Advanced Prostate Cancer

16,451 members • 20,006 posts

Why men with prostate cancer should care about the Supreme Court abortion decision

I remember a patient who was fired from his job when his employer found out he had prostate cancer. Life insurance can still be denied if you release medical history info. But neither employers nor life insurance have any recourse if you do not allow them to have that info.

What protects you is the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), a federal law, passed in 1996. The US Government grounded the justification for HIPAA in our 4th Amendment implied right to privacy. It is implied because the Amendment prevents the Government from illegal searches and seizures, which Courts have interpreted since 1967 (Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347) implies it. It is applied to the states by the 14th Amendment.

Justice Alito, writing for the majority, said the Court erred in Roe v. Wade in finding there is an implied right to privacy in the Constitution. He claims that the decision only applies to abortion. He points out that there are several cases that were decided based on the implied right to privacy: Loving, 388 U. S. 1 (right to marry a person of a different race), or procreation, Skinner, 316 U. S. 535 (right not to be sterilized); Griswold, 381 U. S. 479 9 (right of married persons to obtain contraceptives); Eisenstadt, 405 U. S. 438 (same, for unmarried persons). Clarence Thomas, in a concurring opinion omits Loving (he is a Black man married to a White woman) but adds to the list Lawrence v. Texas (preventing Gov't intrusion on sex between consenting adults) and Obergefell v. Hodges (allowing gay marriage). He signalled that the 6 to 3 Court is open to hearing cases based on challenges to the right to privacy.

So can an employer (e.g., Walmart), challenge HIPAA because they have an interest in employing only people who have expected longevity enough to justify their investment in training? The Court, applying the same legal theory that there is no implied right to privacy in the medical arena, can overturn HIPAA. My state (California) has an explicit right to privacy in the State Constitution, but not all states do. You may want to talk to your state legislators about this.

Edit 7/24/22- Since all current comments seem to be about abortion, and not about privacy rights, I will ask Darryl to lock this thread when he returns in August. Off-topic comments are filling my inbox and distracting me. - Allen

Written by

Tall_Allen

To view profiles and participate in discussions please or .

Read more about...

188 Replies

•

Good points. And in every future election, find out exactly where each candidate is on the privacy issue before marking your ballot.

And exactl when did a politician tell the truth when running for office?

☹️

👍Thanks for making us aware of the slippery slope this privacy issue is on.

I think the slippery slope is when we allow the murdering of Innocent babies because we don't want to be "inconvenienced" with raising a child.

93% of US abortions (used to) take place before 13 weeks. At that stage it’s a fetus, not a baby. And before 11 weeks it not even a fetus, it’s an embryo. This is a medical forum. Please take your anti-science opinion to pseudoscience forums. Not here.

No, it isn't. You have no idea the reason or circumstances for anyone else. Abortion is rarely about a mere inconvenience and to imply that is proves you have no right to assume or judge what you do not know. How about we make public and vote on a man's need or reason for Viagra or a vasectomy?

About 1%of abortions are because of rape. Same % for woman's health.

100% of abortions are none of your business or concern.

Then this entire post is none of any ones business! Why are you reading this if its none of your, or mine, business?

The original post was about more than just abortion. Some readers decided that their opinion on a woman wanting an abortion was relevant. Your personal choice for treatment on PC is 100% your PERSONAL business. YOUR choice for treatment is certainly none of my business, and I would never be so presumptuous as to tell you it is wrong. Since this is a comment section, I get to read it and voice mine. Seems pretty simple to understand.

I fully recognize the posting original tenant, I can read after all. I was responding to the side conversations. Yes my personal opinion did not state it, but the stats I quoted are accurate. Did not and will not say my personal opinion on abortions!!! Simple to understand but hope you can recognize your telling me what you first did is telling me what to do.

The biggest "slippery slope" is how many people think they know or have a RIGHT to know and judge, what another woman's situation is and why she chooses abortion. NOBODY knows anything about her...nor SHOULD they know. IT IS PRIVATE. At least is USED to be.

HIPPA will still be honored. The court made the right decision. It belongs to states.

How do you know that HIPAA will be upheld if challenged? On what grounds can it be upheld if not on a right to privacy? Does HIPAA belong to the states too?

In this day and age people pretty much know about medical privacy. Besides there will be a huge lawsuit. I am not a bit concerned.

People used to know about medical privacy. That has all changed now.

"People pretty much know about abortion rights and if anyone tried to remove them, there would be a huge lawsuit." Errr.....that was my thought a few years ago.

This decision changes everything now. We can take nothing for granted.

HIPAA compliance also costs many different organizations a great deal of money. I can totally see lawsuits about it and the potential for HIPAA and the protections it affords to go away.

I also live in California as well and am glad because of many of the protections we have here. Yes, we pay a price with a high cost of living. At the same time, it is worth it considering many of the changes I see coming because of future court decisions.

All regulatory agencies that derive their authority from the Executive branch are being de-fanged.

npr.org/2022/06/22/11068632...

Every women you know, no longer has medical privacy. Why do you think we are all upset?? Doctors can no longer treat women as they need to be treated for fear of going to jail.

The problem will be fixed. The most important thing to me is baby's lives being saved.

It is not your business, just like it is not any other person in the world to tell you what you should be doing with your health care. It is between the women and the doctor, that is all who should be in the exam room.

Abortion is not healthcare it is legalized murder.

Then don't have one! Your CHOICE.

That is your opinion. You are allowed an OPINION. However, you are not allowed to decide what is right for any woman. EVER.

You know, there is a lot of history here. The loss of Roe will not stop abortion, even (or especially) in those states that outlaw it. It will only stop SAFE abortion.

Abortion will flurish just fine in blue states like California, NY, NJ, IL, etc. Hell, they're already advertising what a haven it will be for you to get your abortion there.

Of course, Congress will field bills to ban abortion nationwide. That probably has no greater chance of becoming law than a bill establishing Roe as law of the land. That is, unless the Republicans win both the House and Senate in November and they do what the Democrats have been unable/unwilling to do--ban the filibuster.

And of course, all poor women will be able to go there. No problem.

Many main stream companies are offering to pay the expenses for their employees to travel out of state for abortions. And some states are too. So they are all in the abortion business. I don't see any companies offering to pay the expenses of their employees who have to travel out of state for quality cancer care.

nytimes.com/2022/06/24/busi...

Don't know why or how many men actually do need to go out of state for prostate care. What state does not have a cancer treatment center in it? But if there is a need, start a go fund me or ask the treatment center for help. Yes, SOME companies are helping their employees with abortion access. Many poor women do not even have a decent job. The biggest problem all around is this...NOBODY in this country should be denied by any court or not have access to good health care, agreed? I didn't see the Supreme Court telling any man they can't get or go wherever they want for prostate cancer care. It isn't a crime anywhere.

SCOTUS did NOT tell women they couldn't have an abortion. They turned that decision back to the people and the elected officials in each state. Women are still free to have abortions. And what's wrong with individual responsibility? If you don't want children they are plenty of ways to protect yourself from getting pregnant, and most of those are free or sponsored as well.

No, women are not free to have abortions everywhere, many states already banned them. Nor is birth control easy to obtain or free for most. I don't know who told you this or where you read actual documentation on it. And so far, no birth control is 100% affective for everyone. The "pill" has many side effects, many women can't take it. Women risk stroke or heart attacks when they take it. Be sure to tell all male rapist to be RESPONSIBLE. Most rapes are never even reported. The PEOPLE should never have a say in the decision for an abortion for any stranger. GOVERNMENT should have no say. A stranger having an abortion will not affect you or the life or health of the general population of any community. Abortion or the reason for it, is none of anyone else's business.

Apparently you don't agree with Federalism, you'd rather have a monsterous Fed Gov dictating everyone's life. As far as rape goes, most every state has an exception for rape, including OH, despite what Joe Biden says. But should abortion have any limits? Dems don't seem to think so. States with a heartbeat seems reasonable to me but if you want to be able to butcher a child with a heartbeat, or in the third trimester, then that is quite evil. But the left wants no limits on abortion and wants the taxpayers to pay for it. Sorry if seem to have some compassion for someone who can't protect themselves.

This is more than Roe v Wade, this is about constitutional fundamentalism and activist Supreme Courts.

This lot don't want the Supreme Court to reinterpet the Constitution, they want it to remain as it was in 1787 unless it has been specifically changed/amended by Congress.

So there's a lot of Supreme Court precedents that could be redecided by this group of rightvwing fundamentalists, not just Roe v Wade, so be very careful what you wish for.

So you're saying that Roe v Wade was Constitutional? If women can have total sovereignty over their own body, then why can't they be prostitutes? Or take illegal drugs. Not to mention that fathers of said fetuses have no rights at all and never have since Roe. I thought it used to be called "procreation"

Be careful what you wish for.

If you or your partner use contraceptives, if you are in a gay relationship, if you are in an interracial relationship - all these could and may be reversed by this reactionary Supreme Court who believe that history stopped in 1787.

If they can reverse a century old gun law when an assault weapon was a bolt action rifle and not an AR15, who knows what they will do next.

That's ridiculous

Not as ridiculous as three judges stating before their Senate confirmations that they wouldn't change "settled law" like Roe, and then, at their first chance, doing so.

Actually the word "disengenuous" rather than "ridiculous" is a better descriptor for their action.

And these people are at the apex of the pyramid of "justice", thats what is really ridiculous.

Oh, I get it, only Conservative Justices do that right? You really think Justices are supposed to say how they rule on cases before they even hear the evidence? No two case are the same. But I'm pretty sure the justices you have a problem with know what a "woman" is. And are you that upset with "disengenuous" politicians?

I think mendacious is a better descriptor than conservative

Yes, when asked specifically about an already settled law when being interviewed for the Supreme Court they sure are expected to give their honest statement about it. To tell people you would never vote to change it, then turn around and do the opposite? They were not asked about a futuristic "case", it was about an already settled law. HUGE DIFFERENCE.

If a loving supportive man is involved, most women don't need to resort to an abortion. Not unless their lives would be in danger or there is something genetically damaged in the fetus. If the man is abusive or a rapist...why should he have a say? He isn't the one risking his life to carry and give birth. Many men actually have forced women to get abortions you know. Prostitution, illegal drugs, daddy/relationship issues....now you really are reaching. We are speaking about the courts/government deciding if a woman can decide her own personal health needs. Stop looking for justification of control with wild scenarios.

Yeah...that always works. If one item can be changed to satisfy the will of some, so can any other.

We should put it in the Constitution. I think that is one we would have no problem getting everyone on board.

As an amendment? Given that 26 states will pretty much ban abortion, do you really think we can get 3/4 of state legislatures to approve of a constitutional amendment?

Tall_Allen I really respect your medical knowledge, very helpful and well stated! When it comes to the Supreme Court rulings that is Politics. Yes privacy is important but HIPAA is a codified law and federal abortion regulations were never codified. What the court did was to return abortions to the states. States Rights. I still will read your posts and comments with interest as they are very informative.

But carrying a weapon apparently doesn't in NY. Such OVERT inconsistency borders on hyprocisy. Willful ignorance kicks in when confronted with logic and reason for rhe glazed Homer J stare of the GOP.

Are you a resident of NY? Have you ever applied for a Pistol Carry "Permit"? If not, I'm not sure why you would, or even could comment on it at all. NY has a lot of bizarre laws, like patients not being able to use their own labs and do PSA at home tests of they want. And there's plenty more examples... But to combine the 2A ruling, which is something explicitly prescribed within the Bill of Rights, ie, the 2nd Amendment, to the Toe vs Wade decision is apples to oranges! I don't condone their reversal, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the NY decision!

I know, I know--the founding fathers weren't thinking of abortion when the constitution, or the 14th amendment were approved.

But I'm pretty sure they weren't thinking about AR-15s either when they approved the second amendment.

Hahaha, oh my... I guess you fail to read previous guidance the SCOTUS handed down, like the Heller decision. And for the matter, you equate in contemporary terms only Constitutional permissable what's was available at the founding? Are you going to give up your car for a horse? Lmao... or maybe we should not avail to ourselves modern medicine either! Forgoe any treatment that wasn't available then...

So just stop trying drag this to places it doesn't belong.

If you allow that the founding fathers hadn't thought of all and any possible contingencies, you really should (IMO) entertain that possibility in all matters--not just where it confirms your own biases.

I agree that Originalism is a slippery slope (For example, I think NY should pass a law only allowing open carry of muskets and flintlock pistols - the only guns available in 1789. It should pass Originalist scrutiny). The right to privacy wasn't legally contemplated until almost the 20th Century.

I'm guessing the citizens of North Korea wish they could have an AR-15

And I'm pretty sure they weren't thinking about the size of our current Fed Gov being what it is either.

Why not comment on New York's gun laws? Men are commenting on abortion. That certainly will never, ever affect or apply to any of them personally.

Oh Steve, Stop.

The Dude abides 😊

My daughter has that very sticker on her car. LOL.

Also, I don't roll on Shabbos.

Funny how many gun lovers claim to be pro-life.

sorry, but we don't need to overturn a 50-year-old Law of the Land decision that PROTECTS state rights concerning Civil Rights of female citizens to determine their medical treatment with their doctors.

I humbly disagree.

that's your right... until SCOTUS takes that one away too.

Thank you.

It belongs with a woman and her doctor. No government involvement is need at any level.

Good and important post. Thanks TA

I thought that "politics" weren't to be argued on this website? Please don't let all the wonderful and useful information shared on this site be smeared with the stink of politics.

This is about prostate cancer. If you don’t care about HIPAA, don’t comment.

Sorry, I guess I'm just too stupid to connect the dots between prostate cancer and limiting abortion at the state level. Thanks for pointing out my inability to comprehend these complicated issues.

Glad to oblige.

TA was telling us all about an over simplified medical decision that can eventually affect everyone in other ways. That would have been the end of it. The anti-abortion folks needed to voice their opinion. Naturally it provokes a rebuttal. Discussion over.

Personal Control of One's body???? and what if with any Gleason Score having a 4 or more CERTAIN STATES mandated by court that an Orchiectomy was required?

Or, to take it even further, allowing states to determine if you deserve treatment when you are metastatic? Patients with metastatic disease cost the state much more money. These examples may sound extreme but by saying that the states should have final say in health care decisions, and that the federal government cannot protect the citizenry from anything not explicitly stated in the Constitution, we are opening ourselves up to all kinds of unintended or desired consequences.

Well, of course insurance companies have plenty about this to say too.

EXACTLY!

i believe that's TA's point. sheesh, i hate to agree with him but it was bound to happen sooner or later hahahaha

Tall Allen is making a LEGAL point, not a POLITICAL one.

Having cancer is more than a medical risk – it carries risks in other areas of our lives. Until yesterday, we were protected from these ancillary risks by HIPAA. Without that protection, you can be turned down for a job or for a mortgage. You can be denied life insurance or medical insurance. You can even be fired (on some other pretext.)

SCOTUS has just undermined that right to privacy, and laid the legal groundwork for repealing statutes – like HIPAA – which are predicated on the right to privacy. If that’s not relevant to men with prostate cancer, I don’t know what is.

This is strictly a LEGAL issue. It only becomes “political” if YOU make it so.

terrific point!! saving this for future use.

Thank you for posting this. U.S. Supreme Court rules against DaVita over dialysis coverage is also relevant

reuters.com/world/us/us-sup...

Sorry but it speaks to us the same way our discussions of health insurance, medicaid etc. do.If you have nothing to say on the subject then you probably should not have replied at all.

I get the impression you believe I and others are gullible enough to think that your statement was a non-statement.

If you are not a hypocrite then I imagine you will remove your reply since "you have nothing to say on this subject".

You see what is happening here, everyone should just 🙌

Please fill me in. I need some intellectual stimulation. You are too vague.And by the way why are you picking on me out of 93 replies in this thread?

CAMPSOUPS at first I was drawn in but realized, there was no good outcome to this kind of post. I am thinking you were at the wrong place at the wrong time, when I realized it’s time for me to leave the group for a while. I am sorry if you thought I was picking on you… I think I was starting to get mad. I am not going to look at that thread of comments.

I'm not so sure that HIPPA is so concrete anymore post Covid-19.

How did my employer have a right to know my vaccination status? Or the so called voluntary provision of such to maintain employment. And even Gov't employees having to have vaccinations as well or lose their jobs... And in all that time, the courts sat silent! Crazy actually!

And yeah, loose lips sink ships. I was very much on the fence upon my diagnosis to share this with my employer. But when I began so many tests and doctors visits it became a forgone conclusion to share at least in a limited scope, that I was in a medical situation.

I didn't then understand, and still don't understand the limits that were stretched and expanded under so called necessity during the Covid outbreak and even still! So much so, to share your medical status in order to enter a food establishment, for a meal. All crazy!

Even more crazy after the fact, is the studies exposing that those areas which prescribed to such stringent standards, fared no better than those that didn't, and actually those with more loose standards fared better. Crazy again!

But HIPPA... I think it's done, because if Covid Specifically! Just my take. I'm not worried any more because I hung up my cleats and called it a game! I retired at 57 because TIME is all I got now! Not spending it unappreciated by my employer or until I hear that I should get my affairs in order! But I think it's a real problem for everyone going forward in that regard. Like what is expected that you share, how can it be a condition of employment, and how then could the courts allow such malfeasance to exist in regard to worker/employer relationships.

Anyways, good food for thought and discussion!

Best Regards

Both 9/11 and Covid have been used to destroy our civil rights on a MASSIVE scale, in an every-growing number of ways. Sorry to be off topic but the hell are we, if we can't exercise free speech here? Reducing stress is a major factor in combatting all forms of cancer and disease... venting what's on our minds reduces stress. Not a big stretch for me.

Perfect! HIPPA! Your vaccination document please?

I know a nurse who is working at Target because she refused to have the COVID vaccine. She can't get a job in health care. In little Rhode Island, about 90% have had at least the primary series if not a booster or both boosters. The number of total cases which began compiling--BEFORE--the vaccine--from day one, including case number one, is over 400,000! There have been over137,000 breakthrough cases in those who have had at least the primary series. I know two people who had COVID prior to being vaxed and boosted then got COVID again.

The nurse can't get a job in healthcare even though the vaccines offer iffy protection as many of her former colleagues have found to be the case.

The numbers are from the RI Department of Health's official site. HIPPA went out the door with COVID.

There are companies that don't enforce or require their employees to be vaxed--Target is one!

Let's stick to cancer.

Currumpaw

There is a big difference if your health decision can affect and harm the entire population. Communicable diseases do hurt and kill other people.

Thanks for the very interesting summary of the law.

The protection of the law to people with prostate cancer is very interesting. Thanks.

This topic is political and we do not want to waste our precious time on these political bickerings here on this forum. We are here to share our experiences with various treatments, latest research studies, comprehensive way to control PCa and so on. I appeal that we stay on our topics as this is a global prostate cancer forum . People from dozens of nations participate here.

it is political only if participants want to go in that direction, and comment in such a way. TA's interpretation of the logic of the decision and the USSC's writings on the decision were/are relevant to anyone interested in medical privacy.

Thanks for the information. Don't get the whining. This post is more valuable than a lot of the fringe nonsense posted here about unproven treatments, "alternatives", mouse studies, etc. that we have to put up with.

For anyone who is interested in American Constitutional law and the history of the 4th Amendment, this was a decent reference

constitution.congress.gov/b...

If you are not interested in Constitutional law but need assistance in getting some sleep tonight, the same link will work!

Thanks - great research source.

You're confusing "informational privacy" the basis for HIPAA-- the Privacy Rule that gives you rights over your health information, and "decisional privacy" — the right to independently control personal aspects of one's life and body-- the basis for Roe. No connection whatsoever.

If only that were true! I'd love to see the legal basis for that distinction if you believe that. The Supreme Court made very clear that there is no right to privacy of any kind in Alito's decision. He said that the finding of any privacy right in the 4th or 14th amendment was a Court error which they are now correcting. That came from their Originalist analysis - since the framers did not mention "privacy" in the Constitution, the debates about it or the Federalist Papers, the Court may not find such a right implied, as it did in Griswold in 1965 and Katz in 1967. The Court has defined privacy as anything a person seeks to keep private, whether that be medical records, diagnoses, or therapies.

FWIW, the Originalists are historically correct. The notion of privacy didn't enter jurisprudence until almost the 20th Century. In legal circles, it eventually came to encompass the ideas of personal freedom, control, and self-determination.

The Originalist path, is both a blessing and a curse. The argument that the Constitution is a living document is problematic as it prescribes the ease or validation to change it outside the manner to which it has within its own scope for change. Meaning if the legislature wants change, it requires an Amendment. Something the feeble and ineffective Congress has only been able to do a few times. Yet, the Executive and Legislature will promote and endorse opinions to the opposite. Creating today, the misgivings of those minds unwilling to actually learn how our Gov't works.

The Bill of Rights is an interesting concept and component of our Constitution. And those Federalist papers are very interesting readings for those who want to delve into what the Originalist were thinking and discussing while formulating the basis of our Gov't, the experiment in which we all within the U.S. now live.

Over the last decade or two, especially with the invention of the internet, I've found it funny how the so called "Free" society within the U.S. has taken some steps back as compared to some others, like in Europe. Especially post 9-11 here, which had seen unprecedented expansion of Gov't powers mainly directed inward, than outward in regard to who it effected (it's own citizens). Best example today is the "Right to Forget" laws, lol.

But back to topic... The HIPPA laws were enacted because there was a distinct and specific NEED for it. It's unfortunate that it was never a topic championed by the Legislature in consideration for it's constituents. Apparently, too many of them (politicians) promoted their own ideologies over that, or the needs, of those whom they represent. There were many, too many who had seen their Freedom of Choice stripped away under the guise of "Public Good" or "Safety"... And all encompassing key to unlock much malfeasance the Legislature would promulgate upon the masses! Way too much "Do as I Say" exists today from the Legislature, many who feel mandated to prescribe how, what, where, when and why you can do things. Has anyone accumulated the true and vast number of pages of Federal, State and local laws, codes, policies in which we are supposed to "live". The tens of thousands of them?... Freedom is a funny word, and something of an enigma to the contemporary form of politician that is bred amongst us. They almost feel it their "Right" to reinvent things continually... Remember, THIS is the most important election, and if elected, only "I" have the answer and path to change and fix things!

What a joke...

And for the matter, I find it reprehensible that there are some who feel it's their duty, or charge, to dictate who should say what on here. It's simple, on a public forum, that if you do not like to content of a thread, that you don't need to participate, and can chose to walk on by. Yes, Cancer is the THEME, but the subject is not immune to influences and causations that may take discussion on deviant paths. It's all good, as long as it doesn't get personal. But I don't feel it's anyone's charge to make commentary to the contrary, ie, that politics, or hairstyles shouldn't be discussed! Lol...

Thank you for touching on this very important subject matter, I welcome it!

Hahaha, flame on!

(Others may roast me if they'd like) lol

“We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission” — Ayn Rand

Add to this discussion the concept of religious freedom. I know of no major religion that promotes abortion. Authoritarian countries such as communist China have always discouraged religion but have allowed abortion. I don’t know if a elderly man in China today with PCa would qualify for a governmen supported $40,000. Pluvicto treatment. Like the unborn, elderly PCa survivors aren’t of value to the government.

I consider myself lucky to be living in America.

Mike

As always, Tall Allen makes good points, that we as informed consumers of health care must be engaged in local and state laws and all attempts to alter statutes which effect us and "those of the minority" (that's what is required in Republics), in this SCOTUS case, a majority who are women. While I agree ethically Roe vs Wade was a bad decision 50 years ago, the unintending consequences of overturning it will will have unintended medical consequences.

Not just political..

PeteG

I file this under the laws of unintended consequences. If Democrats had better economic policies, better energy policies, better immigration and border security policies, better justice reform policies, better foreign policies and more competent candidates, then they would hold the presidency more often and be able to appoint more Supreme Court Justices.

There is also the fact that RBG refused to retire before Obama left office, when she was elderly and terminally ill with cancer.

I am pro-choice, but nothing happens in a vacuum. Liberals need take some responsibility for their unpopularity.

Interesting take considering that Dem presidential candidates have received the most votes in all but one of the last 8 elections. And, thanks to Mitch McConnell, the Republican controlled Senate decided NOT to do their required job and hold hearings on Merrick Garland when there were 8 months left in Obama’s term. Our electoral system is broken between gerrymandering of Congressional districts and the electoral system which gives way more electoral power to tiny rural states. The views of the majority are unjustly held hostage.

Really? You are disappointed that Garland didn't become a Supreme Court justice? Maybe his disappointment explains why he didn't lift a finger to enforce existing laws against threatening and harassing Supreme Court justices.

The Senate from either party should be required to do SCOTUS hearings. What happened was a travesty.

As if Kavanaugh's hearings weren't?

I joined this site to learn, share, and comment on prostate cancer. Not to engage in political debates. Some posters have made interesting comments and some have only snarky political jabs. So since this site is now going political, I will take a vacation.

The difference between HIPAA and all the cases mentioned by Alito and Thomas is that HIPAA has been legislated whereas the others have only been adjudicated. Generally, the Court only invalidates legislation if they find it violates something in the Constitution. Thus, the Court would have to determine that the right to privacy is forbidden, which is different from saying it's just not mentioned or implied. Hope springs eternal!!

I think this is more correct than the original post, but I am not an attorney nor do I play one on tv or on prostate cancer message boards for that matter.

Yes, but the founders biggest fear in actually creating the Bill of Rights was the very fact that the exclusion of others, and in only recognizing some, would lend to the problem invalidating those not mentioned, but are also inherent to man!

So the court has taken liberties at times, as the recent ruling wants to correct. But there is some absurdity that in doing so, it allows the "State" to have more control over a citizens body then they do themselves. Because it is not specifically mentioned in our founding documents... Again, both a blessing and a curse!

I think, especially in our context, ie, cancer treatment, that "WE" should have the ultimate control, and that those concerns of then"State" be secondary in regard to what I may or light do to myself! This naturally can take us down the path to discuss the FDA, lol... But that would require a separate thread

See the seldom-mentioned Amendment Nine, part of the Bill of Rights.

Yes indeed! And not sure how or why it is practically forgotten!

Re: the Voting Rights Act--Shelby County v. Holder overturned part of the Act--the consequences of which have been pretty easy to see.

The whole purpose of the Constitution (except the Bill of Rights) is to enumerate the powers of each branch of Government. If Congress goes beyond those enumerated powers, the Supreme Court can nullify any law that Congress passes. All that's required is for a damaged party to bring suit. If I am a company spending lots of money to train employees, and I am prevented by HIPAA from only investing in those who have a certain expected longevity, I have standing to challenge HIPAA. SCOTUS does indeed nullify laws passed by Congress. For example, just a few years ago they nullified key provisions of the Voting Rights Act. You may remember that several justices voted to nullify ACA on the grounds that the Constitution did not specifically grant Congress the right to legislate healthcare. If Originalist doctrine is used to nullify laws, anything not contemplated in 1789 is subject to nullification.

That’s a stretch, keep the politics off this site.

This is something that we all need to think about and act on.

I am most grateful for TallAllen’s insight on this matter- thank you! Court decisions have consequences beyond the obvious ones. Those persons who wish to not think about or debate these concerns can simply not follow the threads they’re less-interested in. But I think it most unfortunate that many refuse to pay attention or only get defensive.

Thank you.

Tall_Allen, thank you so very much for a thoughtful and important post about this critical legal topic. In America politics infuses into every nook and cranny of our existence so it’s hard to avoid political reactions to legal discussions these days and we see that in some of the responses to your legal discussion. I am grateful for your warning.

Lie??? It's obvious you don't like Trump, but all appointees, no matter what party, dodge those kinds of questions until they've heard the case in it's entirety. They're smart enough not to be trapped by some partisan politician.

Thank you!!!

It seems to me that if this were true then logically if Congress would pass a law to make abortion legal everywhere, it would be deemed unconstitutional.

Does anyone really believe that?

If you do not believe that then the HIPPA law, being a law passed by congress and signed by a president, would also seem safe because HIPPA was born through a legislative process.

I am challenging this assertion “The US Government grounded the justification for HIPAA in our 4th Amendment implied right to privacy.”

The general public has different contexts with words like “privacy” verses how the legal community views/defines such terms. Differences that will not be properly illuminated on this message board.

If Congress cannot justify a law by their enumerated powers, the Court may nullify it. The Court also may nullify laws that violate rights. Just a few years ago, they nullified the Defense of Marriage Act in Obergefell.

HIPPA was certainly grounded in the implied right to privacy - why else does Congress have the power to make a law regarding privacy rights?

Here's a good reference if you are interested in how the legal definition of privacy came about:

link.springer.com/content/p...

Nal, wise man as usual. This post has pissed me off!

I agree with much of what you say, but strongly feel it's a mistake to introduce politics onto this forum.

Let's stick to information about PCa. If we need to fight, we can fall back on criticizing alternative medicine, supplements, and strict adherence to SOC

TA, please stick to prostate cancer treatments in this forum. This you excel at. This is not the place to discuss the abortion issue, the Supreme Court and it's decisions , or politics. There are many other forums where it is appropriate to discuss your views on the above.

Forum Administrators, on behalf of the many on this forum that do not want the discussion of politics here , only medical treatment issues , please remove this posting.

A Tall_Allen posting will never be removed. If TA leaves this group, it will collapse.

I have requested Daryl remove this, and any of these types of discussions which do not relate directly to the treatment of advanced prostate cancer and are political in nature. Daryl has responded thank you for your reply. We shall see if it is Daryl's intent to keep this forum to its intended purpose of directly addressing advanced prostate cancer, its treatment, its side effects, its clinical studies, and other direct issues related to advanced prostate cancer. Or, if this forum is going to morph into one that now discusses political, legal, legislative, states rights, and other non-medical areas of discussion.

This is brought up because:It can cause an employed man on employer insurance to lose his job.

Just as when we bring up concerns regarding medicare, obama care, government disability, etc. because of the importance to our prostate cancer treatment in the background is politics.

so now you decide what shows up in this site? Why don't you leave if you do not like the brilliant minds contributing here? The whole world is discussing this and we can discuss it too if it pertains to our healthcare and it does so in a profound way.

Nope, Darryls decision, not mine to decide what shows up on this site. Many feel that the purpose of this forum does not include topics of this nature but it will be up to the site administrator to make that decision.

Don't worry. I can handle the stress of reading text without getting offended.

I think that of the subject matter was so unquestionably distasteful for you, that refraining from posting would be the norm. But you extend your distaste by wanting to remove or limit others access to the thread because you don't think it's appropriate?

How amusing that is...

And what if some of us in return asked that your post be removed? Is that ok with you?

And quite frankly, who voted you representative of those "many" to adjoin the administration for action on their behalf?

Funny world I'm which we live today, it is...

And for the matter, the subject of the thread is directly related to my medical care and journey with my PCa. Thank you for your concern, but it's unfounded to dismiss others interest on behalf of your own.

I vote that it remain... Or do you want me cancelled as well? Lol

You are welcome to your opinion, as well as those that disagree and do not wish this forum to morph into one that is political and legal in nature.

Opinion is different from control... Post and State an opinion, great! Try and be the censor that decides who and what's should be read is another thing entirely. There is a distinct difference!

That's the job of Darryl , and participants to ask him to decide whats appropriate on a medical forum.

I too vote that it remain

We love your contributions Coool.

The issue I raised is HIPAA. If you don't see the relevance, don't post.

Its not your job to tell others not to post. Last I knew that duty belonged to Daryl, as well as determining whether something is political in nature and as such whether it is appropriate on a medical forum.

I agree 100%. The administrators need to remove this posting.

You are so correct. This scares me so much. I worked in health care for 30 years. Some people do not understand how this change will hurt so many people.

You are correct.

Thank you, I think that like other judges they need a term limit.

It is a right to your body. Women no longer have a right to what is happening. If you are 18 weeks pregnant and the start of a miscarriage, you will no longer be treated. That would be an abortion. We have stepped back in time for health care. I don't want to hear about the women's life in danger, who is going to decide that? What about the 11 year old who comes in pregnant by her "uncle". They are forcing her to carry that child, and yes it happens all across this "great" country every day.

Shall we also discuss the recent supreme court gun decision now on this prostate cancer forum ? One could also make an argument that the inability to defend one's self becomes a health issue that can result in death or injury resulting in medical treatments and is therefore an appropriate discussion on a health forum.

It certainly is an appropriate discussion for a health forum, just not this one. You may be interested in understanding the health issues and commenting in some other forum:

npr.org/2021/09/29/10399073....

Please be a part of the important discussion which can affect one's ability to remain employed with health insurance and receive treatment or just brush this off.Its hit a nerve with you so that now you are going way off subject with strawman comments.

A straw man is a form of argument and an informal fallacy of having the impression of refuting an argument, whereas the real subject of the argument was not addressed or refuted, but instead replaced with a false one.

There is no evidence to date that the Supreme Court decision will affect Hippa or anyone's insurability. To say so based on the Supreme Court's decision is pure conjecture on one's part. This decision needs to be discussed on a different forum involving litigation, insurability, legislation , and political decisions but has no bearing on the direct treatment of advanced prostate cancer at this time.

There are many on this forum that wish that it only address medical issues related to Advanced prostate cancer and hope that political discourse, Supreme Court decisions, or what ifs not be a part of this medical forum.

This entire discussion needs to be removed.

In your opinion... And it's you who introduced a subject not aligned or in step with the discussion. Maybe make another thread about removing threads deemed unlikeable or objectionable to others. Hahaha, we could all vote on it! (Not really)...

I respect everyone's opinion, their voice, and their choice to discuss whatever it is they feel is important to them. What brings us all together here is our common medical affliction. But that doesn't then exclude conversation on a world of subject matter any member might feel relevant. Because there are some who don't like it, doesn't mean those who do should be restricted. If o don't like something I'm reading, I move along, let all things be to each their own!

It's funny though, and I don't in any way intend to offend, but if you find it so repulsive, why do you entrench yourself in it (thread). I fail to see why... There's so many other worthwhile threads that your valued input would be appreciated in

Have a wonderful day!

And you also

We are not talking about "a living human"

I'll back off now. thanks for the reminder!

Many thanks, TA — the legal insights and historical backdrop are appreciated. This connects some dots that are relevant for me, or anyone else who takes HIPAA for granted.

You don’t know what you got till its gone.

- Joni Mitchell

2 ?s. Why must people say, "innocent" babies? Are there "guilty" babies that one shouldn't care what happens to them? Next, if one masterbates, are they attempting mass murder?

I don’t know what this means.

Thanks!

I can see how the 4th amendment could apply here. But most of the commentary I've heard concerns the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. (One could also argue, I suppose, based on the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment).

Welcome to the new theocracy/kleptocracy.

Disagree entirely. You're speculating about "Justice Alito, writing for the majority, said the Court erred in Roe v. Wade in finding there is an implied right to privacy in the Constitution. He claims that the decision only applies to abortion. "

What Alito says in fact (from the syllabus):

(b) stare decisis (2) The quality of the reasoning.

"As to precedent, citing a broad array of cases,the Court found support for a constitutional “right of personal privacy.” Id., at 152. But Roe conflated the right to shield information from disclosure and the right to make and implement important personal decisions without governmental interference. See Whalen v. Roe, 429

U.S. 589, 599–600. None of these decisions involved what is distinctive about abortion: its effect on what Roe termed “potential life.”

(5)

Reliance interests.

"The Solicitor General suggests that overruling Roe and Casey would threaten the protection of other rights under the Due Process Clause.The Court emphasizes that this decision concerns the constitutional right to abortion and no other right. Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion. Pp. 63–66."

This means clearly and unambiguously that the Dobbs decision does not extend past abortion viz. person right to privacy.

I am not a lawyer. I do not play one on TV.

Your opinion about abortion is your own, as is mine.

GO OUT AND VOTE. Vote by mail, in person, or any other means legally available to you. IMHO, this is the real message. VOTE.

Alito indeed makes the point that the decision only applies to abortion. BUT, if you read Sotomayor's rebuttal, she argues that the same logic the majority used to overturn Roe v Wade, i.e., that there is no constitutional right to privacy, can be applied to all other laws and decisions based on that implied right. What is stopping the Court? Indeed, Thomas specifically mentions several decisions (e.g., contraception, sexual practices, and marriage equality) that he would like to see revisited on the same grounds. They invalidated Roe v Wade by finding there is no right to privacy in the Constitution. The Court has let the genie out of the bottle.

The minority opinion means nothing; it's speculative and has no bearing. Vote. Vote. Vote. Elect representatives that share your values. Be prepared for a long slog.

Sotomayor is just pointing to the error in logic - that the argument doesn't stop at abortion, no matter what Alito alleges. But Thomas is signaling that the Court will accept such cases if brought to them. With 5 Originalists, I think they are eager to make their mark.

Knowledge is power and I appreciate and read everything because whether I agree or disagree on an emotional level at the present time it is important to be informed on an unemotional level for the future. Someone on instagram posted a question if you had the world's attention for 5 minutes what would you say. I thought about it at length and thought I'd say nothing because no one would listen but rather argue their point. How sad. I thank you Tall Allen as always for your knowledge I know it came from a place of concern and caring as it relates to healthcare NOT politics

You guys are really mixing up different legal concepts. First query, is an action or a “right” protected by the US Constitution. Remember, the Constitution limits the rights of the federal government to items specifically allowed in the Constitution, SPECIFICALLY, and reserves ALL ELSE to the states. Be careful of words like “implies” which is always in the eye of the beholder, just like the word “penumbras” which is where more liberal courts have discovered these rights to exist.

The 4th Amendment, applicable to the Federal Government, and to the State Governments (not private parties) through the 14th Amendment, says "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause . . . .” Basically, the government has to go through certain step before they can so deprive someone. This is known as “due process”. The Miranda case is the most well known in this area. Is this a general “right to privacy” in the 4th amendment? In an originalist view, no way. In a revisionists view, I see a case that one could see the words ‘papers and effects’ as today’s equivalent to phone records, internet data, medical records, etc. However, I don’t really see a general right to privacy anywhere in the words of the Constitution (think “moral” laws, like abortion, that are better left to the states).

With regard to HIPPA, it may very well fit within the 4th amendment. I have not heard an argument to the contrary. The Congress should not have linked it to a general right to privacy “found” in the Constitution but to the wording in the 4th amendment. The revisionist argument is much stronger than the made up “implied” right. I don’t really see a threat to that. The funniest part is how this “right to privacy” falls by the wayside when it does not fit the narrative or goals of the liberals. Covid, as already mentioned in other posts, shows the hypocrisy of the left. So much for HIPPA. So much for “my body, my choice.” And FYI, a viable fetus has its own life that needs to be protected so there are now 2 bodies that have rights.

And for those finding a contradiction between the abortion decision and the NY gun decision, it would be a valid opinion if the justices relied on the 4th amendment to find a right of the things mentioned in the 4th amendment to included weapons, you know, in the penumbras of the Constitution.

However, we have a 2nd amendment which is quite clear, “the right of the people (not the state or federal government) to keep (own and possess) and bear (have with you on your person, carry) Arms, shall not be infringed.” Seems pretty fricking clear language there.

What the heck. I'll throw in my two cents. HIPAA is one form of privacy protection but don't confuse it as a blanket statement to mean all things medical with all businesses. From Bloomberg Legal as they can state it more eloquently than I can:

"The HIPAA Privacy Rule blocks covered health-care providers and insurers from disclosing protected health information without a patient’s consent. The rule applies to all health-care providers that transmit health records electronically, as well as health plans like Medicare and Medicaid. It doesn’t apply to entities that don’t bill for insurance.

The law also applies to health-care clearinghouses, which work within the health-care reimbursement system like a billing service, as well as business associates, who work on behalf of a provider, insurer, or clearinghouse and are involved with the use or disclosure of an individual’s identifiable health information."

Under HIPAA, any subpoenas issued by prosecutors to doctors are not and never were protected under HIPAA if there is a violation of the law. Since several States have or will make abortions illegal, prosecutors can request your medical information if they are prosecuting you for that crime. Again, not new.

Lastly, there are other laws protecting employees such as the ADA etc...not just HIPAA.

With all due respect "Baruch HaShem" literally means "Blessed be the Name" (of G-D) but is commonly used by religious people in the context of "Thank God" when making a positive statement or receiving a positive reply, such as: How are you today ? I am well, thank God.

What's (of G-D) mean? Anything to do with my back yard mosquito issue?

Good Luck, Good Health and Good Humor.

j-o-h-n Sunday 06/26/2022 10:38 PM DST

Yes Privacy. Been called a foil hat looney tune for almost 2 decades. In that time I’ve learned a lot. Testing and setting up traps to capture data capturing and exploitation. Google for example is capturing every text and pixel that is posted on this site. And as an example if a suicidal member was to say something of hurting himself and others it would be flagged and an investigation will work it’s way through state and local agencies by using GPS, IP Address, an electronic fingerprint of the device you use from cell phone to PC. MEID, SEID, Serial Number, Wi-Fi address. With that information (Data) is kept in a Giant Data farm in Utah known as the Intelligence Community Comprehensive National Cybersecurity Initiative Data Center. Nothing isn’t sucked up on the internet. All information is deciphered by AI. It looks for key words and phrases as well pixelization of any photo. After it goes through scrutiny by AI it’s transferred to a group of individuals who will make a call and if worthy it is transferred to a particular state or regional office of the state police. The point is there is absolutely no privacy no matter what other than high end encryption (Military Grade) Other encryption can be broken by military super computer.

Examples how it’s abused. Search is done on a member of congress to find dirt. Who doesn’t have dirt? Bills are passed because of that dirt. Some group of individuals share children porn and captured as a group or individual.

You see the argument can be justifiable if the public says go ahead and spy on everyone just as long as we are safe and you get the bad guy. That’s why 3rd party data companies like Google are so important because the federal government has their hands tied because of the 4th amendment. But law enforcement can access data with a search warrant to access Google.

So back to medical privacy. If it’s electronic it’s accessible.

Do they admit it? No! They have a unspoken saying NSA, FBI, DOD, IRS, it’s legal until they are caught.

Yes California is a shining example of Privacy. But if you look at California privacy laws it’s pretty close to Wack A Mole.

Edward Snowden warned the world and the politicians claimed him to be a traitor. Who doesn’t hate a traitor?

The fact is he exposed spying on every American.

That’s you also that is reading this. Every citizen of the United States. Privacy is no longer. Because of safety and to find those who break the public option laws as being

egregious.

If you want things to change you will need to vote for a president and congress that will pardon Edward Snowden.

He holds the keys to direct congress and the president with testimony of how to stop spying on every American Citizen.

And keep us safe and go after the filth of human trafficking.

Thanks for bringing up the topic of privacy TA!

My people perish from for the lack of knowledge.

The more educated we get the better we are. Both in medical treatment and privacy. Cheers 🍻

I think when they wrote Roe they chose the wrong part of the The 14th Amendment. Instead of basing Roe on “privacy” they should have based it on “liberty.”

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges

or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

There is an explicit liberty to include the right to bodily integrity and to make personal decisions related to family, marriage and childbearing. The 14th Amendment's liberty clause protects individual decisions about whether and when to have a child.

While we're on the subject......can anyone here please let me know how I can get rid of mosquitos in my back yard. Real or funny answers are welcomed...... Thank you!!!

Good Luck, Good Health and Good Humor.

j-o-h-n Sunday 06/26/2022 9:04 PM DST

Maybe "don't feed the trolls" is good advice for pests of all kinds.

Good Idea.....However they're chow hounds who feed on our blood......(I think they're part politician)....

Good Luck, Good Health and Good Humor.

j-o-h-n Sunday 06/26/2022 10:30 PM DST

How about just go live on a boat with no back yard. 😀

I have a friend who followed Mrs. Hogwallup's lead of

" ... done R-U-N-N-O-F-T ... "

youtube.com/watch?v=tsAZ0Rw...

to where there are no mosquitos or clueless SCOTUS individuals

Smart idea............. will file it under S...... Thanks

Good Luck, Good Health and Good Humor.

j-o-h-n Sunday 06/26/2022 10:33 PM DST

Alcohol ingestion stimulates mosquito attraction. Just saying. 😀

One thing this topic has shown is that there is about an even split between conservatives and liberals on this website. 😀

In reality, these laws are somewhat immaterial, because it is difficult to prove that you have been let go from a job or denied employment because you have developed a serious health problem, and hard to keep the condition secret. It's not just that they might lose their investment in training you, but also your costs to their health insurance if they are providing it. Same for proving age discrimination, etc. The employer can always come up with seemingly legitimate reasons for letting you go or not hiring you, and they usually have reams of lawyers backing them up if you were to challenge them.

The Supreme Court decision was the correct decision. While state laws will vary I think 15 weeks is more than enough for a woman to decide whether or not to have an abortion.

Your argument related to prostate cancer patients is specious.

15 weeks was Roe v Wade, which was overturned by what you call the "correct decision." In what way was my argument specious?

famousc wrote --- " ... The Supreme Court decision was the correct decision. While state laws will vary I think 15 weeks is more than enough for a woman to decide whether or not to have an abortion ... "

It's CORRECT WHEN A STATE mandates full term WITH RAPE, INCEST and even with an EPTOPIC PREGNANCY ?????????????

All I’ll say is that there is now one political party I will never ever vote for again. Ever. Even for dog catcher. Peace.

Exactly and thank you for pointing this out. The outrage on this decision involves much more than too many understand. The right to make our own medical choices and have privacy for those choices...choices which will not do harm to others... is very important.

One of the times I agree with TA. I do not view this as a political argument. I view it as rights taken away and potentially a threat to HIPAA. This would affect us all.

Some of the court members are already talking about taking more of our rights away. This would put us on a slippery slope. When you set the precedent of overturning prior laws with ease, and the court changes politically, ask yourself "what comes next?" No more guns? No more cigarettes? No more HIPAA? No more "fill in the blank".

From a reply to someone on FB:

"I think that this will be good for back alley "doctors" and worse.

I believe that the main thing that Roe V Wade accomplished was allowing licensed doctors to perform abortions rather than having them performed in alleys. If you think that is a good thing, you won't like this action. If you think it is a bad thing you will like this action. I think it was political grandstanding and a possible prelude to taking away more of our freedoms.

Since 1980 the abortion rate has dropped almost 50%; the official reported rate has gone from 13% in 1972, the year before Roe V. Wade was passed to 18% in 2021. I would venture a guess that the unreported abortions in 1972 made up most or all of the difference."

Thankfully I am not a woman. I do feel for an individual who has no legal choice and feels that they must resort to dangerous methods. I want the freedom to make my own medical decisions, right or wrong. If this gets rolling, those freedoms could be in jeopardy. Will I too, have to resort to the black market? Or will I give up and do what I am told?

Is it common for the major life insurance companies to offer policies to older people who decline to answer any questions or provide any health records related to being diagnosed with cancer (or other serious conditions?)

There are "no questions asked" policies. Some companies offer life insurance to employees that don't require health records.

forbes.com/advisor/life-ins...

A bigger danger is that a company may not hire you if they provide health insurance.

I guess we all know who really wins here, those with the best and most expensive lawyers. No average hard working citizen has any rights anyway, that's all been handed over to big government. Unless of course you are an illegal migrant, then you have all the rights one could ever imagine. Working hard and saving money for your future and being able to pass your wealth on to your children is all gone too. You're better off with nothing, because in the end the insurance companies, hospitals, etc, will take everything you own anyway.

I'll take my chances with less government intrusion and justices such as Alito. Socialism only improves the lives of the elite and well connected.

Wow

Given the Internet of things that we all use does anyone not realize that this forum and others like it are an open book to anyone looking?

Advanced Prostate Cancer

Home

About

Posts

Members

Why men with prostate cancer should care about the Supreme Court abortion decision

You may also like...

Critical statements about the current standards of care for treating prostate cancer.

guess what: men with prostate cancer have depression!

Latest Prostate Cancer Treatments & Shared Decision Making

New technology that pinpoints prostate cancer will transform care

Some questions about prostate cancer

Related Posts

Moderation team

Popular Posts

Why men with prostate cancer should c... - Advanced Prostate...

Advanced Prostate Cancer

Not what you're looking for?

You may also like...

Related Posts

Moderation team

Popular Posts