Prosecutors Fight to See Limbaugh's Medical Records

1 posted on 03/10/2004 9:03:14 AM PST by Tumbleweed_Connection

To: Tumbleweed_Connection

Prosecutors who want to review Rush Limbaugh's medical records argued in court papers that privacy rights shouldn't be used to hide criminal wrongdoing.

I would like to look through the DA's financial records and tax returns.

After all, privacy rights shouldn't be used to hide criminal wrongdoing.

2 posted on 03/10/2004 9:05:07 AM PST by E. Pluribus Unum (Drug prohibition laws help fund terrorism.)

To: Tumbleweed_Connection

This is clearly a violation of the 5th. Medical records are not akin to tax returns etc. They are kept only to maintain his health since memorizing everything would be too difficult for anyone.

If he had a chip implanted in his skin that held all his medical records he would be able to protect the info against self incrimination this should be no different.

3 posted on 03/10/2004 9:08:55 AM PST by Bikers4Bush (Flood waters rising, heading for more conservative ground. Write in Tancredo in 04'!)

To: E. Pluribus Unum

This story misses the big news in this filing: http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1094738/posts

4 posted on 03/10/2004 9:11:59 AM PST by holdonnow

To: Tumbleweed_Connection

Legal scholars, please help me. I have never read Roe V Wade, but have had the rationale explained to me thusly: If a woman goes to her doctor for a procedure, without access to her records there can be no proof that she had an illegal abortion or just an ingrown tonail. Thus you cannot prosecute her without access to her record OR forcing her to testify against herself OR forcing her doctor to testify against her. The court ruled that all three scenarios are constitutionally protected (the aggregate of these protections ammounts to a privacy right) and thus there is no way to enforce the abortion laws without stepping on the woman's rights, and therefor there should be no abortion laws.

If this is a true representation of the reasoning behind Roe V Wade, why doesnt the same logic apply to Limbaugh's case? He cant be forced to testify against himself, and his doctor has cofidentiality to stand behind, the only way to get him is through his records. If they can access them, they can prosecute. But if they can prosecute him through his records, they can prosecute women getting abortions through theirs, and Roe V Wade falls apart.

What's the scoop?

5 posted on 03/10/2004 9:14:16 AM PST by pepsi_junkie

Thanks for the link to the real development in Rush's case.

6 posted on 03/10/2004 9:21:28 AM PST by Angelwood (FReepers are Everywhere! We Support Our Troops! (Hillary's Vast Rt Wg Conspiracy))

To: pepsi_junkie

No one has any right to anyones medical records. I go and get second opinions too, call it doctor shopping if you want. I call it "second opinion".

7 posted on 03/10/2004 9:21:29 AM PST by tessalu

To: E. Pluribus Unum

I'd like to see how much the prosecutor has donated to the democrat party as well as their members.

8 posted on 03/10/2004 9:25:58 AM PST by Brytani (Politics: n. from Greek; "poli"-many; "tics"-ugly, bloodsucking parasites.)

I agree with you. But if I characterized the logic behind Roe V Wade correctly (and I probably didnt) then if Limbaughs records can be yanked and used against him, wouldnt abortion records also be fair game? And if so, wouldnt Roe V Wade fall apart? Let the left wrangle with that choice (crucify Limbaugh at the cost of Roe V Wade, or keep abortion going but let Limbaugh skate).

9 posted on 03/10/2004 9:35:38 AM PST by pepsi_junkie

Shopping to get a second opinions is legal. Shopping to get a second prescription is not.

10 posted on 03/10/2004 10:07:01 AM PST by NC28203

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794