Posted on 09/20/2002 1:59:40 PM PDT by PJeffQ
Court upholds SC abortion law allowing access to clinic records
(Richmond, Va.-AP) Sept. 20, 2002 - A South Carolina law allowing state inspectors access to all abortion clinic records does not violate patients' privacy rights, a divided federal appeals court ruled Thursday.
The 2-1 decision by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a lower court ruling on the privacy issue. It upheld part of the earlier ruling which said the other abortion clinic regulations are constitutional.
Two clinics had challenged the regulations, arguing the confidentiality of patient information is vital because women seeking abortions could face harassment. However, the appeals court noted that the state is required to keep patient records confidential.
"Even though the abortion clinics can conceive of circumstances where patients' privacy rights could be violated, either deliberately or through negligence, we cannot assume that the confidentiality measures adopted by South Carolina to prevent such violations will be administered improperly," Judge Paul V. Niemeyer wrote.
The clinics also claimed the law illegally gives hospitals the power to determine whether a physician can obtain a license to perform abortions. Under the law, doctors who want to perform an abortion must have arrangements with a physician who has admitting privileges at a hospital in case of emergency.
The appeals court said the provision is "so obviously beneficial to patients" that it could not rule it unconstitutional.
The abortion providers argued that a provision requiring them to make clergy available for counseling coerces participation in religion and violates the constitutional separation of church and state. Again, the appeals court disagreed.
"This section would appear at most to require a clinic to accommodate the request of patients to exercise religion, a right also protected by the First Amendment," Niemeyer wrote.
The court also rejected the clinics' argument that the regulations, which cover standards ranging from door widths to air flow, are unconstitutionally vague.
In a dissenting opinion, Judge Robert King derided the regulation for "micromanaging everything from elevator safety to countertop varnish to the location of janitors' closets." Such regulations are intended to make abortions effectively unavailable, he said.
King characterized the ruling as another step in South Carolina's drive to limit abortions, noting that 80 percent of the state's counties lack an abortion provider.
"Insofar as the legislature in South Carolina wishes to limit the choices of its female citizens, it has been largely successful," King wrote. "South Carolina is not, however, entitled to adopt and pursue an anti-abortion agenda at the expense of constitutional rights."
Yeah, intrusive government is a b!tch, isn't it.
Good to see the liberals getting some of their own back.
Judicial activism is dangerous. Some jurists might claim that banning guns "is so obviously beneficial" that it too should not be ruled unconstitutional.
The proper test in court for a law is whether it violates the Constitution, not whether it is beneficial.
(And, if it is not beneficial, the law should be overturned, the legislators who passed it removed from office, and possibly the Constitution amended so that future such laws will no longer be constitutional.)
In a dissenting opinion, Judge Robert King derided the regulation for "micromanaging everything from elevator safety to countertop varnish to the location of janitors' closets."
Well,which is it. Are they vague or specific to the point of micromanaging everything?
The regulations probably are very specific. The people that drafted the bill probably anticipated that people would attempt to overturn the regulations by calling them "unconstitutionaly vague".
Clergy has always played a big role at funerals. Where there's dead children, there should at least be a parting prayer available upon request.
In other words, the abortion providers are denying the patients a "choice" to seek religious counceling. The abortion clinics "choose" for them. Pro-choice for death only. That's the rules.
Except for the choice to let the baby live. Then the woman has no choice there. Hail Hitler!
The Constitution is not only written for the living, but for the generations to come which are yet unborn. King is obviously from the culture of death. His conscience is sheared, he has lost his soul.
"WOMEN'S PRIVACY" = INCEST AND STATUTORY RAPE HIDDEN
Now, at least in South Carolina, it will be easier to find out who is being blackmailed.
Part of those constitutional rights are the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This particular Judge seems to have forgot that little detail.
Now, that observation is interesting, to say the least!
"PP-- The Cover-up is Over". Coming to a state near you.
Did we miss the implicit claim that abortion clinics are part of the gubmint? Indeed, abortion mills are rife with political agents working hand-in-glove with legislators and public officials (yes, even through blackmail as described in #15 by Lancey Howard).
Government needs to get out of the business of killing its citizens. Then, it won't be a state-subsidized (shielded) venture. Abortion mills couldn't exist absent federal political support, subject to unbiased courts and state and local civic opinion (i.e., voting patterns).
HF
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.