Should Government Have E-Record of Every Woman Who’s Had an Abortion?
How come Planned Parenthood and NARAL aren't objecting? After all, imagine if the mean old Republicans get back in power and gain access to the list. If abortion information is so private that it's a violation of confidentiality to allow a judge to review redacted records, how come it's not so private that the Feds can't collect your name and bank account information?
6 comments:
It would be good to have health care providers linked. That way if you are to hurt or sick to answer medical history questions or you forget, the doctors can see for themselves.
I don't think Republicans having a access to the information really matters. Abortion is legal. If anything, they would see the large number of women who have abortions.
Personally it doesn't bother me. I don't have anything to hide.
I don't think the government should have access to records of every abortion. This is not a pro-life or pro-choice issue, this is a purely privacy thing. Just because you have nothing to hide doesn't mean that others shouldn't be able to have access to that information without your consent (ie. you're in a married, het, vanilla couple. Should the government keep tabs on how often you have sex? Of course not, that's private!) I don't want Big Brother knowing every checkup, medical procedure, "preventative health check", etc. I do or don't have. It is none of their business.
It will save lives. Who cares if they know what we do?
Because as it stands now, abortion is legal. Would you want the government keeping tabs on every woman who got boob jobs, or man who got a vasectomy, or every heart transplant? Do you want your phone tapped, just because you're not a terrorist? Sure, make it a requirement to put an abortion on your medical record (which would happen if you go to a hospital for it instead of a nasty clinic). But I am not comfortable with the feds having all of my medical information at their fingertips. Even if the info is never used for nefarious reasons, it still could. Unless abortion is illegal, the feds have no real right to keep tabs on legal medical procedures.
I don't think the government should have access to all the medical records either! But just to single out abortion and STDs as being "too private" to be included in medical records is ridiculous!
What happens if/when doctors and nurses rely on INCOMPLETE information that they assume to be complete? They will take the "standard record" as being complete, since that is what is supposed to be; and then act on that information. Then, babies will be born to women with active herpes infections and get brain damage, because doctors didn't realize they had herpes, because it was left out of a "complete" medical history. And past abortions can cause obstetric problems to current pregnancies, and can cause gynecological problems in women even in the absence of pregnancy, but if the "complete" medical history doesn't list an abortion, then the doctors may rule out the real diagnosis.
So, what's the point of having a supposedly complete when really incomplete medical history? And what is the justification for not including abortion and STD information, when all other information is included?
I agree that the feds have no right to keep tabs on medical procedures (at least, on a personal level; I think they should collect data that shows what our national C-section rate is, as an example, and characteristics of women who have abortions, etc. -- I just don't think it should be linked to people's names); but if they're gonna do it, why exclude abortion?
Kathy, I know I am waaaay late to reply, but I think you may have misinterpreted my post. The govt. shouldn't have access to any identifying information with peoples' medical records. A tally mark for statistics is all they could possibly need.
Post a Comment