Adventist Health Guilty

[Gregory Matthews]

Adventist Health Guilty:  In the following article, the California Attorney General informs us as to a fine levied against Adventist Health for the illegal release of private health information to law enforcement authorities.  As a result, two women were found guilty in a criminal trial and spent time in prison prior to their conviction either being overturned or vacated.

https://legalnewsline.com/stories/660948669-attorney-general-announces-settlement-against-hospital-over-unauthorized-patient-data-disclosures

NOTE:  The above information first came from a weekly newsletter that the Attorney General sends out each week.   The above was cited in the newsletter dated June 23, 2024.

For specific information related to the conviction of Adora Perez, see:

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-03-18/california-judge-overturns-conviction-woman-whose-baby-was-stillborn

https://www.aclunc.org/article/imprisoned-stillbirth-pregnancy-criminalization-california-and-future-abortion

For specific information related to Chelsea Becker, see:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/11/us/chelsea-becker-california-stillbirth.html

https://abc30.com/kings-county-woman-chelsea-becker-stillbirth-murder-charge-meth-use-during-birth/12292327/

[Gustave]

This perplexes me almost beyond the words to articulate it. 

The release of the women's private health information "leading to their prosecution for MURDER". 

I'm to guess if they WANTED the babies but had still births due to drug usage it's "murder" BUT, if they didn't want the pregnancy to go full term, they can terminate the baby any time - no harm no foul? 

It's only murder if arbitrarily "someone" ascribes value to the Baby while if another individual doesn't want the Baby and prefers to identify the Baby as a fetus they are at liberty to execute it not unlike frogs sent to high schools for dissection. 

Was Adolf Hitler right after all? 

Something bigger going on here than a couple of medical professionals providing medical information to the police I'm thinking. 

[Gregory Matthews]

Gustave, your point that they could have had an abortion has been raised to me.  It is a very valid point.  It has also been said to me that it may be better off if a baby is not born alive with illegal drugs in its system.  Something to consider.

I think that it is pretty clear as to what was going on.  There is a group of anti-abortion people who want to stop all abortions, as they define the word.  To some people, they want to require that it is illegal to perform what they call an abortion in emergency situations where the life of the mother may be at stake.  I suspect that those people thought that they had a chance to establish such supporting case law in this case where the women were poorly defended.  I believe that one of the appellate decisions commented on the lack of proper defense.  In addition, the appellate courts noted in both cases that the women had not violated statuette law.  IOW, it was thought that new case law could be established, in my thinking.

 

[Gregory Matthews]

Gustave, this is under current consideration by the Supreme Court.

*  A 1986 Federal law provides that in an emergency situation a woman must be allowed to abort in an attempt to save her life.

*  The above may be prohibited by State (local) law.

As I understand it, the Supreme Court has the above under current consideration, and that decision is likely to be published in the next few days.

 

[bonnie1962]

18 hours ago, Gustave said:

 

I'm to guess if they WANTED the babies but had still births due to drug usage it's "murder" BUT, if they didn't want the pregnancy to go full term, they can terminate the baby any time - no harm no foul? 

It's only murder if arbitrarily "someone" ascribes value to the Baby while if another individual doesn't want the Baby and prefers to identify the Baby as a fetus they  are at liberty to execute it not unlike frogs sent to high schools for dissection. 

 

Over the years I have asked many, many times of those that follow that type of reasoning to explain how that works. So far not one answer.

We had a  couple of cases in Mn a few years ago with a man beating  his  pregnant wife,  the baby was stillborn,he was tried for I think second degree murder and found guilty.  Another involved in a at fault accident that caused the pregnant woman to lose her baby, he was on trial for vehicular manslaughter. Why?    If either mother had gone the same day for an abortion it would not have been  a baby, a little human being that had been killed, it would have  mysteriously been a fetus or??

How does that reasoning How can so many say "well, I believe it is wrong, but I think women should have the right  to an abortion on demand" Claiming not to have the right to dictate to a woman she must have  the child. The individuals that make it legal and available   to execute this baby/fetus it not unlike frogs sent to high schools for dissection are just as guilty. 

If It  is not a baby until it is born and women should be able to destroy it at will so  should the abusive husband, drunk driver etc. They certainly not be held criminally responsible.

If it is a baby and many that support a woman"s right to choose admit they think it is, it is murder, plain and simple. It simply cant go both ways. The number of for convenience abortions far out weigh the  abortions performed to save the life of the mother. That really is a no brainer. Depending on the length of the pregnancy, if the baby cannot survive outside the mother and the mother will die the baby will be lost anyway. If the pregnancy is far enough along, emergency C-section and a good chance of survival for both.

 It has also been said to me that it may be better off if a baby is not born alive with illegal drugs in its system.  Something to consider.

So should babies that are born with illegal drugs in their system be aborted? How about babies born with any number of birth defects? I have a great nephew that has Downs syndrome, non verbal, his little brother was diagnosed at 5 with MD.

 

It is either a baby or it is not. Choice does not  determine one a baby and the other something to be thrown in the trash.

[Gustave]

That's why I said what I did about Hitler.

Hitler arbitrarily decided Jews were not deserving of life no differently than a court that arbitrarily decides an unborn Baby who dies on account of a drunk driver WAS deserving of life and therefore should have representation for their right of life being taken away. The only difference here was that in one case someone wanted the Baby and in the other the person didn't want the Baby.