• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓
  • ←
  • →

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

Make the republican party small enough to drown in a bathtub.

They are lying in pursuit of an agenda.

I see no possible difficulties whatsoever with this fool-proof plan.

This blog will pay for itself.

I’ve spoken to my cat about this, but it doesn’t seem to do any good.

Let’s finish the job.

Too often we confuse noise with substance. too often we confuse setbacks with defeat.

The poor and middle-class pay taxes, the rich pay accountants, the wealthy pay politicians.

Tick tock motherfuckers!

He really is that stupid.

This has so much WTF written all over it that it is hard to comprehend.

Reality always lies in wait for … Democrats.

I’m pretty sure there’s only one Jack Smith.

Russian mouthpiece, go fuck yourself.

Yeah, with this crowd one never knows.

Pessimism assures that nothing of any importance will change.

If you are still in the GOP, you are an extremist.

I’d like to think you all would remain faithful to me if i ever tried to have some of you killed.

An almost top 10,000 blog!

The willow is too close to the house.

Red lights blinking on democracy’s dashboard

Infrastructure week. at last.

Roe isn’t about choice, it’s about freedom.

We cannot abandon the truth and remain a free nation.

Mobile Menu

  • Winnable House Races
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • Balloon Juice 2023 Pet Calendar (coming soon)
  • COVID-19 Coronavirus
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • War in Ukraine
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • 2021-22 Fundraising!
You are here: Home / The Krugman Lies Keep Rolling

The Krugman Lies Keep Rolling

by John Cole|  June 22, 20045:33 am| 18 Comments

This post is in: Democratic Stupidity

FacebookTweetEmail

Discuss:

And we needn’t imagine that Mr. Ashcroft was deeply concerned about protecting the public’s privacy. After all, a few months ago he took the unprecedented step of subpoenaing the hospital records of women who have had late-term abortions.

Otherwise, Krugman had valid points- and why wasn’t the Noonday plot bigger news. But then he goes and shits the bed with this out and out lie.

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « Thanks, Grey Lady
Next Post: Ante Up »

Reader Interactions

18Comments

  1. 1.

    Oliver

    June 22, 2004 at 7:18 am

    WTF are you talking about?

    Ashcroft defends abortion subpoenas
    “Under fire from abortion-rights groups, Attorney General John Ashcroft insisted yesterday that doctor-patient privacy is not threatened by a government attempt to subpoena medical records in a lawsuit over the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act.

    At stake are records documenting certain late-term abortions performed by doctors who have joined in a legal challenge of the disputed ban. President Bush signed the act into law last year.”

  2. 2.

    John Cole

    June 22, 2004 at 7:32 am

    Oliver- no one’s privacy was at stake. He was not asking for thedetails of the women.

  3. 3.

    norbizness

    June 22, 2004 at 8:31 am

    “U.S. District Judge Charles Kocoras quashed the subpoena, saying Illinois’ medical privacy law superseded the government’s need for the records. Kocoras said patients’ privacy could be jeopardized even if their names were deleted, because their prior medical history would still be disclosed.”

    http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/02/13/abortion.records.ap/

  4. 4.

    Rachel

    June 22, 2004 at 11:43 am

    If this is true, as a woman, I’m offended and concerned. But I never hear much of Ashcroft’s misdeeds on the news, therefore I always wonder if his badness is just liberal paranoia. I blame the media’s myopia with Iraq; if the administration has such bad apples as far as rights violations one should not have to hunt and peck through the internet to get them.

  5. 5.

    Ken Hahn

    June 22, 2004 at 12:55 pm

    The abortion lobby cannot allow any records, no matter how sanitized, to be released. The “pro-choice” people want the right to lie as much as they want and any evidence that exposes the lies is “private”. Once you’ve established the right to kill, you certainly don’t want any exposure. Abortion, like slavery, cannot exist with any serious opposition or with any public knowledge.

    Wiggle, squirm and fog up the issue as much as you want. The more facts the public knows, the more opposition to abortion grows.

  6. 6.

    Kimmitt

    June 22, 2004 at 7:05 pm

    Whatever. The man tried to violate medical privacy, just as Krugman said.

  7. 7.

    willyb

    June 22, 2004 at 9:06 pm

    From what little I know about this issue, the subpoena process is being undertaken to get a sense for how many of the partial birth abortions are performed to protect the health of the mother, and to get information on what those health issues are.

    I am not a woman, but would like to see abortions be legal, safe, and rare (never would be nice). However, killing a baby while it’s in the birth canal (as in partial birth abortion) is barbaric, and should only be done if the life or health of the mother is in jeopardy. At least that’s my opinion.

    I don’t think this issue is about privacy rights. I think its about the pro-choice crowd wanting to keep the medical reasons for partial birth abortions in the dark. After all, how are an individual’s privacy rights violated, if nobody knows the identity of the individual(s) behind the information?

  8. 8.

    Kimmitt

    June 23, 2004 at 1:26 am

    “the subpoena process is being undertaken to get a sense for how many of the partial birth abortions are performed to protect the health of the mother, and to get information on what those health issues are.”

    And to do that, he would have to violate previously established standards of medical privacy. It is that simple.

  9. 9.

    willyb

    June 23, 2004 at 1:39 am

    Kimmitt,

    So you’re saying that the general release of information that is not identified with a specific person, such as when the government release the number of cases of prostrate cancer, is a violation of someone’s privacy rights?

  10. 10.

    Mike Krempasky

    June 23, 2004 at 6:38 am

    You best believe if this was a fight over doctors doing rogue plastic surgery, the privacy advocates would be a little more quiet.

    Here’s the crux:

    Doctors: “We only do this procedure when a woman’s physical health demands it”

    Ashcroft: “Great. Since I have to defend the law in court, how about you prove that?”

    Doctors: “Um. No.”

  11. 11.

    Ken Hahn

    June 23, 2004 at 2:55 pm

    The left doesn’t give a damn about privacy except where it applies to abortion or other lefty icon. Guns? No privacy, register them. Property rights? Never, we can send a multitude of inspectors to determine if you endanger some lizard that might not even exist. Corperations? Naw, every word ever uttered in every board room must be public. As said above, other medical procedures? Not on your life. This is a leftist twofer, Ashcroft and abortion. General medical trends aren’t secret. This data must be hidden because it threatens abortion. That’s all. I can hardly wait for the first murderer to object to evidence of the killing as a late term abortion.

  12. 12.

    Kimmitt

    June 23, 2004 at 7:00 pm

    “So you’re saying that the general release of information that is not identified with a specific person, such as when the government release the number of cases of prostrate cancer, is a violation of someone’s privacy rights?”

    We’re not talking about that; we’re talking about the release of persons’ medical records with their names crossed out.

    These women could be identified from these records with a modicum of private detection. The ruling is obviously correct. Ashcroft believes in privacy when it comes to guns and doesn’t believe in privacy when it comes to abortion. Krugman’s statement is accurate.

  13. 13.

    willyb

    June 23, 2004 at 9:08 pm

    Kimmitt,

    Didn’t they get the prostate cancer data from individual records, with names crossed out?

  14. 14.

    Kimmitt

    June 23, 2004 at 10:29 pm

    I have no idea why they would; wouldn’t it make much more sense just to ask doctors and hospitals how many patients with prostate cancer they’ve treated?

  15. 15.

    willyb

    June 23, 2004 at 11:56 pm

    I have no idea why they would; wouldn’t it make much more sense just to ask doctors and hospitals how many patients with prostate cancer they’ve treated?

    These men could be identified from these records with a modicum of private detection.

  16. 16.

    Kimmitt

    June 24, 2004 at 3:44 am

    See, when you just make stuff up, it’s funny, but it isn’t necessarily true.

  17. 17.

    willyb

    June 24, 2004 at 9:38 am

    Kimmitt,

    I was only using the argument you used in an earlier post.

  18. 18.

    willyb

    June 24, 2004 at 9:44 am

    “I have no idea why they would; wouldn’t it make much more sense just to ask doctors and hospitals how many patients with prostate cancer they’ve treated?”

    If you were developing these statistics, wouldn’t you be a little more thorough then talking to doctors and hospitals. Why wouldn’t it be an invasion of privacy if someone other than a particular patient’s doctor looked at his records?

Comments are closed.

Primary Sidebar

Fundraising 2023-24

Wis*Dems Supreme Court + SD-8

Recent Comments

  • Major Major Major Major on Late Night Open Thread: Taxing Prep (Mar 28, 2023 @ 1:46am)
  • Alison Rose on Late Night Open Thread: Taxing Prep (Mar 28, 2023 @ 1:26am)
  • Chetan Murthy on War for Ukraine Day 397: A New Week Begins (Mar 28, 2023 @ 1:10am)
  • Jay on War for Ukraine Day 397: A New Week Begins (Mar 28, 2023 @ 1:05am)
  • Chetan Murthy on War for Ukraine Day 397: A New Week Begins (Mar 28, 2023 @ 12:59am)

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year
View by Past Author

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst
We All Need A Little Kindness
Classified Documents: A Primer
State & Local Elections Discussion

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Mailing List Signup
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Links)
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Posts)

Twitter / Spoutible

Balloon Juice (Spoutible)
WaterGirl (Spoutible)
TaMara (Spoutible)
John Cole
DougJ (aka NYT Pitchbot)
Betty Cracker
Tom Levenson
TaMara
David Anderson
Major Major Major Major
ActualCitizensUnited

Join the Fight!

Join the Fight Signup Form
All Join the Fight Posts

Balloon Juice Events

5/14  The Apocalypse
5/20  Home Away from Home
5/29  We’re Back, Baby
7/21  Merging!

Balloon Juice for Ukraine

Donate

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2023 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

Email sent!