Trump’s Doctor Leans on Health Privacy Law to Duck Questions | Health News
By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR, Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump’s doctor leaned on a federal health privacy law Monday to duck certain questions about the president’s treatment for COVID-19, while readily sharing other details of his patient’s condition.
But a leading expert on the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act said a more likely reason for Dr. Sean Conley’s selective disclosures appears to be Trump’s comfort level in fully revealing his medical information.
“That’s a little head-scratcher,” said Deven McGraw, a former career government lawyer who oversaw enforcement of the 1996 medical privacy statute. “It’s quite possible the doctor sat down with the president and asked which information is OK to disclose.”
At a press briefing at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Conley, the White House physician, reported the president’s blood pressure — a little high at 134/78 — and respiration and heart rates, which were both in
Will Morrison government learn from its Covid success or return to trickle-down economics? | Peter Lewis | Opinion
Reality constantly reminds us that the biggest risk the pandemic poses is to those who think it is less than it seems. From the White House to the safe house, this is a virus that locks on to system weakness and exploits individual arrogance.
The US presidential race is paralysed because one of the candidates believed he had the power to wish it away and let freedom reign, while countries like Sweden that chose to let it run are paying a higher economic cost than those whose governments swung into action.
Closer to home, Victorians have been living the repercussions of the previously unchallenged orthodoxies that you can outsource public safety and transform the care for our oldest and most vulnerable from a public service into a market.
It’s as if the virus is engaging in a real-time critique of the free market ideology that decrees big government is
Trump’s doctor leans on health privacy law to duck questions
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump’s doctor leaned on a federal health privacy law Monday to duck certain questions about the president’s treatment for COVID-19, while readily sharing other details of his patient’s condition.
But a leading expert on the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act said a more likely reason for Dr. Sean Conley’s selective disclosures appears to be Trump’s comfort level in fully revealing his medical information.
“That’s a little head-scratcher,” said Deven McGraw, a former career government lawyer who oversaw enforcement of the 1996 medical privacy statute. “It’s quite possible the doctor sat down with the president and asked which information is OK to disclose.”
At a press briefing at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Conley, the White House physician, reported the president’s blood pressure — a little high at 134/78 — and respiration and heart rates, which were both in the normal ranges.
But when
Conservative group sues to block California boardroom diversity law
LOS ANGELES (AP) — A conservative legal group announced Monday that it sued to block California’s first-in-the-nation law that requires hundreds of corporations based in the state to have directors from racial or sexual minorities on their boards.
Judicial Watch claimed in the suit filed Wednesday in Los Angeles Superior Court that the law is unconstitutional.
“The legislation’s requirement that certain corporations appoint a specific number of directors based upon race, ethnicity, sexual preference, and transgender status is immediately suspect and presumptively invalid and triggers strict scrutiny review by the court,” the group said.
Gov. Gavin Newsom signed the bill last week saying it was crucial to fighting racial injustice by giving minorities “seats at the table” of corporate power.
California already has a law requiring corporations to have at least one female director on their boards. Judicial Watch is also challenging that law in court and a trial is
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz Continues Its Investigation of Precigen, Inc. (PGEN) on Behalf of Investors
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz continues its investigation of Precigen, Inc. (“Precigen” or the “Company”) (NASDAQ: PGEN) on behalf of investors concerning the Company’s possible violations of federal securities laws.
If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click here to participate.
On September 25, 2020, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) announced a $2.6 million civil penalty against the Company related to its statements about the “purported success converting relatively inexpensive natural gas into more expensive industrial chemicals using a proprietary methane bioconversion (‘MBC’) program.” In its cease-and-desist order, the SEC noted that “Intrexon was primarily using significantly more expensive pure methane for the relevant laboratory experiments but was indicating that the results had been achieved using natural gas.” Though the Company had pitched the program to business partners throughout 2017 and 2018, the SEC pointed out that a “number of the potential partners performed
Dr. Fauci emails that “society is really totally nuts” for thinking he’s hot
In an effort to do some Important Journalism, reporters have requested Dr. Anthony Fauci’s emails through the Freedom of Information Act lawsuits. For 2020 reasons, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Sevices attempted to push off some of those requests until after the election. But a federal judge recently ordered HHS to begin producing thousands pages of potentially responsive records from Fauci other officials about the World Health Organization, China, and the coronavirus. Much of that content will be trickling out about 300 pages per month beginning on Oct. 21, though a few other requests for Fauci emails have been granted. One such request filed by Buzzfeed News’ Jason Leopold resulted in this gem of a correspondence from Fauci to an unknown recipient: “Click on the ‘Cuomo Crush’ and ‘Fauci Fever’ link
Split EU lawmakers rap Bulgaria on rule-of-law failings
BRUSSELS (Reuters) – The European Parliament turned up the heat on Bulgaria on Monday as lawmakers debated a resolution that highlights flaws by the EU’s poorest member in respecting the rule of law, combating endemic corruption and supporting media freedom.
A vote is expected later this week on the resolution that challenges Prime Minister Boyko Borissov’s governance after almost three months of anti-graft protests in Bulgaria that seek his resignation.
Thousands of Bulgarians have been rallying daily since July, accusing three-times premier Borissov of eroding democratic rules and allowing corrupt practices that support oligarchs and businesses close to his centre-right GERB party.
In a heated debate, lawmakers from the socialist party family, as well as the Greens and liberals slammed Bulgaria’s government for backsliding on democratic values and abuse of EU funds.
MEPs from the centre-right group EPP, to which Borissov’s own party belongs, defended Borissov as a pro-European leader.
Trump’s recklessness with COVID stalls government
Since the earliest warning signs that the coronavirus could become a catastrophic pandemic, President Trump has refused to take it seriously. In fact, Trump and his Republican colleagues have gone such great lengths to ignore public health protocols that the president of the United States — ostensibly the most shielded human being on the planet — managed to contract the virus along with several other top government officials, including three United States senators. And now, after so gravely mishandling the pandemic that has killed over 210,000 Americans, the president and his party have effectively brought the federal government to a halt through their own reckless personal behavior, leaving two branches of government compromised while the nation and the world deal with several crises of unprecedented scale.
Even as Trump planned to leave the hospital Monday evening, it was clear he was dealing with serious symptoms of COVID-19, as evidenced by
Courts Shouldn’t Change Election Law Now
Poll workers inspect absentee mail-in ballots in Racine, Wisconsin, Aug. 11.
Photo:
Sue Dorfman/Zuma Press
Your editorial “Will a ‘Blue Shift’ Swing Wisconsin?” (Sept. 23) notes that state laws are contravened by court decisions in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin that extend deadlines for counting mail-in ballots. “This increases the chances of post-election litigation.” Indeed. They apparently go against Bush v. Gore, which closed out the 2000 election. This controversial case was preceded by Bush v. Palm Beach, which unanimously vacated a recount decision by Florida’s Supreme Court because its constitutional basis was unclear.
In Bush v. Gore, there were two rulings. First, the Supreme Court stopped the recount. “There are constitutional problems with the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court that demand a remedy.” Specifically, counting in different counties used different standards, violating the Equal Protection Clause. This ruling was