posted on February 24, 2004 09:47:32 AM new
Rush Limbaugh is using the claim of "privacy" to shield his medical records from a criminal investigation.
This is the same "conservative" that has said for years that the right of privacy is stated no where in the Constitution.
It would appear that a right of privacy is OK for drug addict white rich males, but not for any woman desiring an abortion.
What comes around goes around. I hope Rush learns a valuable lesson from his experience. If he doesn't, I am sure more chickens will come home to him to roost.
posted on February 24, 2004 10:01:40 AM new
Yeah, kind of like those arguing that the private medical records of women who've had late term abortions should be kept confidential huh?
posted on February 24, 2004 12:31:06 PM new
No, those who are arguing to keep them private are the same ones arguing that there is a right of privacy in the Constitution. Limbaugh and the conservatives are the ones arguing that used to argue there is no right of privacy. It is Ashcroft that is attempting to get the abortion records released.
Limbaugh is in essence arguing against Ashcroft and Bush's position on privacy.
Why should Limbaugh's records be sacred in a criminal investigation, but women's abortion records should not be private ?
Limbaugh has taken a liberal position to save his own a$$. A real man of principle.
posted on February 24, 2004 12:42:45 PM new
One of the differences I see is that in Limbuagh's case is that information could/would be used to convict him. And that this is a public 'case'. Meaning being his name is being discussed publically and this information would be used against him in a court case, if one were filed. Self-incriminating...if you will.
The info. from the abortions would be used to see if a *law*, that's now in place, verifies their were late term abortions being done when it has been argued there weren't. It's about a law...a stand...not an individual. and if those records were 'un-sealed' those 'patients' would not be up for procecution. And there names, info. wouldn't be released to the public.
posted on February 24, 2004 01:10:28 PM new
There is no difference in the cases at their legal essence. The right of privacy is at the core. The information does not have to be personally identifiable to come under the rubic of privacy, nor does it matter if the case is criminal or civil. The Ashcroft case is in fact a criminal statute that is being challenged under the umbrella of privacy of the Roe case.
In any event, dope fiend Limbaugh agued for two decades that there is no right of privacy to be derived from the Constitution when it concerns the medical procedure of abortion. But HIS medical records concerning his criminal drug activity are now to be protected by a right to privacy he has scorned over the air waves for years.
posted on February 24, 2004 01:34:31 PM newThere is no difference in the cases at their legal essence. The right of privacy is at the core. The information does not have to be personally identifiable to come under the rubic of privacy, nor does it matter if the case is criminal or civil.
Okay. You're our lawyer here and I respect your opinion. You have much more legal knowledge, than I do.
But I'll still argue that there are differences and that's why they're both in court. Each side fighting their position on the privacy issue.
posted on February 24, 2004 02:13:17 PM new
Hypocritical blowhard. How anyone could listen to that guy is beyond me.
___________________________________
posted on February 24, 2004 10:55:47 PM new
reamond - [If you come back to this thread again] I'd be interested in hearing if you agree with this answer or not. I got it from a site that answers questions about US Constitutional Law. www.usconstitution.net So it's not a 'trick' question.
here it is:
Question 113: "What is the right to privacy and where can I find it in the Constitution?"
Answer: The right to privacy is not a part of the Constitution, at least not in so many words.
The right to privacy would best be seen in the 9th Amendment, which basically says that just because a right is not in the Constitution, does not necessarily mean that it does not exist.
The justices of the Supreme Court, in several cases over the past half century, have found that a right to privacy does exist in the Constitution, to a degree.
The cases that started the process of the "finding" of this new right began with cases like Loving v Virginia, where it was ruled that the state cannot prevent mixed-race marriages; and like Griswold v Connecticut, where it was ruled that a state cannot prevent a married couple from buying and using condoms.
The first mention of a right to privacy was in a dissenting opinion in Olmstead v US in 1928, in which Justice Brandeis argued that the Framers had created a framework for the greatest right of all: "the right to be left alone."
The Supreme Court has found that this right to privacy appears in the Constitution in several pre-existing forms. For example, the police are not allowed to search your home or papers without a warrant, which is a direct protection of privacy. The majority of the justices found a right to privacy in some form, a right which could be expanded. Some justices argued that since there is no right to privacy directly enumerated in the Constitution, such a right does not exist.
With all due respect, however, this is exactly the sort of argument that the 9th was designed to counter. The right is far from absolute, and many invasions of privacy, such as drug tests and the census, have been upheld by the Supreme Court.
----------
posted on February 25, 2004 11:16:27 AM new
::The info. from the abortions would be used to see if a *law*, that's now in place, verifies their were late term abortions being done when it has been argued there weren't. ::
I'm sorry Linda but that is not correct. As I stated in the thread that dealt with this subject directly, the records are being suppeonad to see if they can be useful in building a defense that there are no actual medical reasons which would necessitate a late term abortion the protect the life of the mother.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on February 25, 2004 11:49:19 AM new
Your site make sthe argument that Limbaugh and other conservatives have always used against the Roe case-- There is not right to privacy explicit in the Constitution for abortion or medical records.
Privacy in the Constitutional context generally means that the government can not interject itself into the issue/situation.
Privacy has derived from a line of cases that uses the the entire context of the Constitution to derive a privacy right- or better put, a sphere or zone of personal autonomy into which the government can not enter.
Limbaugh, just like a woman wishing an abortion, posits that the doctor patient relationship as well as the records that are produced by that relationship are a zone of privacy which the government can not enter.
The only caveat that I might add is that Limbaugh's situation involves a criminal investigation and therefore the courts may find that a criminal act overcomes the privacy right.
By this same privacy right argument, I will remind all good and true freedom loving conservatives that the Roe privacy doctrine also means that the government can not force you to get an abortion, an argument that the anti-choice crowd never mentions.
posted on February 27, 2004 10:25:17 AM new
Now Rush is defending Stern. Will Rush next defend gay marriages as a private civil contarct that is none of the governments business ?
Rush Limbaugh warns
free speech threatened
Says conservative views on radio could be labeled 'indecent' if 'John Kerry types' end up running U.S.
Responding to Clear Channel Radio's decision to drop the Howard Stern Show from its stations, talk-radio superstar Rush Limbaugh warned today of growing federal government intervention in broadcasting content.
"I've never heard Howard Stern, but when the federal government gets involved in this, I get a little frightened," Limbaugh said on his program, according to the Drudge Report.
The decision to drop Stern's show was made by Clear Channel itself, but president and CEO John Hogan said the company is instituting a zero-tolerance policy for indecent content which will include companywide training and automatic suspensions for anyone the Federal Communications Commission alleges has violated indecency rules on the air.
On Tuesday, Clear Channel ousted another shock jock, Bubba the Love Sponge, who was the source of a proposed $755,000 fine by the FCC against the company for more than two dozen claims of breaches of indecency laws over the last three years.
Limbaugh asked: "If we are going to sit by and let the federal government .. get involved in this, if the government is going to 'censor' what they think is decent and indecent … what happens if a whole bunch of John Kerry, John Edwards, Bill Clinton, Terry McAulliffe types end up running this country someday again and decide that conservative opinion is indecent, decide that that causes violence?"
Radio seems to be held to a different standard than television when it comes to indecency, Limbaugh said.
"Smut on TV gets praised to the hilt. Smut on TV wins Emmys. Smut on TV gets critical acclaim, yet on radio there seems to be a little bit of a different standard. ...
"I am in the free speech business, my friends. I couldn't survive without it," he said. "It's one thing for a company to determine if they are going to be party to it. It's another thing for the government to do it.
"The government doesn't regulate movies, and you find more smut in movies than you'll ever find in radio today. The government doesn't regulate cable TV; the government doesn't regulate video cassettes. … When we sit back and say, 'OK, you the federal government, you can sit in judgment over who can say what,' then at some point you can rest assured that your day is coming too, when the federal government tells you what you can and can't say."
posted on March 1, 2004 05:45:06 PM new
From the Las Vegas Sun....today
The Justice Department is attempting to persuade federal judges to order at least six hospitals and six Planned Parenthood affiliates to provide the abortion patient records so the government can defend the law.
