In the 2008 presidential campaign, Rudolph Giuliani is playing a hypocritical game with issues of family life. When it comes to his own family problems, he wants everyone to butt out and mind their own business. “The more privacy I can have for my family, the better we are going to be able to deal with all these difficulties,” Giuliani says.
When it comes to other people’s families, however, Rudolph Giuliani doesn’t seem to think that the right to privacy is so important. On the issue of parental notification about abortion, for example, Giuliani wants the government to come barging in and meddle with family affairs. Giuliani is on the record saying that he thinks its okay for the government to mandate how pregnant teenagers will communicate with their parents about their decisions on abortion.
How come Rudolph Giuliani wants privacy for his family’s problems, but wants the problems of other families exposed to government regulation? In 2008, we must not elect another President who believes that there should be one standard for himself, and another standard for everybody else.
You Idiot. Teenage pregnancy and abortion is a far cry from divorce.
What about that makes me an idiot, JP?
On the one hand, Giuliani says everyone should butt out of his famly’s private affairs.
One the other hand, Giuliani says that the government ought to interfere with other families’ private affairs.
What makes me an idiot for pointing out that hypocrisy?
Not saying you’re an idiot, but these are ridiculous comparisons. Also, I’m not saying I’m liking Rudy G.
However, the one hand/other hand argument is quite foolish, since they are comparing two entirely different concepts. You’ve used the phrase “families’ private affair” to very weakly link the two concepts, and therefore claim hypocrisy.
The first “one hand” is a public questioning of his son’s statement that they had suffered a strained relationship. First that question was asked of him by a rather obvious heckler while he was speaking to a group of sheriffs about crime. This topic obviously had nothing to do with it, but was brought out to embarrass him.
I don’t see where the statement “..The more privacy I can have for my family, the better we are going to be able to deal with all these difficulties,..” tells you to butt out.
It’s just a rather obvious answer to a question that doesn’t have a “sound bite” answer, as any child of divorced parents can tell you. It’s a simple statement of fact. His kid wants to be a pro golfer; I’m sure people asking him about his relationship with his dad and stepmom aren’t really high on his list either.
Your other “other hand” statement is about an entirely different subject. Nobody, including Rudy G. is saying that the government is going to publically present any family information, including abortion choices. That kind of information won’t be publically discussed, unlike the family relationship between Rudy and Andrew. The two subjects are completely different when taken in the correct context, which of course you have not done. Your connection is super-weak and poor logic, that’s all. It’s not an indication you’re an idiot.
I think if a teenager has their own private funds to pay a doctor for an abortion in cash, then go ahead and get one by yourself. However, since these procedures are probably being paid for either by the parent’s health care or by the government (and therefore directly funded by all parents) they have a right to know what the money being spent on their kid is going for.
I’ve got a kid in college. I’m paying for it, and I’m paying for his health care. Why should I be prevented from either seeing his grades or medical records? He’s not the one paying for them, I am. If he’s flunking out, or being sent repeatedly to the health center for alcohol and drug abuse (like my cousin’s kid was) a responsible parent would want to know that. They have a legal and moral responsibility to that kid.
I’ve heard all the arguments about any chip in the abortion wall (like parental notification) being a slide down to abortion being made illegal again, but I don’t buy it. That’s the same stupid argument and logic the gun control nuts use.
On parental notification, as a parent I agree with Rudy. That says nothing about my abortion beliefs as much as it speaks to the views I have on child-rearing.
There’s a lot of ambiguity about children’s rights versus adults. It’s hard to give a child the rights to do whatever an adult does, yet somehow I’m still legally responsible for what my minor child does. There’s never a clean solution.
Speaking of hypocricy, when someone attacked the Clintons during the Monica issue, how often has that been squashed by the argument that it was a family matter, by many, perhaps even you?
Oh yeah, those crazy gun control nuts! Woo hoo! When they get out of control, then, uh… things get really wild, and, um… people can’t get guns as easily… man, that’s just nuts.
I’m not saying that politicians, including Giuliani, shouldn’t have the right to family privacy. I’m saying that those who ask for privacy for their own families, and then demand government intrusion into the private affairs of other families, are being hypocritical.
Guess that makes me like a gun control nut, huh? Yeah, please, don’t throw me in with those gun control nuts, cause they might, uh… talk to me or something.
Bills big mistake with the Monica fiasco was when asked about it, he DIDN’T say “It’s none of your business.” because it really wasn’t. We then spent so much time and money trying to prove that he lied about it.
Unfortunately to the topic at hand, can we find anyone running or even thinking about running who DOESN’T want the double standard anymore? Congress regularly pushes legislation that cuts privacy and allows governmental intrusions in our lives that they then exempt themselves from those rules.
Cliffy, I can’t understand what gibberish you’re trying to say, so I’ll leave it alone. Your incoherent rambling speaks for itself.
Strydex, where does this particular scenario justify what you say? If Rudy G. is for parental notification of a minor child’s proposed abortion, then how is he exempting himself from that proposed law, by stating his kid’s animosity towards him/his wife is best left out of the media? Those two things don’t compute. Rudy may have a double standard, but that’s poorly proven by the numnuts example that Jimmy Cliff proposed above.
“I’m paying for it, and I’m paying for his health care. Why should I be prevented from either seeing his grades or medical records?”
See, you gotta take it in the right context. If CR’s employer is paying for his health insurance, then he won’t mind if they see his medical records to make sure he isn’t a drunk or an addict which would cost them time and money. And CR won’t mind if his car insurance agnecy sees his performance appraisals at work, as well as any blood alcohol level or drug tests, since they have considerable money tied up in assigning him an insurance risk group. And since the government spends so much money on combating AIDS and STD’s they won’t mind if they see who he checks into a hotel with to make sure he’s not gettin all sexually active or anything and costing the taxpayers more money or getting someone pregnant that will have to go on welfare to support the kid. In fact, so many people have a financial interest in what CR does that we might as well just completely remove his front door. I’m sure he doesn’t have anything to hide.
Anon:
My employer can see my medical records when they pay for (or mostly pay for) the insurance. That’s their terms, buddy, like it or lump it. Nobody MAKES me take their health care payments. If I want to pay for it myself, then they have no right to see it. It becomes a private matter.
If today they’re paying for it, it’s not. Quit whining about it and grow up.
As for insurance companies, today they can see your driver’s record, as well as your credit history to determine your insurance rate. Since we’re all in a pool, I’m glad that I, as a generally safe driver, doesn’t have to pay the same “insurance” rate as a three-time DWI offender. Why should I pay for their carelessness? Again, nobody MAKES you drive a car and therefore be insured. You can take public transport or walk, and nobody will get to see your driving record. Heck, you won’t even have one.
You make your choices and live with the results. If my kid doesn’t want me to pay for his college and health care, nobody will force him to allow that, and then he can safely keep his own privacy regarding his grades. Those are my terms with him, and he willingly agrees to show us his grades each semester. Why would you comment on that arrangement and think it’s unfair?
If you have kids, don’t you care about their welfare and progress? Don’t you want to know?
Your post is leaning away from strictly talking about Rudy G., and I may have started you there a little. But seriously, you can’t have it both ways. There’s no Constitutional “right to privacy”, although Courts have broadly interpreted that, stretching “unreasonable search and seizure” and the like to mean that. If you want to call reading your medical records a “search”, then you’d have to convince me pretty hard that if I’m paying for it (the medical care) then that search is “unreasonable”. Pay for me and shut up? That would be a responsible position.
No, CR, your employer can NOT see your medical records. A person you don’t know–a trained health professional may review them to see if the charges and the tests ordered are resonable and customary for the diagnosis, but only for the purpose of processing your claim and only AFTER you sign the consent form. No one can contact your employer and inform them of your diagnosis. If you get your girlfriend pregnant, no one can call your wife and inform her.
I do not want to know what ANYONE in my family does in the bedroom. I do not have that type of Inquiring Mind. It sounds like you need to develop healthier personal boundaries.
Anonymous is right about medical records. It’s the law, part of the constellations of security reforms as part of the HIPAA Act.
Giuliani’s effort is to circumvent these protections of privacy, even as he calls for privacy for his own family’s affairs. This attitude demonstrates a shocking lack of reflection and compassion, I think, which is why I brought up the subject.
And darn it, JP still hasn’t explained to me what I’ve done that’s idiotic.
If I’m off on the employer access, that’s my bad. I took a quick look at the Privacy Act portion of HIPAA, which says it took effort in 2003. My wife managed an office for a private Case Management firm, but that was prior to 2003, so her experience may no longer be the case.
Their business was hired usually on behalf of the insurance company when someone was placed on temporary disability from work. Their goal, of course, was to get the person rehabbed as soon as possible, so they could return to some kind of work, and get off the dole. There were many “third party” people, often my SO included that saw everyone’s medical history.
At least at that time, when you signed the consent for treatment form, you were agreeing to give access to those whom they felt “had a need to know”. I see a lot of internet “privacy Policy” information pages that very often give the same kind of vague meaningless promises. Such as “we guarantee that we will not share your personal data with anyone who is not on our contracted list…” and so on.
When I read the Privacy Act portion of HIPAA, it looked vague enough to me in the section of giving consent that it could still allow for that. I’m not the expert in that law however, so I defer to a legal expert on it.
If the law allows it, you can sign away your rights to pretty much anything. My new employer had me sign a consent for drug testing before they hired me, a consent for credit checks before they hired me, and several others.
I can always refuse to sign, but if that’s their condition of employment, then they of course can always refuse to hire. How much is the ‘little guy’ really protected? Not as much as you think, even with new laws like HIPAA coming on board in the last several years.
And so Anon: On another post talking about the sex lobby:
You don’t want to know if your babysitter is screwing your 11 year old? I’d say if one were really not interested that ones’s 12 year old daughter was getting an abortion, then perhaps that person has a lack of parental responsibility. It might be a good feedback to you that your parental discussions regarding ‘safe sex’ didn’t take hold too well, and perhaps another tact should be discussed.
But hey, that’s up to you. BTW, I mainly suggested that I’d be interested in my kid’s grades in college; you’re extending it a bit to suggest that I have an unhealthy interest in my children’s bedroom activities. You disgust me a little and sound somewhat suggestively creepy.
JimmyCliff can repeat it as many times as he wants. A parent’s responsibility to know about their minor child’s health is a totally different area than the public media wanting him to discuss his family’s personal relationships in front of the news media. It’s not down to the level of what I’d call idiotic, but it is far-reaching and a stretch of logic.
Strydex, where does this particular scenario justify what you say? If Rudy G. is for parental notification of a minor child’s proposed abortion, then how is he exempting himself from that proposed law, by stating his kid’s animosity towards him/his wife is best left out of the media? Those two things don’t compute.
First off, get the name right, a simple slip I can forgive, slipping down two rows on the keyboard is taking liberties. Second, When did I say Rudy G. As you put him, I believe I said Congress was doing that.
There are certainly minor children who can’t discuss reproductive issues with one or more parents. Do you discuss your reproductive habits with YOUR parents, CR? It’s not up to the government to mandate something like that. It’s not a real issue anyway, it’s just one of the wedges used by those who want to do away with contraception.
As far as college grades, what does that have to do with parental notification of a minor’s abortion? Most college students are not minors.
As a personal observation, I would wonder why someone who is such a loser that they have a parent inspecting their grades should even be in college in the first place. If they succeed it will not be their own success, if they fail it will not be their own failure. But I can tell you this, maybe now they are powerless because of lack of money and they have to put up with a parent with money who lords it over them and plays control freak. But when they are established on their own, and have children of their own, they will remember your lack of confidence and how you undermined their attempts to stand on their own two feet. They will not allow that parent to undermine their relationship with their own children as well. They will tightly, tightly control the grandchildrens’ access to the parent who thinks so poorly of them. Enjoy your power now, CR, because your years as a grandparent are going to be lonely and isolated, and you won’t even understand why.
Hey, I pay taxes!
Let me see your medical records!
Stryder: Of course I took liberties with your name, isn’t that obvious? Lighten up, I don’t think that’s your real name anyway, so whut of it?
You did say Congress, and not RudyG. He’s not even running for Congress either, so I still say, what does that scenario
have to do with his issue?
“anon”: Your point: “.. It’s not a real issue anyway, it’s just one of the wedges used by those who want to do away with contraception…” is exactly what I was referring to, it’s not even a real issue. It’s the gun control nut tactic: any law practically even mentioning abortion has to be bad because it is the first step in eliminating legal abortion. That’s patent nonsense.
That’s like saying that a speed limit is the first step in eliminating driving cars. That’s like saying that a drinking age or voting age restriction is the first step in eliminating alcohol or voting rights, respectively. Pure B_llshit@!
As to the rest of your preachy “personal” nonsense, I’m glad you’re (hopefully) not a therapist (and hopefully not a parent yet either). You sound like a spoiled “me” brat.
It’s pretty presumptuous to both label my kid a loser and predict that he will one day vindictively withhold grandchildren access. I love the Internet’s ability to give a mouthpiece to sound-byte and quick-judgement, knee-jerk philosphy.
Just for the record, I don’t “demand” to see my kid’s grades, I ask him to see them because I am interested in his progress and how’s he’s doing. He appreciates that, and likes to talk to me about how things go in college. He knows even though we are friends I’m not afraid to comment on something where I think my more extensive experience qualifies me. He’s not so insecure in knowing his own limitations to out of pocket reject anyone’s advice. That’s the hallmark of a fool, who thinks they know everything. Anyway good luck to you in your “anonymous” life, you sound like you’ll need it.
HareballTrinity: (just another name “liberty”, lighten up already) You sound like a true nutball, and I doubt you’re paying much in taxes anyway. Your comment is too stupid to analyze.
Oh, I apologise Chivas, you wanted a paragraph saying much the same as sarcasm in more sentences? Fine.
If you’re going to go create new life with a partner then you’d best come to terms with the fact that it is the NEW LIFE of an INDIVIDUAL.
NO ONE “owns” humans, please don’t make me force basic US history upon you.
If you paying taxes allows you to ignore your child’s privacy, why can’t other tax payers explore your non-privately-funded private life?
It’s as human beings that people who have hit puberty, no matter how late or early, are allowed to take responsibility for themselves.
This does NOT mean just heaping social stigma on them when they “disobey” it means allowing them privacy, if they feel they require it, to deal with their own bodies.
Wanting to be nosy hardly justifies you doing so, not even to something as possession-like as a child (sarcasm again, I expect you’ll manage this time).
If you want an essay or more compact paragraphs let me know.
Anonymous; bit of a slippery slope there, but I get where you’re coming from. More likely that the kid will mimic the behaviour if there’s no lasting guilt though.
My parents were always (and still are) supportive but respectful of my privacy.
Hareball:
(nickname is sarcastic)
I think you miss the point. Privacy, like any human right, has age-relative components to it. Do you not make all the decisions (medical included) for an infant, a toddler, etc?
Only an idiot would stand on privacy. Maybe the doctor should just ask you to leave the room when treating your infant and ask him some “goo-goo” questions and see what how the kid responds. No, I guess you don’t have any input there. There’s the glaring obvious hole in your blanket “privacy” argument.
I’m sure even your obviously moronic parents (just sarcasm again) took some kind of care of you when you were little without worrying about stepping on your “privacy”.
Knuckleheads that spout stuff like you do ignore that these are not simple issues with sound-byte, slogan answers. A kid needs support, guidance and sometimes questioning. Even good kids make mistakes. If you suspect your kid is hitting on some crack, do you just ignore that and “respect his privacy”.
That would show a total lack of concern for their welfare. At an advancing age, children gain more wisdom (well, some of you anyway) to deal with situations in life on their own. It doesn’t happen at the turn of a switch. That level is different for everybody. I never mentioned incidently, heaping any “stigma” on anyone. That’s just another typical knee-jerk reaction.
Keep just making dumb sarcastic remarks if you want, but that kind of indicates the level of maturity you have managed to reach so far. I wish you much luck, you’ll need it.
Peace!
When your child wants privacy you have a social duty to give it to them.
Trying to belittle me with repeated character slurs seems rather unnecessary, not to mention that it’s an ad hominen error. And the nickname you’ve applied to me isn’t sarcasm, it’s just a childish insult. You ought to check your spelling too.
When has your toddler asked you for privacy?
What about your teenager, do they get privacy to masturbate or do you need to watch?
Teenager and their partner need frequent checks too?
Why not just bug your neighbour’s house. Even good adults make mistakes.
If you suspect your neighbour is hitting on some crack, do you just ignore that and “respect his privacy”?
It’s an “age = wisdom” and “children = possession” based argument that really doesn’t stand up to evidence, nor is it moral or keeping in with the value that really should be placed on an individual’s comfort and welbeing. If kids have troubles and trust you they will TELL you. Your paranoia is, I would hope, unfounded.
To be honest, I find your continued efforts to undermine the importance of privacy for young adults is really quite disturbing. Are you one of the children I was referring to in my third post here?
^”…I find that your continued efforts to undermine the importance of privacy for young adults to be really quite disturbing.”
HareTrinity, what do you consider a toddler? My three-year-old middle child wanted privacy when he uses the bathroom and when he changes clothes.
I appreciate jClifford bringing this to everyone’s attention. I always thought Guiliani was one of those fiscal conservatives who was a moderate on social issues.
CR doesn’t seem to be able to post a comment without belittling someone or making up insulting nicknames. People often adopt bullying tactics like that when they don’t have sound arguments. Seems like the people who answered him are more mature.
It’s pretty clear in post #8 that CR’s kid “appreciates” CR “asking” to see his grades since they are “friends” and because “If my kid doesn’t want me to pay for his college and health care…then he can safely keep his own privacy regarding his grades. Those are my terms with him…”, yeah it’s just coincidental that if the kid wants any privacy he’s going to get his tuition jerked out from under him. CR is certainly free to make his own mistakes in parenting, let’s hope his authoritarian bullying is limited to his family and that the views of people like him don’t get inflicted on everyone else.
Years ago some states had a law about notification of the father for anyone who wanted an abortion. Since those type of clinics weren’t readily available, people had to travel long distances to get to them. That meant the father had to take off work too and basically go along to sign a consent form. Of course, if the woman was afraid of her husband or boyfriend she could always just sign a document saying she didn’t know who the father was. Oh, the degrading hoops they made people jump through. And now what would happen to those teens who couln’t get consent? They sure wouldn’t have equal protection under the law.
CR seems to think pregnant teens have to be told what to do because they are only capable of “goo-goo answers”. Don’t forget they were old enough to reproduce.
CR never told us if he confides his reproductive habits to his own parents. He never did show us his own medical records either. I suspect he’s another one of those who thinks it is OTHER PEOPLE who need to be ordered around as if they were idiots. But who is making sure CR isn’t hitting on some crack?