Bush-Bashing
-
ist doch alles gefaket!
-
@ Kenny
Schön, auch wenn der Informationsgehalt Richtung Null tendiert...
@ Muhkuh
Was ist denn gefaket? Was meinst Du?
-
Kenny:
Nicht in diesem Thread, in dem tatsächlich - auch wenn du es vielleicht nicht wahrhaben willst - so etwas wie eine themenorientierte Diskussion stattfindet. Für Bush-Bashing such dir bitte einen anderen Thread.
Edit: Da es noch so schön zu trennen war, hab ich das doch gleich getan bevor es sich verzweigt.
-
Danke Toa. Das war doch sehr rücksichtsvoll. Und als Autor hast Du mich gleich vermerkt. Das ist zu freundlich. Ich frage mich nur, warum dieser kleine, rote Punkt hier durch mein Zimmer geistert???
-
ZitatAlles anzeigen
Administration Sets Forth a Limited View on Privacy
By ROBERT PEAR and ERIC LICHTBLAUPublished: March 6, 2004
WASHINGTON, March 5 — In a sharp departure from its past insistence on the sanctity of medical records, the Bush administration has set forth a new, more limited view of privacy rights as it tries to force hospitals and clinics to turn over records of hundreds and perhaps thousands of abortions.
Federal law "does not recognize a physician-patient privilege," the Justice Department said last month in court papers that sought abortion records from Planned Parenthood clinics in California, Kansas, Missouri, Pennsylvania, New York City and Washington. Moreover, the department said in another abortion case, patients "no longer possess a reasonable expectation that their histories will remain completely confidential."
Health lawyers and privacy experts said that position reflected a significant shift after six years in which Bush and Clinton administration officials had promised to strengthen the confidentiality of medical records.
Two federal judges have also expressed alarm over the government position. The latest blow to the government was on Friday, when a federal district judge in San Francisco denied a demand by the Justice Department for access to abortion records from a public hospital there and from six Planned Parenthood affiliates in the county.
The judge, Phyllis J. Hamilton, said forcing the providers to turn over the records would undermine the privacy rights of patients and could dissuade some from seeking treatment.
"There is no question that the patient is entitled to privacy and protection," Judge Hamilton said. "Women are entitled to not have the government looking at their records."
Judge Hamilton said the records included "potentially identifying information of an extremely personal and intimate nature" like age of first sexual experience, types of contraception used and details of abuse or sexually transmitted diseases.
The city said federal officials were seeking the records of 2,700 patients.
What began late last year as a fairly modest government effort to obtain records appears to have ballooned into a systematic effort in courts around the country to define the limits of medical privacy.
Health care professionals and privacy advocates say the government's position has broad implications beyond abortion. If patients have no reasonable expectation of privacy, the critics say, the government may be more aggressive in seeking records from hospitals, insurance companies and other businesses in criminal, civil and administrative cases.
The Justice Department says it needs the records to defend a new law that prohibits what opponents call partial-birth abortions. Doctors and clinics have challenged the law, saying it bars them from performing certain medically needed abortions.
A spokesman for the White House, Trent D. Duffy, defended the subpoenas. The administration is "strongly committed to medical privacy," and the subpoenas are "completely consistent" with federal privacy rules, Mr. Duffy said.
A spokeswoman for the Justice Department, Monica M. Goodling, said, "We are respecting patient privacy by having hospitals delete any information that identifies specific patients."
President Bush was elected on a platform that proclaimed support for medical privacy. In April 2001, he said he would protect "the right of every American to have confidence that his or her personal medical records will remain private."
At the time, Tommy G. Thompson, secretary of health and human services, said, "We are giving patients peace of mind in knowing that their medical records are confidential and their privacy is not vulnerable to intrusion."
The federal rules, adopted under a 1996 law, have touched off a quiet revolution in health care. Doctors, hospitals and drugstores routinely give "notices of privacy practices" to patients, assuring them that personal information will be protected.
Privacy advocates say the administration has rolled back some safeguards adopted by President Bill Clinton, and the Justice Department says now that the 1996 law is no obstacle to its efforts to obtain abortion records. In court papers, the Justice Department says the records are needed to show that the banned procedure is almost never medically necessary and "poses serious risks."
Dennis J. Herrera, the city attorney for San Francisco, said he was deeply troubled by Washington's stance.
Any reasonable person has an expectation that their medical records are going to be kept private," Mr. Herrera said. "If physicians and patients are left wondering whether their records are going to be made public, that has a real chilling effect. How candid are people really going to be with their doctors?"
The abortion recipients are not directly involved in the litigation, and the government has not told them that it wants their records.
The Justice Department says the federal rules allow the disclosure of medical records in judicial proceedings, with safeguards to protect patients' names. But doctors and hospitals say state laws often prohibit such disclosures, even with deleted names.
Representative Edward J. Markey, the Massachusetts Democrat who is co-chairman of the Congressional Privacy Caucus, said the records would have clues that could identify patients.
"How many hundreds of women, or thousands, will have the frightening experience of their medical records being handed over to the Justice Department as part of a fishing expedition?" Mr. Markey asked.
Representative Nita M. Lowey, Democrat of New York, said: "This administration claims to have taken great pride in adopting regulations aimed at ensuring the sanctity and privacy of medical records. But in an attempt to defend the so-called partial-birth abortion ban, it seems to have lost sight of its promises."
The demand for files is not limited to records of that type of abortion, known medically as intact dilation and extraction. The government also seeks these materials for the last three years:
¶Records of any second-trimester abortion in which the patient suffered a medical complication, regardless of the technique.
¶Records of any case in which a doctor caused a fetus's death by injecting chemical agents in the womb in the second or third trimester.
¶Documents related to any medical malpractice claims arising from certain abortions.
¶The names of all doctors who have performed any type of abortion.
The recent subpoenas appear to have struck a nerve with Attorney General John Ashcroft's critics, because of his history as an outspoken opponent of abortion in almost all cases. Advocates of abortion rights said they did not trust his department to judge whether abortions were medically necessary.
The federal standards have real-life implications for people like Sally Scofield, a legal secretary in Manhattan, Ill., who has joined a suit to fight the rules. After knee surgery and spinal injections in 2002, Ms. Scofield said, she was shocked to learn that her records had been given without her consent to a medical research business, an investigation company and a photocopying service.
"I have nothing to hide about my knee or my spine," Ms. Scofield said. "But every woman will tell you she has medical records she does not want shared. Rape victims, child molestation, incest, H.I.V., there are a lot of things people don't need to know about."
-
Also mir gefiel der hier besonders:
Auf Ehre und Gewissen... was würdest DU tun?
Du wirst jetzt einem kleinen Test unterzogen.
Der Test besteht aus nur einer einzigen Frage, aber die ist sehr, sehr wichtig!!
Antworte nicht zu schnell oder unüberlegt! Denk nach bevor du antwortest!
Antworte ehrlich, und du wirst dein moralisches Gespür testen.Es ist eine imaginäre Situation, in der du eine Entscheidung treffen musst. Gib die Antwort spontan, aber bleibe ehrlich...
Du bist in Florida....
...in Miami um genau zu sein.
Du befindest dich im größten Chaos einer Überschwemmung nach einem Orkan...
unglaubliche Wassermengen...
Du bist Fotoreporter für National Geographic,
...und bist inmitten dieses fantastischen Disasters.
Die Lage ist am Rande der Hoffnungslosigkeit.
Du versuchst die eindrucksvollsten Bilder zu schiessen...
um dich herum schwimmen Häuser weg, Menschen verschwinden...
Die Kraft der Natur wütet unbarmherzig voller Gewalt...
und reißt alles mit sich.
Plötzlich siehst du ein Mann, der ein Allradfahrzeug lenkt...
er kämpft verzweifelt, um nicht von den Wasser- und Schlammmassen mitgerissen zu werden.
Du näherst dich...
er sieht irgendwie wichtig aus...
... und du erkennst ihn:
Es ist G. W. Bush !
Du erkennst, dass die reißende Flut ihn gleich hinwegfegen wird, endgültig...
Du hast zwei Möglichkeiten: Ihn zu retten oder das Bild deines Lebens zu schießen!
Eine noble Tat, oder ein Foto, das dir den Pulitzer-Preis einbringt!
Ein Foto, dass den Tod eines der wichtigsten Männer der Welt zeigt...
Nun die Frage (antworte ehrlich):
-
Matt oder Hochglanz ??? -
Quatsch!
Poster oder T-Shirt-Aufdruck? -
ZitatAlles anzeigen
Deutsche Mond-Besitzer protestieren gegen US-Station
Lennestadt (dpa/WEB.DE) - Kein Scherz: Mehrere Dutzend Sauerländer protestieren gegen die Pläne der US-Regierung, eine Mondstation zu errichten.
Mehr als 1.200 Leser einer Anzeigenzeitung hatten vor drei Jahren für jeweils 30 Mark Mondgrundstücke erworben und befürchten nun, dass ihr Grund und Boden von den USA in Beschlag genommen wird.
"Damals war das ein Party-Gag. Die Leute haben sich ein Mondgrundstück geschenkt, wie man ja auch eine Zeit lang Sterne verschenkt hat", sagte Torsten-Eric Sendler, Chefredakteur des Sauerland-Kuriers, am Mittwoch in Lennestadt. "Nachdem dann die Pläne zum Bau einer Mondstation bekannt wurden, haben uns einige besorgte Leser angeschrieben und gefragt, was mit ihrem Grundstück ist", sagte Sendler.
Daraufhin hatte das Anzeigenblatt dazu aufgefordert, Protestbriefe an den US-Präsidenten George Bush zu schreiben. "Wir haben heute mehr als 60 Briefe ans Weiße Haus geschickt", sagte Sendler. Darin hätten die Leser beispielsweise gefordert, keinen Weltraum-Schrott auf ihrem Grundstück abzulagern oder sogar ein striktes Betretungsverbot für die Amerikaner ausgesprochen.
-
Oh Mann.
-
http://tomheller.de/theholycymbal/3/bushisms.html
Bushism ist einfach nur lustig. Aber es ist eine Schande für die Menschheit, dass so einer es wieder mal an die Macht geschafft hat (OK, Lübcke, war nicht wirklich mächtig)
-
Oh ja. Der Man ist einzigartig. So viel Dummheit auf einem Haufen.
-
Hei hackt nicht alle auf dem armen G.W. rum. Das liegt nur an seiner Erziehung.
Marie Antonnet hat ja wärend der Franz. Revolution gemeient "Wenn das Volk kein Brot hat soll es doch Kuchen essen..."
Zu meiner Schande muss ich gestehen das sie eine Landsfau von mir war.
(M.A. Stammt aus dem Hause Habsburg und war eine Tochter Maria Theresias)Also sollche ausrutscher muss man einer Marionette wie G.W. schon zugstehen. Er ist ja nur der Stellvertreter für seinen Daddy und der ist ja noch dümmer.
-