Again, if you believe that our Constitution is our most foundational Law (and our Social Contract – see what I did there SJWs?), this is actually needed. Landrigan has the story.
Reformatted, emphasis mine.
New Hampshire mothers of newborns face criminal penalties if they don’t truthfully answer questions about personal habits ranging from their weight during pregnancy to their use of tobacco, alcohol and illegal drugs and any history of sexually transmitted diseases.
A bipartisan group of lawmakers wants to remove those penalties and permit mothers to opt out of having to provide personally identified information. Current law allows state government to keep these paper records indefinitely. This bill would also repeal that provision.
[Art.] 2-b. [Right of Privacy.] An individual’s right to live free from governmental intrusion in private or personal information is natural, essential, and inherent.
December 5, 2018.
Right now, there is information that is gathered not for medical records but for the NH Division of Vital Records Administration (which isn’t covered by HPPA restrictions). So I DO agree with NH Sen. Rosenwald (emphasis mine) that,
“These questions are none of state government’s business if she doesn’t want to share,” said Sen. Cindy Rosenwald, D-Nashua. Her bill (SB 105) is the product of a study committee that worked on the issue last year.
If it is only going to a state bureaucracy that keeps records, it IS the correct question to ask if whether or not that information is wanted or needed. Especially if there are no special protections to keep that individual info safe. It also gets hoovered up by that stellar Fed agency known by three letters: CDC.
And I then I had to smile – bureaucrats are complaining their “THEIR” data is being taken away from them:
State health officials and a representative of the New Hampshire Hospital Association raised concerns over permitting mothers to opt out of providing the information.
“It is one of the busiest and challenging times for a woman’s life, but our members have said this (opt-out) is going to be a challenge,” said Paula Minnehan, senior vice president of government relations for the hospital group. HHS officials said public agencies and research groups rely on this information to produce reports and form strategies, such as how to reduce high rates of illegal substance abuse or STDs.
Obviously, none of the above have read Article 2-b (er, EVER read the NH Constitution, period?). No, it should NOT be a challenge at all – you just can’t ask. Any work you do either has to be done by getting the data by other means. How about offering MONEY to the Mom to buy that personal data? Instead of assuming it should be free to you? After all, if you are making the signals that such data has value, why won’t you pay for it?
Again, I have to agree with Rosenwald:
“It’s the job of hospitals to convince the mother the public good gained by analysis of this information in de-identified form is a good reason to agree to the release of this data,” Rosenwald said. She predicted the rate of mothers opting out would be low, but they should have the option.
Exactly right – if the Mom wants to share, great. If not, no go. Oh, and there’s the money – and the State wants its self-interest to have priority over these mother’s data:
Deputy Secretary of State Erin Hennessey said it was unclear whether permitting the opt-out would jeopardize an annual $169,000 grant the Centers for Disease Control gives New Hampshire to gather the information.
Sorry, justifying obviating the Constitution with a mere $170K is a bad argument. Are you that entitled, ma’am?