is a problem because they can be abused.

[Роберт]

The other problem is one of data mining. The thing is that anonymous data isn't a safeguard to privacy if that data can be correlated to other data sets. A single data set might not provide names itself, but if any particular line can be linked to another line in a different data set, and that second data set can be linked to a third data-set, etc., etc., then you can start to pick out individuals. Thing is big corporations do this all the time with their marketing materials and commercial software exists to do any amount of data mining you'd want to do.

I see how that could potentially be a problem. How should it be addressed?

If they collected medical data for statistics processing for, say, AIDS or cancer, would it still be bothersome, or is it just the abortion baggage due to the context?

[Dauric]

The other problem is one of data mining. The thing is that anonymous data isn't a safeguard to privacy if that data can be correlated to other data sets. A single data set might not provide names itself, but if any particular line can be linked to another line in a different data set, and that second data set can be linked to a third data-set, etc., etc., then you can start to pick out individuals. Thing is big corporations do this all the time with their marketing materials and commercial software exists to do any amount of data mining you'd want to do.

I see how that could potentially be a problem. How should it be addressed?

If they collected medical data for statistics processing for, say, AIDS or cancer, would it still be bothersome, or is it just the abortion baggage due to the context?

I don't know that there's an easy solution beyond being careful about releasing new data sets.

Back in the 80's AIDS data may have been a problem as there was a -lot- of discrimination based on ignorance of what exactly it was and who got it that would result in some people being lynched, today I don't think it would be as big an issue but it could still pose problems with employment and/or health-insurance*. Cancer, similar issues with potential employment/insurance discrimination. The abortion data... well there's shitheads that think they're crusading in the name of god and should execute "murderers".

*(Hedging here in case SCotUS strikes down the Medical Insurance Reform)

[nitePhyyre]

The other problem is one of data mining. The thing is that anonymous data isn't a safeguard to privacy if that data can be correlated to other data sets. A single data set might not provide names itself, but if any particular line can be linked to another line in a different data set, and that second data set can be linked to a third data-set, etc., etc., then you can start to pick out individuals. Thing is big corporations do this all the time with their marketing materials and commercial software exists to do any amount of data mining you'd want to do.

It's entirely possible that the sponsor/supporters of the bill just see it as 'innocent' statistical data, but releasing datasets for public consumption that weren't commonly available before is a problem because they can be abused.

Have you heard about target?

At first, the predictions led to some awkward situations, like the time a Minneapolis man came into Target to complain about a baby-themed coupon mailer sent to his teenage daughter.

“She’s still in high school, and you’re sending her coupons for baby clothes and cribs? Are you trying to encourage her to get pregnant?”

When the manager called to apologize, the dad said he’d had a talk with his daughter, and it turned out Target was right: she was already pregnant.

[Роберт]

Have you heard about target?

Yes. But I'm not sure how much that applies to privacy. Target generates a probability of whether or not you're pregnant, I guess you could generate a probability of whether or not someone had an abortion. And, what, use it to send forced-birth guilt fliers to people who you think might have had one?

It's not like Target's algorithms were 100% accurate.

[Dauric]

Have you heard about target?

Yes. But I'm not sure how much that applies to privacy. Target generates a probability of whether or not you're pregnant, I guess you could generate a probability of whether or not someone had an abortion. And, what, use it to send forced-birth guilt fliers to people who you think might have had one?

It's not like Target's algorithms were 100% accurate.

Some jackass could post names and addresses with inflammatory, or worse, message urging other community members to 'take action' against those named. It's not like tinfoilhat communities are particularly interested in 100% accuracy. Even if we assume a reasonable cap on criminal behavior this information can get sent to local church leaders with strong anti-abortion stances and they can effectively ostracize those named on the list.

[Sockmonkey]

Sooo, Targeted ads?
Someone was gonna say it. Now we can roll our eyes and move on.

[ConMan]

If you have a dataset with clear identifiers like names and addresses, you can match that to an individual with pretty darn near 100% accuracy, adjusting for things like typos and missing data and the like.

If you strip those identifiers off the dataset, then you can still match up individuals with a scary success rate, depending on what data you have available. And like Dauric says, if you can just match it to another dataset, then that's enough to make things get ugly.

Take a look at how much information is on that dataset. First, we've got county and state of residence, along with age, race and marital status. All perfectly fine demographic information, right? Sure, unless there are only half a dozen 23-year-old married Hispanic women in your county. And you're the only one who's already had one kid. Is there *any* suggestion that suitable confidentialisation rules are going to be applied to this dataset?

And that only looks at the patient. As pointed out in the OP, the main problem is that this is providing a full list of every doctor and the abortions they carry out. Doctors who perform abortions are *already* at risk of violence, and having a nice, easy-to-access list complete with the address of their practice is like giving the lynch mobs a shopping list.

[lutzj]

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.

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.

Ehh, parts of the New Deal were ruled unconstitutional. It's possible to write good laws in good faith that don't precisely meet the requirements of a constitution.

[Bharrata]

Have you heard about target?

Yes. But I'm not sure how much that applies to privacy. Target generates a probability of whether or not you're pregnant, I guess you could generate a probability of whether or not someone had an abortion. And, what, use it to send forced-birth guilt fliers to people who you think might have had one?

It's not like Target's algorithms were 100% accurate.

Trigger Warning (I'm not sure about the exact rules of using trigger warnings, just playing it safe)

Spoiler:

Maybe the point about Target's ads would have been relevant if a pregnant teen's father had performed an honor killing because she shamed their family?

As in, Tennessee has pro-life supporters who might violently target both doctors and/or women who get abortions - in addition to the possibility of "The Scarlet Letter" type situations happening in small towns. And in an effort to not denigrate Southern states too much, I'm sure those type of pro-life supporters exist in every state, but it's a bit more normal and accepted in the South...at least from my understanding.

If anything the possibility of the data comparisons producing incorrect results just presents the risk that innocent women might be targeted.

Роберт, if this isn't too off-topic, I'm curious why you think this law isn't a problem but that the deletion of one word in HR 347 was an "erosion of our liberties."

[Shivahn]

You don't need to try too hard to avoid denigrating the American South, given that they're the ones with these bills in their legislatures.

[Bharrata]

True but I feel like it's self-destructive to a positive national dialogue to imply that the South only has these bills (and to be fair it's not JUST Southern states, I don't consider Pennsylvania or Washington southern) because they are filled with uneducated Evangelical hicks.

Those implications about the other side of the issue just create a feedback loop of neither side budging.


I do think there's a moral case to be made for not promoting abortion as an easy answer (which is not the same as saying it is not an answer to an admittedly very difficult and most importantly personal problem) but I will never be for restrictions against it and starting another Prohibition War all over again...just as I will never be for legal prejudice against women who choose to get an abortion or the doctors who provide them.


Is it safe to say that the abortion/crime chapter from Freakonomics hasn't been brought up by the critics of these bills because no one wants to risk inflaming the "Moral Majority" even more? Or am I overthinking this?

[Princess Marzipan]

I do think there's a moral case to be made for not promoting abortion as an easy answer (which is not the same as saying it is not an answer to an admittedly very difficult and most importantly personal problem)

I do believe most pro-choice folk agree. But the pro-life side never seems to have any interest when someone pro-choice starts talking about policies that might prevent abortion from becoming an option in the first place. Pro-life people seem to hear "pro-choice" as "I fucking love abortions! I try to have at least one or two a month!"

(I'm sure I'm not telling you anything new; just interjecting for the folks watching at home.)

[sourmìlk]

I fucking love abortions!

Excellent rainbow.

Also, somebody (not me because I'm lazy) should link to that blog article where that person goes point-by-point through the classic pro-life arguments showing how they're inconsistent with viewing a fetus as as valuable as a full, born human, but are consistent with wanting to punish women for having sex. Now, that doesn't necessarily mean that the purpose of their arguments is to punish women for having sex (though that is suspiciously apt), but it does mean that classic pro-life arguments aren't actually based on valuing the fetus' life.

Ah, fuck it. Here's the blog link.

[Princess Marzipan]

I fucking love abortions!

Excellent rainbow.

Dash! Rain dash bow rainbow bow dash. Rain dash rain!

[sourmìlk]

I'm scared. I feel like I'm being yelled at and I don't know why.

[Bharrata]

Rainbows intimidate me as well.

They're so....happy. Too happy.

[sourmìlk]

And what's the deal with double rainbows. WHAT DO THEY MEAN?

[Princess Marzipan]

They mean you get a GUItarist and a KEYtarist.

Spoiler:

[Shivahn]

Yay!

[sourmìlk]

I don't get this surge in MLP fanboyism and I have absolutely no desire to watch the show and find out, so I'm just going to take the easy route and stick with my opinion that you're all nuts.

[Princess Marzipan]

I have absolutely no desire to watch the show and find out.

*hugs*
You'll get through it. I can offer YouTube links to exemplary episodes if you'd like a helping hoof. But uh, PM me for that. I've derailed this thread enough.

PONIES ARE OVER, ABORTIONS ARE NOW

[sourmìlk]

PONIES ARE OVER, ABORTIONS ARE NOW

Even as a non-Brony, this depresses me. Kid's shows > denying women their rights any day. Unless the kid's show is something really vapid, like Teletubbies.

[Princess Marzipan]

Ahem.

ABORTION TIME.

The last relevant post was your linking this: http://www.amptoons.com/blog/2011/06/27 ... is-murder/
Unfortunately, sourmilk, you'll have to wait for a response before posting again - otherwise it technically counts as a doublepost.*

*lies

[Роберт]

Роберт, if this isn't too off-topic, I'm curious why you think this law isn't a problem but that the deletion of one word in HR 347 was an "erosion of our liberties."

I didn't say that HR 347 definitely was an erosion of our liberties, and I didn't say that this bill won't be bad in practice.

Both, I think, are problematic because even though they seem pretty innocuous there's a healthy lack of trust going on.

[Bharrata]

Роберт, if this isn't too off-topic, I'm curious why you think this law isn't a problem but that the deletion of one word in HR 347 was an "erosion of our liberties."

I didn't say that HR 347 definitely was an erosion of our liberties, and I didn't say that this bill won't be bad in practice.

Both, I think, are problematic because even though they seem pretty innocuous there's a healthy lack of trust going on.

I just realized this quip:

Apathy.

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

was probably a dig at my comments in the HR 347 thread.


If so, well played. But I still think this bill is worse.

[engr]

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?

No, it is not "extremely fucking illegal".
As an EMT, I can say that "yesterday we treated a 67 y/o white male with a head injury, he had a heart rate of 100 and a blood pressure 130/90" all I want. On the other hand, If I say "we treated Mr. Smith for head injury" or "we got called to 123 Main St., apartment 1 for a head injury" then we have a problem.