Supreme Court: Ohio Law Trumps Federal Medical Privacy Rules

[LiberalHeart]

Ohio's public records law trumps federal medical privacy rules, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled Friday in ordering the Cincinnati Health Department to give a newspaper records on lead paint hazards. Attorneys for both sides had called this one of the first tests in the nation of how the federal privacy law interacts with state public records laws that conflict with it.

Much more:
http://www.wtol.com/Global/story.asp?S=4647344

[depakid]

1. Not for long

Once the far right and their DINO allies get a hold of it, that ruling won't be long for the books.

[MrModerate]

2. Frankly, I don't grasp the implication . . .

Is this considered an erosion of medical privacy laws?

[ThomCat]

3. Yes,

apparently the federal law is only in affect if there is no state law. The State Law in Ohio therefore takes precident, even though it provides less protection than the federal law.

[jayfish]

4. Could This Be Used As Precedent For State Medical...

marijuana laws? ...or out right decriminalization laws, for that matter?

Jay

[Zhade]

11. GREAT question.

NT!

[Trillo]

5. Curious juxtaposition with the new federal food labeling law

at least the one winding its way through Congress.

[WePurrsevere]

7. This may actually have broader ramifications then it looks like right away

If I remember correctly the Roe vs Wade decision was based the Constitutional "right to privacy"... so... one thing we might want to consider is that if this case were to go before the current Federal Supreme Court it could be considered another states rights vs individual privacy rights issue and this SCOTUS could then potentially over turn Roe vs Wade in favor of states rights without directly addressing the abortion choice issue.

[LiberalHeart]

8. It's keeping the fed rules from keeping info out of ....

... reporters' hands. And it was a lawsuit that tested the limits of the fed rules, something that needed to be done.

[Miss Chybil]

6. We voted to legalize medical marijuana here in AZ, twice.

So, why didn't that trump federal law?

[superconnected]

9. I'm trying to figure out what henious implications the republicans

can find for this.

People with aids get their names in the paper, etc.

[regnaD kciN]

10. Oh, there are all sorts of things...

...to begin with, everyone from employers to landlords being able to get your medical records. (Spent a month in rehab a few years ago? Maybe they won't want to hire you, fearing a relapse...or worry that you might go on a drunken binge and burn down the apartment. For that matter, they may have a similar concern if you received psychiatric treatment -- and may want to see your doctor's notes on everything you revealed in those sessions.)

But there's also the issue of, say, a girl under the age of consent being perscribed contraception, even with parental permission. The state could demand those records as prima facie evidence of "suspected sexual abuse," demanding the name of her boyfriend and charging him with statutory rape (or even filing charges against the parents for being accomplices).

And, of course, they could always demand the names and addresses of woman who had abortions -- even if abortion is legal -- and publish them on a state web site or as an official "public notice" in the news.

:scared: