Have an abortion in Oklahoma? Prepare for the womb controllers to publish the details online

More than Outlandish

Oklahoma's actions are a direct violation of the HIPAA law.

Which reads in part:

"The Privacy Rule protects certain information that covered entities use and disclose. This information is called protected health information (PHI), which is generally individually identifiable health information that is transmitted by, or maintained in, electronic media or any other form or medium. This information must relate to 1) the past, present, or future physical or mental health, or condition of an individual; 2) provision of health care to an individual; or 3) payment for the provision of health care to an individual. If the information identifies or provides a reasonable basis to believe it can be used to identify an individual, it is considered individually identifiable health information."

What needs to happen.

Legal action filed against the state of Oklahoma. Federal laws trump state law. Even in a red state.

People ask, "How have you guys managed to stay so long?" I tell them, "Don't sweat the small stuff." It's mostly small stuff.

---

by: christopher di spirito @ Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 06:24:01 AM CDT

Yes, but...

Federal laws trump state law. Even in a red state.

Yes, but these people are of the 'The Tenth Amendment allows us to do whatever we want and you better not try to stop us' mindset.

>^..^<

---

by: KatRose @ Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 08:14:22 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Use the same counter to that argument that was used in the past

The United States Army burning a swath 60 miles wide across the state.

It is time to stop coddling traitors while soldiers are dying overseas.

I tell you Chica that no greater abomination exists than women denying their spirit of sisterhood and instead becoming the oppressor. -Rebeca, Universidad Complutense de Madrid

---

by: MauraHennessey @ Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 17:25:51 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Why HIPAA might not apply

I don't see the patient's name on that list.

HIPAA only applies to personally identifiable information.  If they leave out who got the abortion, HIPAA doesn't prevent them from legally publishing all the data they want.

You might say that there's enough information here to figure out who it was, especially if abortions are rare enough in Oklahoma that clinic hasslers can put it all together.  And you'd be right.  But HIPAA defines a set of things that, when omitted, legally render the data unidentifiable.  Nothing on that list is here, except age, and that only applies to the elderly, who don't tend to require abortions.

---

by: iruka @ Sat Oct 10, 2009 at 07:04:31 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

HIPAA

Doesn't this gathering and publishing of a patient's very personal information violate the federal HIPAA laws?

More specifically:

[edit] Privacy Rule
The Privacy Rule took effect on April 14, 2003, with a one-year extension for certain "small plans". The HIPAA Privacy Rule regulates the use and disclosure of certain information held by "covered entities" (generally, health care clearinghouses, employer sponsored health plans, health insurers, and medical service providers that engage in certain transactions.)[10] It establishes regulations for the use and disclosure of Protected Health Information (PHI). PHI is any information held by a covered entity which concerns health status, provision of health care, or payment for health care that can be linked to an individual.[11] This is interpreted rather broadly and includes any part of an individual's medical record or payment history.

Covered entities must disclose PHI to the individual within 30 days upon request.[12] They also must disclose PHI when required to do so by law, such as reporting suspected child abuse to state child welfare agencies.[13]

A covered entity may disclose PHI to facilitate treatment, payment, or health care operations,[14] or if the covered entity has obtained authorization from the individual.[15] However, when a covered entity discloses any PHI, it must make a reasonable effort to disclose only the minimum necessary information required to achieve its purpose.[16]

The Privacy Rule gives individuals the right to request that a covered entity correct any inaccurate PHI.[17] It also requires covered entities to take reasonable steps to ensure the confidentiality of communications with individuals.[18] For example, an individual can ask to be called at his or her work number, instead of home or cell phone number.

The Privacy Rule requires covered entities to notify individuals of uses of their PHI. Covered entities must also keep track of disclosures of PHI and document privacy policies and procedures.[19] They must appoint a Privacy Official and a contact person[20] responsible for receiving complaints and train all members of their workforce in procedures regarding PHI.[21]

An individual who believes that the Privacy Rule is not being upheld can file a complaint with the Department of Health and Human Services Office for Civil Rights (OCR).[22][23] However, according to the Wall Street Journal, the OCR has a long backlog and ignores most complaints. "Complaints of privacy violations have been piling up at the Department of Health and Human Services. Between April 2003 and Nov. 30, the agency fielded 23,896 complaints related to medical-privacy rules, but it has not yet taken any enforcement actions against hospitals, doctors, insurers or anyone else for rule violations. A spokesman for the agency says it has closed three-quarters of the complaints, typically because it found no violation or after it provided informal guidance to the parties involved."[24]

Saw Rachel discuss this last night and was really surprised that no one is bringing this up...

Thoughts from folks more currently involved in the healthcare industry?

---

by: Louise @ Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 07:11:21 AM CDT

Few people are really aware of what HIPAA is

other than an enormous inconvenience when seeing a doctor.  And, as a result, many folks won't be aware of just how potent and powerful a law it is, and how far its reach goes.

Odds are pretty good as well that it will step around the law by requiring that this information be agreed to disclosure ate the time.

A better test might simply be the general Privacy laws.


This Is H.O.W.: Making Life Better Non profit transition living facility and services.

http://www.dyssonance.com  Breaking all the rules...

---

by: dyssonance @ Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 07:37:14 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

um.... hello???

If she's having an abortion, she is not a mother. She's not a mother until she has a live birth. The language of the whole thing is insidious as hell...

---

by: Dawn in Maine @ Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 07:42:04 AM CDT

In their (little) minds

Nut jobs consider them "preborn" at the point of conception.

Dena

P.S. Get me out of this batpoop crazy state!!

Cisgender. Because the term "Genetic" is so 2006.

---

by: Denabeth @ Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 07:54:31 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

wellllll

That's because the religious reicht doubles as the Mandatory Motherhood Mob (which was coined by a Methodist minister of all things!)

Listen to "TransTalk" every Monday from 4-5pm ET on http://falconradio.org

We need your help to pass two referenda in Bowling Green, Ohio!! Find out how you can help by going to www.onebowlinggreen.org

---

by: Marlene @ Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 07:47:39 AM CDT

Beyond 8

Here are the first eight questions

As I understand it, somewhere else in there is a question as to whether or not she's a state employee.

So - get an abortion? No state job for you!!!!!

>^..^<

---

by: KatRose @ Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 08:12:10 AM CDT

HIPPA vs State Law

I don't think this will fly in the long run.  However, ACLU needs to jump on this ASAP because these crazy nuts are going to try and pull this off.

As dyssonance points out, they probably will skirt federal law by having the patient sign a waiver for disclosure in order to receive treatment.  This is coercion at a time when the patient is stressed enough as it is.

Here's what the federal government has to say
source: http://www.hhs.gov/hipaafaq/st...

Does the HIPAA Privacy Rule preempt State laws?

Answer:
The HIPAA Privacy Rule provides a Federal floor of privacy protections for individuals' individually identifiable health information where that information is held by a covered entity or by a business associate of the covered entity. State laws that are contrary to the Privacy Rule are preempted by the Federal requirements, unless a specific exception applies. These exceptions include if the State law:

1. relates to the privacy of individually identifiable health information and provides greater privacy protections or privacy rights with respect to such information,

2. provides for the reporting of disease or injury, child abuse, birth, or death, or for public health surveillance, investigation, or intervention, or

"death" - is this where they see an opening to pull this off?

3. requires certain health plan reporting, such as for management or financial audits. In these circumstances, a covered entity is not required to comply with a contrary provision of the Privacy Rule.

In addition, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) may, upon specific request from a State or other entity or person, determine that a provision of State law which is "contrary" to the Federal requirements - as defined by the HIPAA Administrative Simplification Rules - and which meets certain additional criteria, will not be preempted by the Federal requirements. Thus, preemption of a contrary State law will not occur if the Secretary or designated HHS official determines, in response to a request, that one of the following criteria apply: the State law:

1. is necessary to prevent fraud and abuse related to the provision of or payment for health care,

2. is necessary to ensure appropriate State regulation of insurance and health plans to the extent expressly authorized by statute or regulation,

3. is necessary for State reporting on health care delivery or costs,

4. is necessary for purposes of serving a compelling public health, safety, or welfare need, and, if a Privacy Rule provision is at issue, if the Secretary determines that the intrusion into privacy is warranted when balanced against the need to be served; or

5. has as its principal purpose the regulation of the manufacture, registration, distribution, dispensing, or other control of any controlled substances (as defined in 21 U.S.C. 802), or that is deemed a controlled substance by State law.

It is important to recognize that only State laws that are "contrary" to the Federal requirements are eligible for an exemption determination. As defined by the Administrative Simplification Rules, contrary means that it would be impossible for a covered entity to comply with both the State and Federal requirements, or that the provision of State law is an obstacle to accomplishing the full purposes and objectives of the Administrative Simplification provisions of HIPAA.

See 45 C.F.R. Part 160, Subpart B, for specific requirements related to preemption of State law. An unofficial version of the Privacy Rule and the preemption requirements may be accessed at http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/combine... (PDF - 2.8MB).

At any rate I see a law suit in the works.  

---

by: Donna @ Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 08:24:57 AM CDT

Republicans - they say they want smaller government and less

government interference in the lives of Americans, and then turn around and do something like this.  Obviously, paternalistic B.S.

History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government.-- Thomas Jefferson

---

by: Mykelb @ Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 08:28:10 AM CDT

Less help, more control

Conservatives and Repugnicans do want less government.  They want less government helping people just in case someone gets help, which conservatives see as getting an unfair advantage.  They're totally ok with government controlling people's lives and morality, but the instant government tries to do something that helps people, they hate it.

Essentially, they're lying liars who lie at every possible opportunity and lie about the lies they tell while they're lying about lies.

Did I get the point about lying across? ;)

---

by: xequar @ Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 09:17:52 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Few on the right,

whether they call themselves Republicans, conservatives, independents, libertarians, genuinely want a smaller government, genuinely care about civil liberties.

---

by: rfloh @ Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 09:28:30 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Shes just mad...

Sally Kern is just mad because someone dropped a house on her sister...

Seriously this is a violation of HIPPA, in that it violates the right to privacy under the law...now here's where I see this nut rolling though...they are going to try to report the fetus as a death and say that HIPPA expires with the patient (which it does).  

So then you have this whole BS thing about when the fetus becomes a person.  They will look to push this case up and force the SCOTUS to make a ruling on it...lets hope there are not enough justices on the court willing to grant cert on the case...because it is just weird.

HIPPA is taken seriously by the government...so the inital win on this should be easy, someone just needs to jump on it.

"I drank what?"  Socrates

---

by: kiltedyak @ Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 10:35:56 AM CDT

Go easy on the witch statements

We Pagans are sensitive about that since Ephalba got an unfair rap as did Morgaine

I tell you Chica that no greater abomination exists than women denying their spirit of sisterhood and instead becoming the oppressor. -Rebeca, Universidad Complutense de Madrid

---

by: MauraHennessey @ Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 17:30:10 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

And many of thse conservalaws

Are being set up to force legal cases that the Reichers hope will trickle up to the Supremes.

They desperately want a chance while they still have a conservative majority on the Supreme Court to strike down Roe v Wade

---

by: MonicaR @ Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 12:37:04 PM CDT

EVERY woman sign in as Jenna Bush

"race, taste. and History finally overcome....and you ain't there"
by Tony Kushner

---

by: peteyPornpig @ Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 12:52:39 PM CDT

Not just HIPAA - how about the Constitution?

What "state interest" could publication of these details possibly serve?  Even pre-abortion counseling requirements could be spun as promoting a state interest in protecting fetal life (not that I would agree, but at least it's within the realm of honest argument).  But slapping a woman's private health information up onto the Intertoobz?  I suspect that a bunch of drooling radical righties, with their various racist, sexist, and classist stereotypes about women who have abortions, think they've found a way to obtain "proof" of their faulty, tendentious assumptions.

---

by: CubPaws2008 @ Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 14:10:50 PM CDT

It's all about intimidation

The fundys are hoping to scare these vulnerable women into thinking their names will be made public. That way they can stigmatize them into putting their babies up for adoption (hopefully to fundamentalist "christian" parents). You see, there is a shortage of blond-hair, blue eye babies available to brainwash.

Dena


Cisgender. Because the term "Genetic" is so 2006.

---

by: Denabeth @ Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 17:04:16 PM CDT

[ Parent ]