Editor’s note: The following letter was sent to the Seaford mayor, City Council and city solicitor Dan Griffith.
“Very smooth” would be my reaction, in sum, to Seaford Solicitor Dan Griffith’s Sept. 28, 2021, performance regarding an “ordinance relative to abortion” before Seaford’s mayor and City Council (seafordde.com/common/pages/DisplayFile.aspx?itemId=18017655).
However, I believe that Griffith’s analysis of the ordinance was/is deficient, likely fatally so, in several legal and/or moral respects, including:
- HIPAA conundrum: The 1996 Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act legislation laid out strict privacy laws for personal medical information. With this in mind, could anyone claim violation of the proposed ordinance without violating HIPAA?
For a woman controlling her own destiny, any citizen/clinician/etc. who reported a violation would have to specifically identify the source of the cells in question, i.e., the woman who underwent a treatment/procedure. This would be a clear violation of the woman’s medical privacy under HIPAA. For instance, if a citizen reported an alleged violation to Seaford police, the first question that any competent SPD officer should have to ask would be, “How/from whom did you acquire this privileged medical information (about the abortion itself)?” If such acquisition was illegal/in violation of HIPAA statutes, the subsequent alleged violation would be rendered legally moot.
And should a woman assign the task(s) to a facility which allegedly failed to follow this ordinance, specific information about the source of the fetal remains, i.e. the mother’s identity, would be required to establish even a minimum prima facie case for violation of ordinance 8.9, in clear violation of HIPAA.
- Choices conundrum: The proposed ordinance is clear that the only choices available to the woman are “cremation or interment.” While I am not a religious scholar, these limited choices appear to be rooted in some theological beliefs and/or practices that are not shared universally, and forcing a woman (or her clinical surrogate) to choose between the two infringes on her rights in favor of some religion-biased dogma. For example, a 27-year-old female chooses to have a legal abortion and, with much aforethought, decides to donate her unborn for medical science research. Her belief system suggests that this donation may result in stem cell/other advances for the benefit of humankind. She considers her act to be both morally and legally sound. Yet, Seaford’s ordinance would make this decision (and indeed others) civilly and/or criminally illegal. Such an outcome would be reprehensible.
- Rape/incest conundrum. The acts of rape and/or incest are clearly illegal. Yet, if I understand the proposed ordinance correctly, there is no distinction for abortion and fate of the remains resulting from rape/incest. Expecting a woman (or her clinical surrogate) to adhere to some legally imposed duty for disposal of the remains resulting from an illegal act appears to be near the height of moral (to borrow a word) blasphemy. This cruel act perpetrated on a woman in that circumstance who chooses abortion — to be legally required to pay for disposal of the remains — is beyond rational understanding.
In conclusion, these exhibits are clear indication of the moral/ethical and/or legal minefield that the city of Seaford contemplates entering.
And very personally, these matters are private and none of your business.
Dan Cannon
Seaford
