When the words "partial," "birth" and "abortion" sequentially pop up in daily chatter, most of us reach for the special 10-foot pole we keep on reserve for just such a topic.
Most of us realize that opinions and beliefs should, in some cases, be kept private, at least for the sake of personal safety and not being the target of an angry mob with pitchforks and torches. There's really no other way to put it - it's important that people hold strong convictions, but pushing them on everyone else is a pretty good way to make enemies.
Which is why it's nothing but unfortunate that there is still at least one person who doesn't seem to realize this in the surface-deep political correctness we all live in. Even more amiss is that he is the highest-ranking lawyer in the United States of America. His name is John Ashcroft.
On Thursday, Ashcroft contended that doctor-patient confidentiality would not be violated by the federal government's attempt to collect medical records of women who have had partial-birth abortions. The collection is motivated by a lawsuit against the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, which was signed into law by President Bush in November.
By obtaining these records via subpoena, Ashcroft and the U.S. Department of Justice are hoping to learn more about certain late-term abortions performed by the doctors named in the lawsuit. Ashcroft has said that the records are needed to rebuff arguments that the act is overly broad and provides no provisions for a woman's health.
The over-reaching, intrusive measures taken by the Department of Justice in requesting private medical information has little, if nothing, to do with opinion on the act itself. Rather, it has everything to do with the sanctity of doctor-patient confidentiality and the rate at which personal securities and information are being decimated by the current administration.
Now that phone conversations, e-mails and finances are subject to government observation, shouldn't the doctor's office be the last bastion of complete privacy in the United States? Suppose a person's physical health is in danger due to illegal circumstances. Who would then be willing to submit their indiscretions to the government in exchange for full medical care?
The women who have had partial-birth abortions performed on them are not the target in Ashcroft's abuse of power - the doctors are. But, in serving a subpoena, the Department of Justice is gaining explicit knowledge of what is happening in any doctor's office or hospital, in any state, by any doctor they choose to target.
Anonymity always has been the saving grace of doctor-patient privilege. Once the door is closed or the curtain is drawn, that is the precise moment when personal freedom is not bound by the ears, eyes and judgments of the government. Ashcroft's engagement into combating anonymity in the doctor's office is not only intrusive, it's alarmingly overbearing.
Our personal freedoms and rights as human beings under the American flag already are being trampled at the discretion of a few. The doctor's office should remain the one place where at least these rights can remain safe.
