Department of Justice Position on Medical Privacy
Defending subpoenas of women’s medical records in California, Illinois, Michigan, Nebraska, New York, and Pennsylvania, the Justice Department argued in a motion filed in January with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division that “individuals no longer possess a reasonable expectation their histories will remain completely confidential.”

Alberto Gonzales’s Nomination
Senators on the Judiciary Committee were sharply divided over Alberto Gonzales’s nomination for Attorney General, passing his nomination by a close 10-8 vote.  Below are the questions and answers provided by Gonzales on this issue.

1.  Do you agree that “individuals no longer possess a reasonable expectation their histories will remain completely confidential?”

Response: ...The Department should be especially sensitive to the privacy rights of every citizen.  At the same time, the Department has an obligation to defend the constitutionality of the laws enacted by Congress, including the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act.  I understand that in the litigation challenging that Act, the plaintiffs* put their clinical experiences at issue in the case and therefore, the Department subpoenaed certain medical records, as the best available documentation of the plaintiffs’ clinical experience, in order to assess their assertions that the banned procedure is medically necessary to preserve a woman’s health. 

*Although Gonzales tried to make it sounds like the patients were part of the lawsuit, they were in fact not involved.