1st amendment bent...again?

[Lilly]

this is not to spark a debate over the rightness/wrongness of abortion, it is only to debate over the actions taken by these individuals

apparently people (the news report i saw showed fundamental Christians doing it) are snapping photos of women coming and going from abortion clinics and posting them in the internet for all to see. they also obtain the women's medical records and post them along with thier pictures on said website. they do this in 25 states. now one illinois woman is suing the person who runs the site and the people who took her photograph.


experts are saying that even if the woman wins, it doesn't ensure that the other women would be compensated for their torture and removed from said website.

clearly i'm all about the first amendment, but i think this goes a bit too far.

 

[KhanadaRhodes]

i'm surprised this is legal, really. i mean, that's invasion of privacy. also, i thought medical records were confidential? i've always been told that medical records are only allowed to be viewed by the patient and doctors/nurses caring for the patient. they aren't displayed for public use.

also, i know there's laws protecting people's images not to be used on television without their permission, i can't believe this is allowed on the internet. i know it's harder to moderate, but i mean come on. at the very least, they should be allowed to post picture OR name. but not both.

 

[baker6621]

I don't know about the issue on hand, but the modern use of the constitution is just B.S. Ex., freedom of speech doesn't exist. This isn't the way its meant to be.

 

[lady lemonade]

I saw that on the news too Lilly. Can't believe they're allowed to do that, what if some whacko decides to track down these women and do something to them. And how did they get access to their medical records? They are endangering their lives and their privacy...

 

[Spiral_Staircase]

I'm anti-abortion, but I still think this is moronic and wrong. I don't see what possible good they could ever hope to come of this.

The article I saw said that the Right To Life organization has spoken against the website.

Also, the article I saw only mentioned pictures, not medical files, posted on the website. I don't see how they could get access to that info.

 

[KingPin]

This stuff makes me so sad. Why can't the pro-life people realize that this stuff doesn't affect the rate of performed abortions? They've been mean and cruel for the last 15 years, and has it worked... hell no.

And any "fundamental Christians" who are doing this are forgetting the fundamental Christian principles of love and compassion.

 

[Lilly]

And any "fundamental Christians" who are doing this are forgetting the fundamental Christian principles of love and compassion.

*cough* WHAT MOOORE IN THE NAME OF LOOOOVE?! *cough*


and spiral, they stole the file. it was on the news that they had the woman who is suing's med file on the net.

 

[Spiral_Staircase]

and spiral, they stole the file. it was on the news that they had the woman who is suing's med file on the net.

unbelievable.

 

[JessicaAnn]

i'm surprised this is legal, really. i mean, that's invasion of privacy. also, i thought medical records were confidential? i've always been told that medical records are only allowed to be viewed by the patient and doctors/nurses caring for the patient. they aren't displayed for public use.

I am not a lawyer, but medical records are the property of the patient.

It upsets me that pro-lifers feel the need to humiliate people like this. When a woman becomes pregnant and the child was, for whatever reason, unexpected and ill timed ... it is a terribly confusing and painful time. Whatever decision she makes (be it to keep the child, have the baby and give it up for adoption or to have an abortion), it is most likely going to be one of the most painful and difficult decisions of her life, and regardless of what the decision is, it will haunt her the rest of her life.

 

[melon]

Actually, this is very illegal. You cannot post or print someone's likeness without permission from the individual, unless the individual is reasonably considered to be a "public figure" (i.e., politicians, Hollywood celebrities, etc.). This web site constitutes libel and defamation of character, and the group responsible for this web site should be prosecuted. This is in keeping with current First Amendment interpretations.

Melon

 

[KhanadaRhodes]

this is still unbelievable to me. this reminds me of those pro-lifers who bomb abortion clinics and kill the doctors, nurses, and many more pregnant women because of their beliefs. how hypocritical is that? now not only does the baby die, so does the mother, rendering her obviously unable to EVER have children. as well as any female doctors/nurses never being able to have any more children, and all the male doctors/nurses never being able to father children.

i have no problem with pro-life people (although i am pro-choice), but these people who take their beliefs to the extreme disturb me. i'd love to hear some of their rationale, as to why they think it's okay to bomb the clinics. i know i'm getting slightly off-topic, but i'd love to hear their side on anything, including this posting of personal information. why would they think doing this stuff would help persuade people to not get an abortion?

 

[speedracer]

i have no problem with pro-life people (although i am pro-choice), but these people who take their beliefs to the extreme disturb me. i'd love to hear some of their rationale, as to why they think it's okay to bomb the clinics.

Pretty simple. By killing doctors who perform abortions, they're preventing the murder of a large number of fetuses.

I guess the importance of maintaining the high moral ground in such a dispute hasn't hit these people, though.

 

[U2Bama]

When they attack/stalk people who are doing something legally, they lose their credibility (not to mention go against the very teachings of Christ). They have every right to protest abortion, period. But publishing photos and medical records and committing terrorist acts is beyond the line. Some coward bombed a clinic here a few years ago (Robert Eric Rudolph), and in the process killed a Birmingham police officer and maimed a clinic nurse. Then he allegedly fled to the mountains of Appalachia. Similar things have occurred in nearby Pensacola and Atlanta, and it tends to give the pro-life movement a bad image.

~U2Alabama

 

[Zooropa]

OT a litttle, but why is it always assumed that pro-life advocates are Christians? I'm pro-life but do not believe in God. In my mind abortion is murder, plain and simple. If you aren't ready to handle the consiquences of pregnancy, then you shouldn't be sexually active. Yes, mistakes happen, but that is a CONSEQUENCE of YOUR action. Rape and incest are obviously different circumstances and should be treated as such. The other thing I never undertstood, is people will often say that its "a womens right to choose". Why? what if the father wants to keep the child? He has no say? Another thing, Pro-choice groups (before Roe v. Wade) used to fight to "keep the Government out of our bodies". Now they want the Govt to help cover abortion costs. I don't understand.
IMO, abortion isn't a womens issue, it's a responsibility issue. Unfortunately, no one wants to be held accountible for their actions.

I realize that I will probably get flamed for my thoughts but, oh well...

 

[Zooropa]

I also must agree with several of you who questioned the violent acts committed by pro-lifers. I don't understand that either. The principle is right to life, bombing an abortion clinic and killing the doctors, nurses and patients is asinine, and like U2bama said, gives the pro-life movement a bad name.

 

[Lilly]

1. why is it always assumed that pro-life advocates are Christians?

2. Rape and incest are obviously different circumstances and should be treated as such.

1. i think that a lot of really hard core pro-life advocates are Christians. this particular news report showed Christians, though i don't know the affiliation of the others doing this.

2. i agree completely. that is, however, why i consider myself pro-choice.

not trying to flame you at all. i thought your response was well worded and added to the topic.