Illustration by Arnie Bermudez

John Ashcroft isn't exactly known for being a staunch defender of civil liberties. In the past three years, the attorney general has, among other things, cracked down on immigrants' rights and ordered American librarians to provide information about "suspicious" patrons. (I don't know about you, but when I want to plan a hijacking, my first thought is to make a beeline for the public library. Just imagine all the terrorists who will be caught red-handed thanks to this provision of the Patriot Act.)

But Ashcroft's latest crusade - a mission to wrench partial-birth abortion records from hospitals around the country - tops his previous attacks on American freedoms. The issue is not whether or not partial-birth abortions should be allowed; it is the violation of the sacred, confidential patient-doctor relationship that separates our medical systems from those that are unjust.

In December, the Justice Department, seeking to enforce the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, attempted to subpoena records from six hospitals that have performed "intact dilation and extraction" procedures, so-called "partial-birth abortions." What could Ashcroft do with these records? He could quote statistics out of context in order to support the Partial-Birth Abortion Act.

Jennifer Kursman Columnist

More importantly, Ashcroft not only asked for records, but for the names of the women and doctors who participated in the operations. By doing that, Ashcroft changes the mindsets of gynecologists, obstetricians and other prenatal specialists. Instead of advising patients to the best of their knowledge, these doctors will feel pressured to recommend an anti-abortion solution - even if that recommendation goes against their best judgment (for example, if a woman were raped, became pregnant and desperately wanted to abort the baby).

Thus, to doctors, the threat of federal monitoring quickly morphs into a fear of prosecution, should they choose to perform the operation. Regardless of the 2003 law, medical privacy is a basic right that should not be compromised under any circumstances. In the words of Rep. Eliot Engel, D-New York, "All Americans should have the right to visit their doctor and receive sound medical attention."

There are ways to gather medical information without obtaining the specific names of doctors and patients. Even anti-abortion groups agree with this: Dr. Joe DeCook, vice president of the anti-abortion American Association of Pro Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, told The Associated Press that the law "can be enforced without embarrassing the woman by dragging her name out in public."

On a larger scale, Ashcroft is completely missing the mark with his anti-abortion intimidation tactics. Right now, many Americans are wondering where the money for their next prescription drug will come from. The cost of the "landmark" Medicare Act passed by Congress was "underestimated" by over $130 billion. In addition, The New York Times reported that the new $530 billion figure did not include the cost of the tax breaks Bush promised for people with medical savings accounts.

In the meantime, Americans - especially those who live close to the Canadian or Mexican border - continue to buy prescriptions whose safety cannot be completely ensured (the Medicare bill banned prescription drugs from other countries until Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson makes a decision in December). And experts have estimated that the most needy Medicare beneficiaries - such as those with chronic illnesses - will spend $200 more than they do now on prescriptions after the bill takes effect.

I'm willing to wager that most people in the United States care more about the cost of their prescriptions and health care bills than the legality of intact dilation/extraction operations. What is the relevance of targeting abortion patients and their doctors, when the average Americans have to choose between a pill and their daily bread?

Ashcroft should stop targeting abortion activists and focus on enforcing another bill - the one that was supposed to make health care more affordable for the people of the United States. If he's so dead set on obtaining abortion records, he should find a way to do so without obtaining specific patient and doctor names.

Ashcroft's job is to enforce the nation's laws, not supersede them.

Jennifer Kursman is still annoyed with the bill she received last November after an emergency medical visit. She is a biochemistry freshman and can be contacted at letters@wildcat.arizona.edu.