That's certainly the only utility I can see. Of course, truly anonymizing is difficult to impossible when that is the goal. Obviously, that isn't what they are trying for here. It should be a relatively trivial exercise to identify individual patients based on this wealth of (unnecessary) information.
That could leap up and bite them in the arse. I've heard it said that people like this disapprove of all abortions, with three major exceptions: My wife, My daughter, My mistress.
Unlikely, since *they* can afford to have it done out of state. The purpose, here, is to provide a list of poor people and the doctors foolish enough to treat them who can be safely murdered.
HIPAA preempts these kinds of laws. They are a dog and pony show intended to the rile up the fundamentalist gomers as an artifact on the culture wars front; and, once they are struck down, as an exhibit for republican whining about "activist judges."
1) They publish, then the state (not the individual) gets sued, and then the law gets overturned but the information is already out there, and 2) There's nothing stopping the court from ruling that *HIPAA* is the conflicting law, and overturning it as an overreach into state's rights based on an "incorrect" finding of a right to privacy. It would go all the way to USSC, but that bench has been stacked with ideologically blinkered lackwits.
1. I'm relying on general recall here, but the challenges to these kinds of grandstanding laws tend to be filed immediately on passage by the lege, and seek a stay of any enforcement of the law precisely because of the irreparable harm caused by the scenario you lay out.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2012-03-21 07:06 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2012-03-21 07:30 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2012-03-22 01:36 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2012-03-22 12:45 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2012-03-21 08:07 pm (UTC)My wife,
My daughter,
My mistress.
(no subject)
Date: 2012-03-21 10:35 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2012-03-23 12:39 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2012-03-23 01:03 pm (UTC)1) They publish, then the state (not the individual) gets sued, and then the law gets overturned but the information is already out there,
and
2) There's nothing stopping the court from ruling that *HIPAA* is the conflicting law, and overturning it as an overreach into state's rights based on an "incorrect" finding of a right to privacy. It would go all the way to USSC, but that bench has been stacked with ideologically blinkered lackwits.
(no subject)
Date: 2012-03-23 02:58 pm (UTC)2. True.