the overall health and safety purposes of Regulation 61-12. Accordingly, we conclude that South Carolina’s recordkeeping requirement does not per se violate the Constitution. This does not, however, answer the entire question of whether the reporting requirements and the potential for publication through court proceedings renders the requirements unconstitutional, as the abortion clinics argue. South Carolina must still demonstrate that the records it requires that contain personal information will be maintained in confidence to the extent possible as it uses the records to ensure the health and safety of its citizens. See Whalen, 429 U.S. at 602, 97 S.Ct. 869 (noting that disclosure to public health agencies are “an essential part of modern medical practice”); Walls, 895 F.2d at 192 (<HOLDING>). We conclude that South Carolina’s statutes
recognizing the individuals interest in avoiding disclosure of personal matters recognizing that there is an important privacy interest in corporate financial documents the court agrees that the information can be protected therefore the court  required that the information be disclosed pursuant to a confidentiality order only to be used in connection with this litigation recognizing limits on an individuals right to privacy and requiring the government to move a compelling interest only if there will be disclosure of protected information recognizing a right to privacy in avoiding disclosure of personal matters recognizing as a privacy right the individual interest in avoiding disclosure of personal matters