• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

IS there any law that allows one state to get medical records from another state?

Napoleon said:
Having an out-of-State abortion is evidence that someone facilitated it - which is a crime in some States.
Click to expand...

What is the crime? Having an abortion: not a crime.

Providing an abortion in a blue state (generalization): not a crime.

What is the crime? Cant the woman find a healthcare provider out of state?
 
Napoleon said:
Having an out-of-State abortion is evidence that someone facilitated it - which is a crime in some States.
Click to expand...

Nope.

That is only accurate in Idaho if the person getting the abortion is a minor and the facilitator is not a parent. Outisde of that you are completely incorrect.
 
What's up with these authoritarian big government republicans?
 
ColdHardTruth said:
Nope.

That is only accurate in Idaho if the person getting the abortion is a minor and the facilitator is not a parent. Outisde of that you are completely incorrect.
Click to expand...
So you’re finally admitting the example is valid and your absolutism is dead wrong.
 
ColdHardTruth said:
Outside of certain circumstances, yes, it does.
Click to expand...

In many cases, true, but there are circumstances in which the government - particularly the federal - can access records with no warrant. In the case of one state demanding records from another, I would agree that there has to be evidence of a crime committed (i.e., warrant/court order).

There are other ways snooping entities can get information beyond federally-regulated entities, such as access to app/mobile and other electronic footprint data. People have to go to some lengths to protect themselves, unfortunately.
 
Napoleon said:
Yeah it is if the requesting State has a law prohibiting it.
Click to expand...
So, Tennessee can outlaw abortions in.... every state, for Tennessee residents? That would be a pretty dramatic expansion of state power - the power to extend laws across the borders of one state to the other 49 states.

That's ultimately THE question and it was one raised by the dissent in Dobbs. Kavanaugh tries to downplay that threat in his concurrence, but anyone who trusts that guy on any issue related to abortion is a moron. Here's what he said,

For example, may a State bar a resident of that State from traveling to another State to obtain an abortion? In my view, the answer is no based on the constitutional right to interstate travel.
Click to expand...
But of course, that assumes the law will target interstate travel, and that's not what the laws did prior to Dobbs or will do. Traveling often requires assistance, such as a driver, lodging on the other side, someone providing information to the woman about abortion services, meals, and more, and if a person assists the abortion in any way, they will try to criminalize THAT, not the travel itself. And the states need abortion information to target those people.

If you're a fan of Big Brother, then by all means, let Tennessee demand information from all states about who that has a Tennessee address got abortions in their states, so Tennessee can properly criminalize and prosecute the women getting abortions or their friends or family. Seems like a dangerous road to me....
 
Napoleon said:
Yes it is per the DHHS as sourced in post 21. The federal government has no say in the matter unless Congress decides to amend HIPAA and that isn’t going to happen.
Click to expand...
So it is your contention that states are not sovereign? If one state makes a demand, all other states are required to comply? If a state fails to comply with the demand, where does the demanding state go to gain compliance? You've already said the federal government has no say. So the federal courts are impotent in adjudicating disputes between states? Guess the only option is call out the state militia and march on the offending state.
 
JasperL said:
So, Tennessee can outlaw abortions in.... every state, for Tennessee residents? That would be a pretty dramatic expansion of state power - the power to extend laws across the borders of one state to the other 49 states.

That's ultimately THE question and it was one raised by the dissent in Dobbs. Kavanaugh tries to downplay that threat in his concurrence, but anyone who trusts that guy on any issue related to abortion is a moron. Here's what he said,
Click to expand...
I’ve already provided an example. The medical records are evidence of a crime committed in the State where facilitating out of state abortions is a crime.
 
Napoleon said:
So you’re finally admitting the example is valid and your absolutism is dead wrong.
Click to expand...

Nope.

The example isn't really valid because it assumes that Idaho was the right to enforce their laws in other states. They do not.
 
Napoleon said:
I’ve already provided an example. The medical records are evidence of a crime committed in the State where facilitating out of state abortions is a crime.
Click to expand...

And WA state has passed legislation saying it will not comply with any requests from states like ID. ID has no authority to act on or enforce its charges or searches in another state...the other state must cooperate. Or not.
 
Napoleon said:
I hope so. Then SCOTUS will take the opportunity to gut DHHS.
Click to expand...
It's nice when people drop all pretenses. Here you're asking the SCOTUS to become like super legislatures, to advance a partisan agenda. Noted!!

State's rights my ass. It's about authoritarianism.
Napoleon said:
That depends on which element(s) of the crime took place where. In Idaho, for example, facilitating an out-of-State abortion is a crime punishable by up to 5 years in prison. The medical records are evidence to prosecute that.
Click to expand...
But the medical records will say Jane Doe got an abortion in another state, and we can presume that abortion was legal in that state. If not, it's the state where it happened who can prosecute an illegal abortion, not Idaho.

The medical records won't provide any information about any crime in Idaho. The medical information doesn't tell Idaho who if anyone helped 'facilitate' that abortion. No doubt Idaho can then use the information to harass the woman or minor who obtained an abortion, then if she is intimidated enough to prosecute someone, but that's the point, right - the feature. It's to intimidate women, and anyone who would assist them.
 
multivita-man said:
In many cases, true, but there are circumstances in which the government - particularly the federal - can access records with no warrant. In the case of one state demanding records from another, I would agree that there has to be evidence of a crime committed (i.e., warrant/court order).
Click to expand...
Since the the person had the procedure in state where it was legal, there is no crime.

multivita-man said:
There are other ways snooping entities can get information beyond federally-regulated entities, such as access to app/mobile and other electronic footprint data. People have to go to some lengths to protect themselves, unfortunately.
Click to expand...

Sad, but true. Information obtained this way is fruit of the poisonous tree. It is not admissible.
 
ColdHardTruth said:
Since the the person had the procedure in state where it was legal, there is no crime.



Sad, but true. Information obtained this way is fruit of the poisonous tree. It is not admissible.
Click to expand...

I would hope not
 
There are laws regarding disclosure of private health info pursuant to investigations given a properly issued court order, but I can't imagine the law allowing one state to demand medical records from a facility in another state because the individual is alleged to have gotten an abortion in a state where it is legal yet lives in a state where doing so is illegal. That's like punishing someone under state law because they possessed marijuana in a state where it is legal and charging them in a state where they live if it happens to be illegal there. In such cases in would be a grave breach of legal jurisdiction, one state can't prosecute you for a crime there under their laws if you allegedly did something in another state not in violation of that state's laws.
 
ColdHardTruth said:
Since the the person had the procedure in state where it was legal, there is no crime.



Sad, but true. Information obtained this way is fruit of the poisonous tree. It is not admissible.
Click to expand...
You are making an assumption that the AGs in question give a shit about the rule of law.

They know that SCOTUS is just as anti-American as they are.
 
Luce said:
We really need to start making life more difficult for these right wing assholes.
Click to expand...

Life would be so much easier if we all would just agree to vote them out. That's the easiest way I know of. I've wondered since 2016 - since long before then actually - why this seems to be so hard. Why can't we get 50-60% of the voting population to 'see' what we clearly see?
 
JasperL said:
It's nice when people drop all pretenses. Here you're asking the SCOTUS to become like super legislatures, to advance a partisan agenda. Noted!!

State's rights my ass. It's about authoritarianism.
Click to expand...
SCOTUS pointing out that DHHS is not a Constitutional entity and has zero authority to unilaterally alter laws is not legislating. It’s correcting a broken system in which Executive agencies have run amok and usurped authority reserved for Congress.
JasperL said:
But the medical records will say Jane Doe got an abortion in another state, and we can presume that abortion was legal in that state. If not, it's the state where it happened who can prosecute an illegal abortion, not Idaho.

The medical records won't provide any information about any crime in Idaho. The medical information doesn't tell Idaho who if anyone helped 'facilitate' that abortion. No doubt Idaho can then use the information to harass the woman or minor who obtained an abortion, then if she is intimidated enough to prosecute someone, but that's the point, right - the feature. It's to intimidate women, and anyone who would assist them.
Click to expand...
In the example provided, it’s not the abortion that is being prosecuted and no State AG claimed that’s what they would do with the records. What they would do with records is use them as evidence to prosecute residents who facilitated that abortion in violation of the law.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom