I found this on a blog I read. Please look into for yourselves.

Administration Sets Forth a Limited View on Privacy
By Robert Pear and Eric Lichtblau
New York Times, March 6th, 2004

WASHINGTON, March 5 — In a sharp departure from its past insistence on the sanctity of medical records, the Bush administration has set forth a new, more limited view of privacy rights as it tries to force hospitals and clinics to turn over records of hundreds and perhaps thousands of abortions.

Federal law "does not recognize a physician-patient privilege," the Justice Department said last month in court papers that sought abortion records from Planned Parenthood clinics in California, Kansas, Missouri, Pennsylvania, New York City and Washington. Moreover, the department said in another abortion case, patients "no longer possess a reasonable expectation that their histories will remain completely confidential."

Health lawyers and privacy experts said that position reflected a significant shift after six years in which Bush and Clinton administration officials had promised to strengthen the confidentiality of medical records.

Health care professionals and privacy advocates say the government's position has broad implications beyond abortion. If patients have no reasonable expectation of privacy, the critics say, the government may be more aggressive in seeking records from hospitals, insurance companies and other businesses in criminal, civil and administrative cases. ...

President Bush was elected on a platform that proclaimed support for medical privacy. In April 2001, he said he would protect "the right of every American to have confidence that his or her personal medical records will remain private."

Privacy advocates say the administration has rolled back some safeguards adopted by President Bill Clinton, and the Justice Department says now that the 1996 law is no obstacle to its efforts to obtain abortion records. ...

The abortion recipients are not directly involved in the litigation, and the government has not told them that it wants their records.

"How many hundreds of women, or thousands, will have the frightening experience of their medical records being handed over to the Justice Department as part of a fishing expedition?" Mr. Markey asked. ...

The demand for files is not limited to records of that type of abortion, known medically as intact dilation and extraction. The government also seeks these materials for the last three years:

- Records of any second-trimester abortion in which the patient suffered a medical complication, regardless of the technique.

- Records of any case in which a doctor caused a fetus's death by injecting chemical agents in the womb in the second or third trimester.

- Documents related to any medical malpractice claims arising from certain abortions.

- The names of all doctors who have performed any type of abortion. ...

The federal standards have real-life implications for people like Sally Scofield, a legal secretary in Manhattan, Ill., who has joined a suit to fight the rules. After knee surgery and spinal injections in 2002, Ms. Scofield said, she was shocked to learn that her records had been given without her consent to a medical research business, an investigation company and a photocopying service.

"I have nothing to hide about my knee or my spine," Ms. Scofield said. "But every woman will tell you she has medical records she does not want shared. Rape victims, child molestation, incest, H.I.V., there are a lot of things people don't need to know about."