The AMA holds that patients’ immigration status is protected by HIPAA.
Reversing itself on Wong Kim Ark would have a cascade effect that would render citizenship law as a whole unrecognizable.
If the loopholes you’re pointing out are so convoluted that almost no one will exploit them, then what does it matter?
“Who is the father of your baby?”
“I don’t know.”
“Are you a US citizen?”
“I don’t want to answer that.”
Real convoluted, that one.
From your ‘’‘cite’‘’,
There is no case law directly addressing the question of whether immigration status constitutes PHI {Protected Health Information}; indeed, there are few cases analyzing what constitutes PHI in any context.
Thanks for that. Of course, the Supreme Court can overrule decisions.it doesn’t like.
In 1898, did SCOTUS worry about whether an amendment was self-executing? I doubt it. Today’s SCOTUS may be no more conservative than that of 1898, but they have a bigger repertoire of excuses for ignoring the intent of the Constitution.
A year from now, who will have standing to sue? A six month old baby living in China, whose mother came on a tourist visa to give birth here? Probably not.
What does that have to do with the statement that “The AMA holds that patients’ immigration status is protected by HIPAA”?
That the AMA doesn’t have any fucking thing to say about this that actually matters.
The AMA is not a legal authority, nor a governmental regulatory authority. They may advise their members that they believe that immigration status is covered under HIPAA, but they are in no way responsible for determining if this is, actually, legally the case.
Yeah, what the hell does the American Medical Association know about (checks notes) the practice of medicine?
Did I say they were?
The point is that their opinion on the matter weighs only slightly more than yours or mine, when the law gets involved. If the Administration and the Supreme Court decide to address the question, the AMA’s opinion will be viewed as “yes, that’s nice.”
Their opinion has a much larger chance of winding up in an amicus than yours or mine.
Hence, why I said, “slightly more.” You or I could file an amicus brief, too.
Reversing Plessy v. Ferguson and Roe v. Wade also had cascading effects that rendered many laws and even entire sections of state constitutions moot.
Just a little history reminder for folks, United States v. Wong Kim Ark was the bit of case law that was used to show, with no doubt, that Obama was not a citizen.
What on Earth are you talking about? Obama was born in the US to a US citizen mother.
Which is the point, it means that anyone brown or who Trump/the Right doesn’t like can be declared non-citizen and a foreign enemy to be imprisoned, deported or killed. And “a hundred million or more” is how many people the Right wants to get rid of in their crusade to racially purify the nation. Anyone who isn’t white, anyone who isn’t right wing, anyone who isn’t Christian.
Destroying the legal meaningfulness of citizenship - and the civil rights that come with it - is a useful tool for their intended genocide.
We can all be thankful that the AMA isn’t going to let that happen!
How they’re going to do that from prison and/or execution after their Nuremburg Law convictions remains to be seen.
Right. We’ll compare notes four years from now. I have a feeling this is gonna go less like the way you said things would happen eight years ago and more like the way I said things would happen eight years ago.
I don’t see any “note comparing” happening four years from now, realistically and, even if it happens, I can’t see you losing anything except maybe bragging rights.