What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Can't get enough Dragon Age: Origins? Check out new footage. view!
DragonAge.BioWare.com - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
143 Comments
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -7/+83Oh yeah... HIPAA to the rescue.
$25,000 per violation and, if the records were targeted by fox/O'Rly then someone could be headed to Federal-pound-them-in-the-ass-Prison... but the current trend I'm seeing out of the right indicates that might not be so much of a deterrent as we're lead to believe. - captinherb, on 10/12/2007, -9/+39Ok, a hardcore anti-abortion AG finally gets his hands on the abortion records and shortly after they get leaked to O'Reilly and their response is "Nope, didn't come from us, don't know anything about it. Abortion clinics must have leaked it" Do they really expect anyone to buy that? I don't know what they are smoking but I bet it is some high quality stuff.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+31I saw the broadcast in question, and I did find it really odd that O'Reilly had what appeared to be confidential information.
It seems unlikely though, that he or his station could become liable for information that was most likely given to them by a source, unless they sought the information illegally.
If there is any criminal responsibility, I hope it is applied, because people need to be able to trust that their doctors will keep private medical information confidential.
Also, keep in mind that the context of the information was an investigation of an abortion clinic violating the law by performing illegal late-term abortions. Not saying that anything could justify a criminal act, just suggesting that people keep informed. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -7/+24So the Attorney General there is an anti-abortion activist? And he's subpoenad patients journals to go on a fishing expedition after doctors doing illegal abortions? And he leaks confidential data from the patient journals about rapes of minors to a hate-radio show host?
Well I guess that was his plan all along - scare off anyone from having an abortion by leaking data, and nailing some abortion doctors in the process.
What a sweet guy. Family values - you can't beat'em! - bluesoul, on 10/12/2007, -5/+20In response to melodramatic, it's fairly irrelevant who provided the information. Fox and O'Reilly can be pressured into naming their sources, who presumably have some sort of NDA that they violated to obtain this information. Should they fail to comply, they get hit with Obstruction of Justice.
- Web_Weasel, on 10/12/2007, -4/+17O'Reilly received the records from the Kansas Attorney General Phil Kline. One of the first things Kline did after he was elected was request those records from clinics.
Kline and O'Reilly are both scumbags and I hope they both get to spend some quality time in Leavenworth.
Well at least I can vote against Kline again this Tuesday. - dognose, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11Does anyone here care about the "rapes with victims ages 10 to 15." That's the real crime here.
- Vlatro, on 10/12/2007, -5/+14Doctor's have an obligation to patient confidentiality, reporters do not. It's an open an shut case. The doctor and his lawyers know this, but it wont stop them from using a lawsuit as a public platform to defend against any allegations O'Riley may have made in his broadcast. Moreover, there will likely be a quick-cash out of court settlement. O'riley should name his sources (as any credible reporter should), and if they are found guilty of breaching patient trust, they should be held to the full effect of the law. As bluesoul said above, Obstruction of Justice would be the only possible liability. But there would have to be some physical evidence that information about the source is being hidden for fear of legal liability for either himself, his staff, Fox news, or his source. Simply refusing to name your source is pretty well covered under the 5th amendment.
- deanlowe, on 10/12/2007, -7/+16"Why the double standard?"
Because the patient and/or the doctor in this case has standing to sue in court. If you think you have standing to sue the NY Times then you should call your lawyers. remember, Judy Miller went to jail because she wouldn't give up Libby's name. - shinpoe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8It seems to me like the clinic hasn't disputed that they are innocent... just that they are surprised O'Reilly had the information
- olik, on 10/12/2007, -5/+13The patients of the clinic could also sue for a civil rights violation against the Attorney General and maybe the clinic. THERE IS NO RIGHT TO AN ABORTION, THERE IS A RIGHT TO PRIVACY, access to abortions just happens to fall out of that right. It's amazing that there is some question about the right to privacy over records regarding the very act that brought about the recognition of that right in the first place.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -18/+26Why should O'Reilly be compelled to reveal sources but the NYT shouldn't be compelled to reveal the traitors in the CIA and State Department that keep giving them classified materials? Why the double standard?
- squeevey, on 10/12/2007, -12/+20I usually do...I think about them with BBQ sauce.
/I'll be driving the bus. - CyBrShRk, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10p0s3r is an *****!
You have WAY too much time on your hands with the amount of posts you made to this thread. That's typical though with people like you that spew your brand of stupidity. It's almost a given you're male. Does it make you feel powerful preying on a women's issue like you do? Do you follow your 'Bible' to the letter on EVERY issue or do you pick and choose what 'works' for you? Try getting a real job and minding your business. I'm amazed how many of you ultra-conservative Bible-thumping creeps have all this time during the week to protest and hold rallies while the rest of us are working and being productive. Calling someone a "pro-fetus murderer" proves to me that your a friggin' nut job. It's a shame nobody has knocked your teeth down your throat for spewing that hatred...but I can dream! - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9"Knowing that a child was raped doesn't identify the rapist."
No, but starting a police investigation into who may have raped the child, along with being able to obtain DNA of the rapist (a guarantee if the child is already there to have an abortion), is a good starting point in stopping a rapist from striking again. It would do well for the mental health of the patient if the rapist was caught.
"No, the 10 year old deserves the right to privacy."
The child's privacy has already been violated by the rapist, but I guess each person has to decide whether they believe that it is justifiable to again breach the privacy of the child to catch a person that could continue to harm the child, or others. - elliam, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Just like, in this case, if you repeat the same point over and over again. Then it magically becomes valid.
- ideasware, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10What a load of partisan crap!
O'Reilly is an arrogant idiot blowhard -- everyone knows that -- but even a broken clock is right twice a day. This guy Dr. Tiller is a creep -- doing whatever unethical stuff he can because he thinks he knows better than his inbred Kansas co-residents, and has made abortion his personal cross. I like seeing creeps exposed, and in the end, O'Reilly will win this one, just like he won against the idiot judges who insanely sentenced serial child molestors to slap-on-the-wrist sentences because of their own bizarre personal agendas.
Fact is, you partisan half-wits, none of the set-in-stone blind ideological positions are right, or even sane. Abortion is a tragedy, a serious matter, and restrictions on it are appropriate. The saddest thing to see are the young male "womans right to choose" bigots, who don't even know what saps they are; don't even know that their PC positions are just to get laid. Sad to see people who don't even know their own mind.
And at the same time, abortion in early stages IS just the termination of a potential birth, not much different from birth control. Religious folks who get all anti-abortion terroristic are just confused, but their confusion cannot be allowed to dictate our national social policy. It is up to sane people to express their genuine moral belief that on balance, early stage abortion is acceptable -- more good than harm.
But in any case, O'Reilly will rightly win this one -- although his ratings are sliding; he's clearly flop-sweating, which is fun to see, and he'll likely be gone before 2008. - DyDx, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9I don't have to. Your reference to the interviewee as a "pro-abortion kook" is sufficient to gather your political and ideological leanings.
Asshat. - jjesusfreak01, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Lets see what the real arguments here are. There are two:
Q1: Should doctors be required to give out information and evidence that would help to apprehend and convict a child rapist.
A: Abortion proponent says no if it would hurt the child's privacy
A2: I say yes every time. For the greater good, we have to catch the rapists, even if it might not protect the privacy of one individual. The concept of "greater good" has been around for a long while.
Q2: Is "Im depressed" a valid medical reason to get a late term abortion?
A: Abortion proponent says yes always
A2: I say no, lets look at the consequences. Abortion always leads to the CHANCE of severe depression afterwards. Also, it can have adverse medical consequences (understanding that birthing is not without risk too) for the mother. They always have the option of giving the child up for adoption afterwards, which will remove the woman from the psychological and medical risks of the abortion
Final question: Is Fox News going to get in trouble?
Tell me this, since when are anonymous statistics analogous to a breach of patient confidentiality. If someone prints off a list of grades for one of my college classes, including all of the grades, and no names, I wouldnt get upset, its just a statistic, and says nothing about me personally. Now, if Fox News had a set of documents with the name of a woman and a record of her procedures and medical history, thats a breach of patient confidentiality.
What even says they had anonymous statistics? Sounds like their source was just an insider, and all they told them was a couple of trends about the data. If you are at a doctors office asking for an abortion, and you say you are depressed, and the doctor tells you, "Alot of my patients come in for the same reason", is that breaking PC? NO! - floorman56, on 10/12/2007, -7/+13The NYT post top secret documents every week and everyone says they are the champions of free speech
Fox post a medical document with out a name and you are ready to storm the studio.
I guess it's only free speech if you agree with it - TroubleInMind, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10Using the term 'kook' detracts unnecessarily from your potential credibility.
- Urusai, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11Knowing that a child was raped doesn't identify the rapist.
- lib24, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10"O'Reilly also said his show has evidence that Tiller's clinic and another unnamed clinic have broken Kansas law by failing to report potential rapes with victims ages 10 to 15."
Obviously the clinic needed to be exposed; the clinic will probably be the ones who end being prosecuted. - hazlett, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6It has already been determined that children do not have the same rights that adults have. The right to privacy being one.....
- Kniggit, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Bill O'Reilly isn't in trouble, but whoever gave out the information without the patients' consent sure is.
If Bill O'Reilly was actively looking for that information, he'll of course rightly be in trouble. For now, there's no evidence that he is in any direct peril. - SniperGX1, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6@p0s34
That is another issue entirely. If you don't want the kid and she does you shouldn't have to pay for it. But you should also have no parental rights over it. - DyDx, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6@p0s3r: WTF are you talking about. No one here is saying this is right.
Taking this super-liberal pro-choicer seriously is just as idiotic as taking the super-conservatives seriously. Extremes are bad.
Do you think O'Reilly would really want a reasonable, articular pro-choicer on his show? OF COURSE NOT. He's going to get the most liberal crazy one he can get because he knows that extremes on either end of the spectrum are ridiculous. - SniperGX1, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7@DyDx
It's about time someone finally notified the religious right that Pro-Choice and Pro-Abortion are two different things. I know many girls that are Anti-Abortion and yet remain Pro-Choice because they respect their bodies and the bodies of all women. Now if they will only learn that the opposite of Pro-Choice can't be Pro-Life as that isn't the opposite at all and you can't have two Pro sides in an argument. The opposite would be Anti-Choice but you try and explain that to a bunch of inbred rednecks. I mean Republicans. - DyDx, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8Once again:
a) you're a douche. No one is pro-abortion.
b) I agree that this is retarded. However, it is NOT a rational argument against the right to choose. Just because some people do stupid things does not mean that that thing should be banned in all circumstances. - bluesdealer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6What's more important? Starting an investigation that [i]might[/i] reveal a rapist, or giving a family the right to decide whether or not their little girl's life is ruined? If being raped wasn't bad enough, imagine the implications for the poor kid once everyone (especially the media) knew what happened.
I think an investigation would be the right thing to do, but it should be up to the family to decide that, not the law. - Vlatro, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Looking over the posts here, I could say abortion has taken a back seat to Bill O'Riley. A few people are talking about "A woman's right to her own body", a few others are talking about it being "immoral to kill babies". But by far the majority of the posts are just flaming O'Riley. The truly Life or Death issue of abortion has been trumped by the big bad man on TV who says things we don't like. A doctor entrusted with his patient's well being, as well as their privacy fails to report abuse to authorities, and then some how confidential patient records from his office make it into the hands of large scale media. But let's just worry about the big bad man on TV first. Has pollitical ideology really ***** up or priorities that bad?
- ccrook, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6It's not a matter of "personal privacy". Were patients named? No.
This is like complaining about statistical information on the number of people admitted to drug rehab programs.
Whose privacy was compromised? The doctor who's establishment was performing illegal abortions?
As much as you might hate O'Reilly, you know if this was the other way around (liberal talking head) it would be just fine. - TroubleInMind, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6He'll just cut a deal like Robert Novak did. O'Reilly thinks he is god. In some places, he is treated as such. But if anyone thinks O'Reilly is gonna do time to protect his sources, I think they'll be disappointed. He's an entertainer, not a journalist.
- Beaupedia, on 09/28/2008, -0/+5Misleading topic. "in trouble"?
- DyDx, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8@p0s3r: Once again, you're an asshat.
Do you really think that a woman who has decided to get an abortion WANTS the abortion? Don't you think that most women would rather not have to kill their own genetic offspring? (if you want to call terminating an early-term fetus "killing") It should go without saying that having an abortion is a serious decision that no one should take lightly and to categorize those who choose to do so as "pro-abortion" is offensive. I repeat: no healthy individual wants to kill potential babies, but as masters of our own domains (our bodies) we should have the fundamental human right to do so if we deem it necessary for the betterment of our own lives and/or society as a whole.
It's ironic that the religious right conservatives want to ban abortion, which would help with the current welfare state we are in, but they are the same people who don't want this to be a welfare state. Even more hilarious is that it's the very religious people (especially uneducated trash) that are making all of the babies!
Less unwanted babies translates to less money spent on welfare programs, pure and simple. We can't be having babies up the wazoo and not be able to support them. That's far more cruel than abortion itself. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+10Tell that to the 9th Circuit. Some people believe its the right of a 10 year old girl go get an abortion without parental permission but not be able get their ears pierced without written permission from the very same.
- jgtg32a, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Welcome to america?
- mabhatter, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9they can get tried along with Dunn. This is why the HP issue was mostly "noise" because media agents induce people trusted with private information thru "bribes" or "revenge" to break the law all the time... and nobody seems to care. But when a COMPANY fights back using the same tactics it's a huge legal issue.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out.. of course it's about abortion so it's OK for the "Right" to point it out how immoral it is and think of the "victims". Damn the laws when it suits them. Somebody minor will get slapped with the "hard" time, but all the people that profited will get off to do it next week. - elliam, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Stow the g-dd-mn "proponent" BS. As mentioned above, early abortions are hardly different than birth control that acts by not allowing the fertilized egg to implant. The morning after pill triggers menstruation. Where are the psychos against these things? Still flushing potential humans down the toilet.. usually literally.
Anyhow:
1: The ideas as I've read them here is that the child's privacy should be protected as much as possible. I haven't read one person say "screw reporting, safety be damned". I'm in the "It's not your right to tell other people what to do with their body" camp, so you'll probably put me under "active baby-murder". If the Person has the right to undergo the procedure without requiring third party authorization then, though they should be persuaded as thoroughly as any other to report the incident, in the end it is their choice to report or not.
I would rather have a 10 year old have the abortion and not report, than have the same person kill themselves out of shame.
2. We all say "Yes, always", eh? Fantastic. Then, rather than call just you a nutjob I'll call all anti-abortionists nut jobs.
If the female is depressed there is an increased chance of suicide. That's two murders by your count. Allowing the abortion, after therapy and in consideration of mental history, is saving one life rather than jeopardizing two. Consider that the depression may carry after birth and you have the potential for abuse and neglect. - theblooms, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6You meant the 9th Circus, right? The most overturned court in the land.
- TroubleInMind, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5You make a good point, sir. I'm sure I disagree with you on the issue at hand, but your point is well taken.
- DyDx, on 10/12/2007, -6/+10@p0s3r: You stupid ***** douche.
Stop being like all the other religious conservative nutjobs and referring to PRO-CHOICE individuals as PRO-ABORTION. I see the term "pro-abortion" so often in conservative literature that it makes me want to puke. NO ONE IS PRO-ABORTION. That doesn't make ***** sense. Yes, please, lets give abortions to everyone. That's some real logical ***** right there.
I'm digging you down because of your wonderful conservative rhetoric. Had you said "pro-choice," I would have actually agreed with the content of your post. After all, it is pretty retarded to not hand-over information about a childs rapist if you have it available -- privacy be damned.
Instead you had to be a douche. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9The cases Bill was referring to were situations where they abortion clinic knew who the rapists (from statements from the children) and still refused to report the case.
A child's safety trumps a child's privacy any day. - Vlatro, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Here's the fundamental problem. Under the law, the 10 year old girl doesn't have the legal right to privacy, her parents or legal guardians assume all responsibility in the making of those decisions. They could simply not come forward with information or start a police investigation in order to protect the guilty father, brother, uncle, cousin, neighbor... The doctor on the other hand, has a responsibility to turn over such information if there is reason to believe a child is being abused, or there may be a conflict of interest between the parents and the child's well being. Clearly, if a 10 year old is pregnant, there is abuse. Even if it was consensual sex, the child in the eyes of the law is incapable of making that decision for her self. So was this reported? Most likely it wasn't. The problem with abortion clinics is their high legal liability, insurance premiums, and fear of media attention which often leads to unreported cases of abuse, malpractice, or inadequately documented procedures which can cause further health problems in the future. My only issue with abortion is the poor oversight these clinics have. Tighter regulations are desperately needed. Yes I do object to abortion morally, but I wouldn't press that on others. As a man, I'll never be in a situation where abortion is a decision I'll have to make. I discourage it, but I accept the fact that they will continue with or without my consent. That being so, let's at least look at these clinics and their practices without immediately jumping to our chosen side of the fence. See them for what they are and try to minimize the damage they are capable of doing.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"plans to ask for an investigation" is NOT the same as "in trouble."
- ideasware, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Excellent analysis, Jesusfreak... I'm encouraged.
- solu, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4i hope he goes to jail, wouldn't that be the greatest thing ever!?
- tekz0r, on 10/12/2007, -9/+12Bill O'Reilly is an idiot.
I'll get modded down for it, but nothing really pisses me off more than his haughty arrogant tone and that smug look on his face when he feels he's accomplished something, when all he's really doing is propagating whatever right wing hypocritical values he feels are fading by degree, dangling onto the dumbest, most petty aspects of whatever is happening in the country.
I guess I have problems accepting people for who they are. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6I should say i dont mean freedom of press is absolute just like doctors priviledge isnt.
If a doctor notices abuse he must by law report it
if a priest hears about a murder he has to report it.
but it has always been limited to the extreme cases. - DyDx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3There's no such thing as "pro-abortion." Think about it, it doesn't make sense. It's pro-choice, not pro-abortion. See my argument with p0s3r.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 143 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is