Art Machine
Just another former infatuation junkie

We’re doing an absolutely great job bringing democracy to Iraq without upsetting the citizens of that country. Yes, sir! No evidence that our war was a war of conquest whatsoever!

Let’s see – the majority of the Iraqi people want to be left alone to chose their own government without the help of Bush. The U.N. wants to lead an international effort to rebuild Iraq, but Bush is saying “Thank you, no. Rebuilding Iraq is our spoils of war.”

But perhaps we should be taking a look at what’s happening in our own back yard while we’re busy bringing “freedom” to the Iraqi people.

r@d@r over at Ex-Lion Tamer points us in the direction of this story. It seems that the Supreme Court has decided to uphold a South Carolina law allowing the state to command abortion clinics to open their patients files. This would mean that the state could collect names, addresses, and other personal medical information about anybody who sought help at a clinic.

r@d@r invited feminists to “lock and load” over the issue. Well, thank you. This is, in fact, a feminist issue as it represents an attack on a woman’s right to choose. Oppression begins with suppression, and there is no greater suppression than regulation of a person’s choices concerning their own body.

But the issue goes much farther than just a woman’s right to choose (although that matter goes a fair distance, itself). The Supreme Court’s decision represents a diminishing of the right to doctor-patient confidentiality. Considered one of the most sacred elements of the doctor’s code of ethics, this confidentiality is the only thing allowing many patients to seek medical help for problems they might otherwise be too embarassed to admit to. A patient whose medical records can be opened at any time is less likely to seek help for sexually transmitted diseases, for diseases seen as signs of weakness, or for any ailment or condition that might trigger a “not me” reaction.

By upholding the South Carolina law, the Supreme Court has set a precedent for the disruption of doctor-patient confidentiality. In the past, such a disruption could only be permitted in the case of a criminal investigation. Now, however, the precedent set is one that allows the state to make laws gathering information on any particular group of patients – in this specific case, women who visit abortion clinics.

While we’re ranting about this, TalkLeft brings us this little gem about a similar attack – this time on attorney-client privelege. Lynne Stewart—a human rights lawyer who acted as a court-appointed defense attorney for Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman—was arrested and had all of her case files siezed by the Department of Justice. In a blazing display of patriotism, Ashcroft referred to her arrest as a significant victory, as he revealed that she was facing a four-count criminal indictment for aiding and abetting terrorism.

Why? Did Stewart give funds or equipment to terrorist organizations? Did she give them secret information about government installations? Was she on the Al-Qaeda payroll?

Actually, she fulfilled her duties as a court-appointed defense attorney. She provided competent legal defense in a court of law for Rahman.

The horror, the horror.

First of all, let’s talk about the new issue in this case. We’re going to prosecute attorneys for defending their clients? That makes no sense. The only way you can prosecute an attorney in a case is if they assisted their client in the commission of the crime – not if they defend their client after the fact. And in that case, the attorney almost never remains the attorney on the case.

We don’t prosecute attorneys for defending their clients. If we were to do so, then the entire judicial system would collapse. No attorney would agree to defend a client on the off chance that they might be prosecuted.

As for privilege issues—is America so blinded by a quest for revenge that we would actually violate the most sacred principle of our judicial system? We have always guaranteed a fair trial to people accused of a crime. No kangaroo courts, no retaliation for defending oneself.

Attorney-client privilege is a vital part of the sixth amendment guarantee of due process. Without privilege, there is no fair trial.

Republicans have been very vocal lately on privacy issues such as these two. Apparently, some genius out there finally realized that there is no specific provision for a “right to privacy” in the Bill of Rights. In other words, they’ve found a way to shred the Constitution while appearing to uphold it. After all, those first ten amendments (or the subsequent seventeen) don’t specifically mention privacy. Do they?

Well, my copy of the Bill of Rights has Amendment IX in it, which states fairly clearly:

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

Or, more directly, there’s Amendment IV.

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

Amendment IV is usually used as a defense against illegal search and siezure, but it can also be read as a right to privacy. After all, the people have a right to be secure in their persons or papers until a warrant is issued upon probable cause – meaning that the person requesting such a warrant should be investigating a criminal act at the time and have (defensible) reason to believe that such a search could yield evidence. Few things are more personal to us than our medical histories, dealing as they do with our bodies and little else. Allowing the government to paw through your medical records because you sought a specific treatment akin to giving the police force passkeys and telling them to ignore getting a warrant and rummage through every Asian-American’s home looking for evidence of ties to North Korea. Or giving those same police officers a map to the homes of the wealthy white and telling the to just drop in without a warrant or due process and see if they have any illegal immigrants working for them.

Do you believe that these issues apply only to narrow cases? That it’s all right to sacrifice other people’s rights, as long as yours go untouched?

That’s specifically why it cannot be said enough...

This entry was posted on Wednesday, April 30th, 2003 at 10:11 am and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.