764
Anti-trans Missouri A.G. can now access trans people’s medical records
(newrepublic.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 14 Apr 2024
764 points (97.5% liked)
News
35754 readers
1069 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Does anyone here with any experience in this field know what sort of information he could access that would be damaging to patients?
Republicans have recently been trying to push for the following two policies:
It's easy to see where this is going. This is one of MANY reasons the country won't survive another 4 years of Trump.
Technically this is a grey area and they are blatantly misusing the exception for court order/warrant rule. HIPAA just states that records must be turned over but doesn't get into details concerning how much or how little should be provided. I really can't believe the judge allowed this but I suspect (hopeful anyway)that this will get kicked up to a federal court since federal law supercedes state laws.
There needs to be a stay of enforcement if it's going to be appealed.
Though I fully suspect that if it gets to SCOTUS, there isn't going to be much hope.
Doesn't that precedent make it possible for medical records covering abortions to be used in the same way? Repubs would never allow that, they have too much to lose by having people find out what they've done.
Republicans would absolutely allow that. They are willing to bite their own noses off just to spit in their enemies faces.
How it would play out is selective prosecution where only ~~democrats~~ poor people or non-whites get charged.
White Christians would get a pass at best. Or blackmailed at worst.
Yeah, true. Their voters have zero integrity or consistency. And their propaganda networks will be pretending that voter fraud is happening as a cover so they'll never know in the first place.
It mostly depends on what he does with the information. Any personally identifiable information that becomes public puts someone at serious risk of being persecuted or physically threatened.
The statement from Planned Parenthood includes:
I suspect this means the AG may receive de-identified records including procedure or diagnosis information, but not including any patient identifying information such as patient or billing account, name, address, social, date of birth, date of service, etc.
It could also include aggregate information about providers and facilities, especially if records are obtained under the guise of a fraud investigation, allowing the AG to target locations and providers where patients frequently obtain specific services. That route might be the most harmful to patients, for ex. if they're unable to continue receiving care because of harassment of the providers.