Regarding Northwestern Memorial Hospital v. Ashcroft, Do you think the court would have ruled otherwise had the records involved a medical procedure other than abortion? Does anything in HIPAA expressly dictate a different result depending upon the nature of the medical treatment? If not, then did the nature of the procedure--and societal view of same---unfairly influence the holding? Do you think the court would have protected the records if they had involved breast implant surgery? What about prostate cancer? What about gastric bypass surgery? Penile implants? Reassignment surgery? Tubal ligation? Gallbladder surgery? Should the courts be responsible for determining which procedures might be particularly sensitive? Is that the proper role for the court? Is sensitivity actually in the eye of the beholder---and should that simply be the patient? Do you think gender played any role in the court's holding? Thoughts?