Is it possible for someone to tell me (WITHOUT DEBATE!)...

[cardaway]

Okay, so it has to do with medical privacy, which I guess would fall under privacy. Then, why for example wouldn't everything else be covered medically? What I mean is, an 11 yo. girl can't go to a plastic surgeon and say "I want a breast enhancement. Here's the money, let's go." The doctor would require consent, etc. So if the 11 yo in question sued, would she be protected constitutionally to be allowed to have the breast enhancement (or reduction as the case may be)? (Insert surgical procedure of your choice)

Edited to add : I guess I am using this example because I saw a story that NH notification laws are being challenged and I know some states have no notification laws.

Looks like you're breaking your own debate rule. Borderline, but most of these "debates" are people asking questions just like you did.

I have a question too. Leave the children out of it, look at adults. A woman goes into a clinic and comes out hours later. You suspect she had an abortion. Do you have the right to ask the clinic about what she had done?

As a nurse I'm sure you know that the answer is no without some kind of legal subpoena. That's the law in a nut shell isn't it?

Notification is a total another topic.

 

[wvjules]

Or for another medical procedure, wouldn't physician assisted suicide be theoretically covered under the same "right" that protects abortion?

B/c the person is already a living breathing person.

 

[Wishing on a star]

Sorry,

But, like the OP, I do not feel that the privacy issues have any bearing. I just don't see what privacy has to do with abortion.

I can see how the right to privacy would mandate that information be held private, or confidential.

If privacy is the reason that abortions are legal,
then hey, privacy could be the reason that ANYTHING is legal.

If I want to do drugs.. Hey, it's my right to choose. It is my right to privacy.

Doesn't hold water with me.

 

[cardaway]

If I want to do drugs.. Hey, it's my right to choose. It is my right to privacy.

You would find that many pro-choice folks are also for legalizing drugs because they agree that the privacy issue extends to them as well. I know I do.

 

[Wishing on a star]

Interestingly,

At school, the school cannot legally even administer a tylenol without parental consent.

But, hey, a physician can perform a major medical prodedure???

That doesn't hold water with me either.

 

[mickeyboat]

Sorry,

But, like the OP, I do not feel that the privacy issues have any bearing. I just don't see what privacy has to do with abortion.

I can see how the right to privacy would mandate that information be held private, or confidential.

If privacy is the reason that abortions are legal,
then hey, privacy could be the reason that ANYTHING is legal.

If I want to do drugs.. Hey, it's my right to choose. It is my right to privacy.

Doesn't hold water with me.

There is a long legal history from which the right to privacy / right to an abortion derives. Some people claim this issue is one of the worst abuses of judicial legislation ever handed down by the Supreme Court. Check out this article.

http://www.nationalreview.com/levin/levin200503140754.asp

Denae

 

[Bob Slydell]

Interestingly,

At school, the school cannot legally even administer a tylenol without parental consent.

But, hey, a physician can perform a major medical prodedure???

That doesn't hold water with me either.

As others have said, when you bring minors into the discussion, everything changes. Treatment of minors is a whole different topic.

 

[Planogirl]

I'm pro-choice but it is rather bizarre that a minor can get an abortion but not a Tylenol. I always wonder about the logic there.

 

[rigs32]

The current abortion notification law in front of the Supreme Court is being challenged because it does NOT allow for an exception for the health of the mother. So, if a teen is pregnant and needs an abortion or else she will be injured/killed, they still have to tell parents even if that might result in negative consequences - abuse, being kicked out of the home, etc. Many states have perfectly constitutional notification statutes.

Abortion rights, based on the right of privacy, stems from the cases on birth control. Connecticut had a statute that banned the sale of birth control to married couples, supposedly under the policy that the state wanted couples to birth babies once married. The Court found that violated a right to privacy.

Many of these decisions cite the Ninth Amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. So, when some judges say that rights are not enumerated, therefore they do not exist, goes against this amendment. Does that include privacy? The Court says yes, many dissenting opinions say no.

The problem I see with tossing the right to privacy? It's a slippery slope. It opens the door to further regulation of sexuality and pregnancy. If a state can make a law outlawing abortion, they might also have the right to mandate pregnancy, or at least ban birth control. Both are currently outlawed based on the right to privacy.

 

[Castlebound]

I'm pro-choice but it is rather bizarre that a minor can get an abortion but not a Tylenol. I always wonder about the logic there.

Just my opinion but the difference may be that just about any parent will approve of a teen taking Tylenol, but a parent may disown their teenage daughter for getting an abortion not matter what the reasoning behind the abortion. I think that each side of the issue can see a slipery slope if abortion rights goes too far one way or another, so both fight hard to change the law in their direction. Legally I have never looked into why it is protected other than the ruling of Roe vs. Wade. I just know that if they tried to change it I would fight it. I am ProChoice because even though it is not a choice I would make I think the choice should be a woman's to make.

 

[dennis99ss]

There is no "right to privacy" mentioned in the constitution. You can do a search on it though, and find a very good article on the origins of the right to privacy, although the title of the article escapes me.

Basically, the right to privacy arose out of an interpretation, of the constitution, based on property rights. The constitution protects property rights, and, from that protection, came the protection of copyrights, etc. From this same line came the protection of one's intangible rights, as one should have the right to have non-tangible property protected. From this arose the right to do with one's propoerty as one pleases, leading to the right to privacy. The constitution does protect property rights, and therefore protects the intangibles of doing as one please with the property, within boundries that are set by the legiclature/courts based on public policy, public good, etc. Hence, the right to privacy protects the activities in one's house, as well as intangible items such as personal decisions on contraception, etc. As it is settled that the right to priavcy exists, as if it were overturned, you could likely damage the intangible rights that are the underlying basis for it, the Court was faced with the decision of whether a woman has the right to make a determination of "medical care". They decided that, based on the right to privacy, which goes back to the property rights, is a protected right, under the constitution. I know this is not really clear, but, I did not really have the time to sit and think it out, to put it down in a clear logical way, but, simply did ity off the cuff. But, the premises is correct.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Looks like you're breaking your own debate rule. Borderline, but most of these "debates" are people asking questions just like you did.

I have a question too. Leave the children out of it, look at adults. A woman goes into a clinic and comes out hours later. You suspect she had an abortion. Do you have the right to ask the clinic about what she had done?

As a nurse I'm sure you know that the answer is no without some kind of legal subpoena. That's the law in a nut shell isn't it?

Notification is a total another topic.

Flip it around--say they are going in for something truly illegal---the doc likes to hand out percoset like candy. The government has every right to step in and check it out. And if they have reasonable suspicions (Sp?)--a subpoena wouldn't be a problem.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

The current abortion notification law in front of the Supreme Court is being challenged because it does NOT allow for an exception for the health of the mother. So, if a teen is pregnant and needs an abortion or else she will be injured/killed, they still have to tell parents even if that might result in negative consequences - abuse, being kicked out of the home, etc. Many states have perfectly constitutional notification statutes.

Does the include saving mom from an ectopic pregnancy?

I think an ER should be able to perform any life sustaining procedure until next of kin can be notified..and if the difference between performing the procedure and not is life and death--i think life should win. They can cover the semantics later.

(and I'm not speaking of living wills and such--I'm speaking of--needing to amputate a limb--remove shrapnel---that kind of stuff...where fixed it isn't life threatening--but unfixed/unrepaired--it can kill you).

 

[cardaway]

Flip it around--say they are going in for something truly illegal---the doc likes to hand out percoset like candy. The government has every right to step in and check it out. And if they have reasonable suspicions (Sp?)--a subpoena wouldn't be a problem.

But a subpoena would still be necessary, which is my point.

Abortion is legally seen as a medical procedure, which then translates to a situation where medical history is private without a subpoena.

This always brings me back to another question I never see answered. Just how do the anti-choice folks think things would work once they get their way and abortion is illegal?

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

But a subpoena would still be necessary, which is my point.

Abortion is legally seen as a medical procedure, which then translates to a situation where medical history is private without a subpoena.

This always brings me back to another question I never see answered. Just how do the anti-choice folks think things would work once they get their way and abortion is illegal?

Right--but if a doctor is doing something illegal--privacy laws won't protect him/her. A subpoena is not a formality. If doctors used that to do whatever they wanted to--well, then we've got worse problems than "legal" abortions.

At this time--the adult in your scenario is entitled to her privacy if she is getting a legal procedure done.

 

[Maleficent13]

This always brings me back to another question I never see answered. Just how do the anti-choice folks think things would work once they get their way and abortion is illegal?

This is an excellent question. I am interested too.

 

[mrsv98]

I haven't read thru everything but my take is this;

The Constitution gives the Federal Government the right to legislate specific things that are itemized. Everything else is left to the individual states. No where in the Constitution is the Fed Gov given the right to dertermine what a woman can do with her own body (this is where privacy concerns come in).

While many people believe life begins at conception, legally it does not, so abortion does not violate a fetuses "right", it doesn't have any.

I am pro-choice mostly because I firmly believe the Gov (state and Fed) should keep its nose out of my personal life. I do agree, however, on the ban of late-term abortions, those are barbaric.

 

[cardaway]

Right--but if a doctor is doing something illegal--privacy laws won't protect him/her. A subpoena is not a formality. If doctors used that to do whatever they wanted to--well, then we've got worse problems than "legal" abortions.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but people investigating a perscription drug ring would still have to make their case to a judge, get a subpoena, and only then could they legally enter the records area and start pulling perscription history. If they do anything else they risk having anything they find thrown out of court.

How this relates to abortion is, how can anti-choice folks think they have cause to open a medical record? Because they think she might have had an abortion? Sorry, not good enough.

This same problem would exist even if abortion was made illegal, which is why I posted a question to how people think things would work if abortion were made illegal.

 

[Maleficent13]

I have never thought about it before in that way, but cardaway is very right. If abortion is illegal, how do you prosecute someone for it? You'd have to have their medical records. In order to get their medical records, you'd have to bring probable cause to a judge to get a subpeona. What constitutes probable cause? How do you prove someone was pregnant in the first place to prove they aren't any longer and why?

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but people investigating a perscription drug ring would still have to make their case to a judge, get a subpoena, and only then could they legally enter the records area and start pulling perscription history. If they do anything else they risk having anything they find thrown out of court.

How this relates to abortion is, how can anti-choice folks think they have cause to open a medical record? Because they think she might have had an abortion? Sorry, not good enough.

This same problem would exist even if abortion was made illegal, which is why I posted a question to how people think things would work if abortion were made illegal.

The discussion stemmed from an underage child getting a medical procedure and a right to privacy.

I guess I misunderstood you--

I'm not talking about a legal procedure--you brought up the adult to change the scenario. And at no time is it ever legal to go into anybody's record without a subpoena and due cause. If someone is getting a legal procedure--I agree with you.

I'm actually trying to have this discussion from the choice side b/c that is what I chose to day--and I get the feeling you don't want to see a pro-lifer attempt to try to look at the logical side of an opinion that is on the opposite spectrum of her own.

Changing the "adult" back to a "child"

For a child who seeks to get one--whole other ball of wax and a doctor should not perform any procedure unless it is lifesaving at that moment (i.e.--an emergency) or there is parental consent or a court appointed person. A minor cannot give informed consent to anything and that is why they cannot go and get shots, seen for a cold, or a whole host of other things that require parent/guardian signature without consent from the parent.

I'm not debating the "what if it were illegal" bit.

I was actually trying to help the OP to understand the legality.

My mistake.