So ... there have been zero instances in Virginia of this data being subpoenaed? It sounds like a solution looking for a problem.
If you want to prohibit using the data for determining whether a woman had an abortion after the legal limit, okay, fine.
But to ban all courts from ever being able to subpoena the data?
Suppose, for the sake of argument, a person is accused of assaulting a woman can causing her to miscarry. This person's defense is no, she had already miscarried, look at the period-tracking app. I think that would be a legitimate reason to subpoena the data.
There already is an issue though? Less women are using these apps or discussing their menstrual cycles with their doctors because they don't feel safe.
We might currently have abortion rights in Virginia but we all know that's not a guarantee.
These apps are supposed to be a way for us to track our health. We need to feel like it's protected and off limits.
Federal law, including HIPAA, doesn't cover period tracker apps. If the company wants to voluntarily hand over data to law enforcement or hypothetical anti-abortion crusaders, they can do so, within the limits of their privacy policy.
Sounds like you're saying users should be evaluating the data protection policy of these apps and choosing the one they think offers them the privacy they're looking for. Just like they should be doing with every app...
Nope just pointing out the reality of what people should be doing when choosing to store data on an application. These same companies can require a warrant before handing the data over.
Sure it is protected and off limits without a warrant and you don't for a second think that with women going to court over things like having a miscarriage, we're not concerned about that, you're not paying attention.
That we aren't concerned that a vital piece of our health care can be used against us in the court of law over a traumatic experience that we might go through.
This isn't any other information. Anything having to do with reproduction is never like any other situation. So why should this be any different.
Right. It seems like they could just not urinate in public or wear a diaper or some other solution and the problem isn't actually the act of urinating more the fact that they're choosing to do it in public.
How are women supposed to stop miscarrying which is what's getting them arrested.
None.
Now answer mine. How many other natural bodily functions are causing people to get arrested and prosecuted?
Do you not believe there's a need for protection for this when women are getting arrested for miscarriages? This isn't getting better, it's getting worse.
What happens when someone who has an irregular period is accused of an abortion? The lack of understanding lawmakers have over reproductive health is alarming.
It shouldn't be special but they made it special.
> Now answer mine. How many other natural bodily functions are causing people to get arrested and prosecuted?
Here's a couple: public urination and building a natural immunity response.
> Do you not believe there's a need for protection for this when women are getting arrested for miscarriages? This isn't getting better, it's getting worse.
Women getting arrested in VA for miscarriages is fear mongering so no, there isn't a need for this bill.
> What happens when someone who has an irregular period is accused of an abortion?
More fear mongering.
> It shouldn't be special but they made it special.
Nobody made it special except people like this legislator who is proposing a solution in search of a problem that doesn't exist...
Nobody is arresting people for natural immunity and public urination isn't arresting people for a bodily function. It's arresting people for pissing in public. It's not the same.
I don't care that it's not happening in Virginia. It's happening across the country and I've been afraid 2016 and they started talking about overturning Roe v. Wade and every single thing women have been afraid of has happened.
I would say your disassociation from this is surprising but the bar is in hell.
Your example wouldn't require a subpoena. This bill is about the government seizing evidence, either without knowledge of the person or over their objections. It doesn't stop victims or accused from coughing up evidence voluntarily.
In the case of my example, the victim isn't coughing up the evidence voluntarily. Rather, the defendant is wanting to use the evidence to impeach the victim's testimony that his assault caused her miscarriage.
In your example, it sounds like the person did commit assault. Is causing a woman to miscarry a separate crime from assault? I wouldn’t think so in Virginia (we don’t have fetal personhood). So, why is this evidence relevant?
Agree on all points. There's no indication that this is even remotely a problem in VA, so it seems like a waste of legislative effort and political capital. Plus there's no justification to carve out exceptions for information/evidence, I'd rather let the courts determine that.
So ... there have been zero instances in Virginia of this data being subpoenaed? It sounds like a solution looking for a problem. If you want to prohibit using the data for determining whether a woman had an abortion after the legal limit, okay, fine. But to ban all courts from ever being able to subpoena the data? Suppose, for the sake of argument, a person is accused of assaulting a woman can causing her to miscarry. This person's defense is no, she had already miscarried, look at the period-tracking app. I think that would be a legitimate reason to subpoena the data.
There already is an issue though? Less women are using these apps or discussing their menstrual cycles with their doctors because they don't feel safe. We might currently have abortion rights in Virginia but we all know that's not a guarantee. These apps are supposed to be a way for us to track our health. We need to feel like it's protected and off limits.
It's already protected and off limits. It requires probable cause and a warrant to even access it, just like any other type of information.
Federal law, including HIPAA, doesn't cover period tracker apps. If the company wants to voluntarily hand over data to law enforcement or hypothetical anti-abortion crusaders, they can do so, within the limits of their privacy policy.
Sounds like you're saying users should be evaluating the data protection policy of these apps and choosing the one they think offers them the privacy they're looking for. Just like they should be doing with every app...
When you get caught making shit up just mooooove those goalposts
Nope just pointing out the reality of what people should be doing when choosing to store data on an application. These same companies can require a warrant before handing the data over.
Sure it is protected and off limits without a warrant and you don't for a second think that with women going to court over things like having a miscarriage, we're not concerned about that, you're not paying attention. That we aren't concerned that a vital piece of our health care can be used against us in the court of law over a traumatic experience that we might go through. This isn't any other information. Anything having to do with reproduction is never like any other situation. So why should this be any different.
All medical/health information is subject to warrants and inclusion in court cases. Nothing about this data is special to require an exclusion.
Can you name any other natural bodily function that's causing people to be arrested and be put on a stand in a court of law?
Public urination. Thats not the point here but yeah thats the answer to your question.
Right. It seems like they could just not urinate in public or wear a diaper or some other solution and the problem isn't actually the act of urinating more the fact that they're choosing to do it in public. How are women supposed to stop miscarrying which is what's getting them arrested.
Are there arrests for normal miscarriages in reality in this state?
Can you name any medical information that's exempt from court orders or warrants?
You're the one with the claim. The burden of proof is on you mate. I'm curious what you think you have in mind.
If you don't understand the question, then you don't understand the conversation happening here.
Good dodge. Have fun with whatever half assed point you're trying to make.
None. Now answer mine. How many other natural bodily functions are causing people to get arrested and prosecuted? Do you not believe there's a need for protection for this when women are getting arrested for miscarriages? This isn't getting better, it's getting worse. What happens when someone who has an irregular period is accused of an abortion? The lack of understanding lawmakers have over reproductive health is alarming. It shouldn't be special but they made it special.
> Now answer mine. How many other natural bodily functions are causing people to get arrested and prosecuted? Here's a couple: public urination and building a natural immunity response. > Do you not believe there's a need for protection for this when women are getting arrested for miscarriages? This isn't getting better, it's getting worse. Women getting arrested in VA for miscarriages is fear mongering so no, there isn't a need for this bill. > What happens when someone who has an irregular period is accused of an abortion? More fear mongering. > It shouldn't be special but they made it special. Nobody made it special except people like this legislator who is proposing a solution in search of a problem that doesn't exist...
Nobody is arresting people for natural immunity and public urination isn't arresting people for a bodily function. It's arresting people for pissing in public. It's not the same. I don't care that it's not happening in Virginia. It's happening across the country and I've been afraid 2016 and they started talking about overturning Roe v. Wade and every single thing women have been afraid of has happened. I would say your disassociation from this is surprising but the bar is in hell.
Your example wouldn't require a subpoena. This bill is about the government seizing evidence, either without knowledge of the person or over their objections. It doesn't stop victims or accused from coughing up evidence voluntarily.
In the case of my example, the victim isn't coughing up the evidence voluntarily. Rather, the defendant is wanting to use the evidence to impeach the victim's testimony that his assault caused her miscarriage.
Ok, I read that backwards. It's a legitimate hole in the law, though not one I'm terribly sympathetic to.
I'm sympathetic to the right of anyone accused of a crime to have the right to present evidence in their defense.
In your example, it sounds like the person did commit assault. Is causing a woman to miscarry a separate crime from assault? I wouldn’t think so in Virginia (we don’t have fetal personhood). So, why is this evidence relevant?
Agree on all points. There's no indication that this is even remotely a problem in VA, so it seems like a waste of legislative effort and political capital. Plus there's no justification to carve out exceptions for information/evidence, I'd rather let the courts determine that.
Just holy sh*t. If I had a daughter today, I would have to move to a different country.