Court blocks Kansas AG on abortion records’ access

February 3, 2006

About a year ago, Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline (R) launched an unprecedented effort to subpoena medical records from state abortion clinics, insisting that harassing clinics and obtaining confidential records is necessary to combat statutory rape.

The Kansas Supreme Court today blocked Kline’s plan.

The state’s highest court on Friday temporarily stopped the state attorney general from looking at records from two abortion clinics, saying such a review could violate patient privacy.

The Kansas Supreme Court ordered a lower court judge to first make sure that Attorney General Phill Kline has the right to see the documents in his investigation of potential violations of state restrictions on abortion and suspected rapes of children.

If Judge Richard Anderson determines Kline does have that right, he must still ensure that the patients’ privacy is protected, the court said. […]

The Supreme Court said the subpoenas could infringe on the patients’ rights to maintain privacy about personal and sexual matters, to receive confidential health care and to obtain a lawful abortion without an undue governmental burden.

Justice Carol Beier agreed with Kline that the state needs to pursue criminal investigations, but said “the type of information sought by the state here could hardly be more sensitive, or the potential harm to patient privacy posed by disclosure more substantial.”

Kline’s policy argument has never really made any sense — Kline could check birth records to see if mothers conceived before their 16th birthday if he were really on some kind of crusade against statutory rape, but he didn’t. Kline, an ardent opponent of abortion, would rather harass and intimidate medical clinics while interfering with women’s family planning.

I haven’t read the full ruling yet, but based on the AP account, it sounds like a solid decision blocking obvious overreach by the state attorney general’s office. Good news.

The AG (like all weirdly horny Republican males) just wants to know which underage boys are having intercourse with which underage girls. Checking abortion records, or even birth records, isn’t going to slake that kind of curiosity. The only thing which will make the GOP happy is to check the “wedding night” bed sheets for stains, as they did in medieval Europe and the modern Taliban. The citizens of Kansas (and the US) should tell these horny old men (who can’t get it up anymore themselves) to get lost … or, better yet, go to jail.

  • Its definately a hairball of an issue. Patient privacy (compelling issue)versus the compelling gov’t issue of tracking down child molestors.

    “Kline’s policy argument has never really made any sense — Kline could check birth records to see if mothers conceived before their 16th birthday if he were really on some kind of crusade against statutory rape, but he didn’t.”

    I don’t understand- how can you check a birth record of an aborted child- they shouldn’t have one. Do you mean ask for abortion records that show a minor who had a procedure before the age of consent?

    On another issue that I thought would interest you CB, have you read Pat Buchanan’s essay this week about “Bush’s Alibis”? Even though I personally find it factually flawed, I thought I’d mention that because he appears to be an unlikely ally for democrats on the Iraq war. Strange bedfellows indeed.

  • I don’t understand- how can you check a birth record of an aborted child- they shouldn’t have one. Do you mean ask for abortion records that show a minor who had a procedure before the age of consent?

    No, I meant something else. Kline says he’s worried about statutory rape and is willing to launch a legally-dubious crusade against it. My point was that he could, if he were that serious, check birth records at Kansas hospitals for teenage mothers. If a 16-year-old mother gave birth, Kline could substract about nine months and see who had sex before the age of consent or not, and then start charging the parents accordingly.

    Kline, of course, isn’t doing this — his drive is limited to clinics. I’m saying there’s a reason for this and it has everything to do with harrassing and intimidating those clinics.

  • How is it that the party has come to champion dead babies and statuatory rape of minors? Just asking.

  • Helen – what party are you … oh, never mind. I can’t tell if you’re being tongue in cheek here or something else.

  • The court didn’t buy the “I’ll use my “inherent powers” and a worthwhile goal to justify spying on anyone I see fit, however I see fit no matter that it obviously conflicts with existing law” argument?

    Huh, interesting.

  • I’m so tired of reading, for the last 35 years or more, that the Democrats “champion dead babies”. They want abortion to be SAFE; most want it to be rare. Helen obviously wasn’t an adult in the days before abortion became legal (nationally in 1973). Either that or she has her head/brain planted firmly up her butt.

  • The other thing that gets thrown into the argument is that abortion is some kind of birth control. I can’t imagine anyone any woman makes that choice without seriously weighing her options and the consequemces of her decision. It’s a decision no one wants to be forced to make.

  • Beyond politics, as a Catholic I find abortion intolerable. Evidently there is no place for a practicing Catholic in the Democratic Party anymore? I am 60 years old. I can do without the foul language and bitterness in the Democratic Party, as evidenced here, too. Dems, you are loosing us, with this abortion corner you’ve painted us into! I plan to switch parties if this is still a raging issue in ’08. It might be a good thing to check around and see that the Dem base is being eroded by this issue and other issues of moral nature.

    I submit this respectfully, so please be respectful to me.

  • Helen, if the only issue you deem important is abortion and the abolition of it, then by all means, switch parties. And I say that as a practicing Catholic. However, IF you believe: in assiting the poor and less well off (Jesus said to do this), helping the less well off improve their status and position in life (Jesus said to do this), helping your neighbor through rough times after things like natural disasters or through things like traumatic illness (Jesus’ lessons promote this), making sure every American has appropriate health care regardles of wealth (Jesus no doubt would have promoted this), using all methods of diplomacy that are available to you before you attack a country that is for all intents and purposes defenseless and before you end up killing thousands of innocents (something tells me this is even a lower standard than “tuning the other cheek), respecting your fellow citizens’ rights, putting people before profits and corporate interests, fighting to further limit or outright end the death penalty (c’mon, being against abortion must mean you are against the death penalty–even the Pope thinks so), [and I can go on and list probably dozens more items but this post would be too long if it isn’t already], THEN I would say that you are better positioned in the Democratic party and all the good it stands for and works towards, and you can then advocate, with other folks like me, for further sensible restrictions on abortion without eliminating choice, for additional education requirements that have proven to reduce abortions, for additional spending on programs that help those who do decide to keep their unplanned baby, and similar programs like that–you know, things that have worked in the past. And I do believe I have been respectful here.

  • well said, bubba. Thank you.

    Helen? We’re waiting for a response to bubba’s comment posted at 5:17pm.

  • Helen, your first post was terse and just begging for wild misinterpretation and revile. Speaking for me, I was confused on whether you were legitmate or being subtlely tongue-in-cheek.

    I respectfully submit to you that if you had included in your original post more information on your thoughts, a more acceptable dialogue between you and other posters would have ensued.

    Quick background on me: Catholic schooling through College, including years within the Carmelite Order – but left before I took permanent vows. I am 40 yrs.

    Now, your statement that “…there is no place for practicing…in Dem. …” could as well be put to the vision that Bush and his cohorts are morphing the Republican party. Mr. Bush is not fiscally conservative at all…and from his policies, seems to be socially conservative only when it suits his own goals. Those goals – beyond feathering his and others pockets with gold.

    Why do I say that? Glad that you asked. I seem to believe that the Golden rule is still applicable in our faith, loosely “Do unto others as you would have done to you.” And that we show our faith by actions, (Side note: Ah,the classic ‘justification by faith vs actions argument – how witty of him to mention!) I don’t see this philosophy being followed in Bush’es version of Republican party.

    Within politics, as an American, I have to realize that this country is NOT and was never meant to follow a strict view of Christianity or other religion to boot. Thus, while I may personally abhor that meat is eating on Friday, I have to accept that the government can not make any rules either for or against this ruling. The Democratic party’s philosophy is similar. People may abhor abortion, … the point must be clear.

    PS – jibes, rants, jokes are welcome.

  • SDS

    Did you leave the Order to join that religion you described in a comment to an earlier post?

  • HAH! Coffee splat on screen. Darn it all, I’ve been found out.

    “Wait, I have no idea what you’re referencing”, I quickly type while murmuring my daily prayer, “Oh great Priapus, please spare me from the infidels”. Hoping to his self that the great god won’t be offended that I can’t accompany this utterance with the usual physical action (being at work and all.)

    🙂

  • In addition, Helen, by switching parties you know that you will also be tacitly approving lying (to America and to the world), torture and murder from torture, kidnapping of innocent women and children, bullying any person who has the decency to speak up if they do not agree with you (especially if, Heaven forbid, you are wrong), raping of our Earth [again, I can go on here for a while]–where do you think Jesus’ teachings lead you on these issues? Something tells me it isn’t the GOP.

  • Helen –

    I am not a fan of single issue voting, regardless of the issue or party, so you and I start off with a significant difference. But as to your suggestion that there may be no room for practicing Catholics in the Democratic party, let me say that surely if offensive to, for example, Senator Kerry who most assuredly is a practicing Catholic. More directly on point, Bob Casey (soon to be Senator Casey, D-Pa) is an anti-choice Catholic and is running – and supported – as a Democrat.

    Empirically, I have trouble seeing how the D’s general stance on women having control over their own bodies is driving people away — poll after poll shows that the general public continues to support Roe v Wade by significant majorities. To use President Clinton’s line, most D’s sahre the view with most of the country that abortion should be “Safe, Legal and Rare.”

  • Thank you, Bubba,
    Yes, we do have difficult decisions to make. I am weighing my choices and I do care about all those issues as well. It all requires a major examination of conscience. You are right, the sanctity of life is a major issue for me. That also includes dignity in old age and protecting our children. Yes, I am against the death penalty. You betcha, I support adoption. My family has paid WAY more than lip-service to all of those issues. (I don’t want to get into detail, because I don’t want to be identified here.) As JPII said, America has become a ‘culture of death’. I take that seriously. Maybe we need a third option for a political party??

  • Helen, maybe there is a need for a third option, but that has its pros and cons. Realistically, though, that is not going to happen in this country any time soon. So you have a choice. And I will tell you of a story of a good friend of mine, who happens to be gay. Not only is he gay, but he is a staunch Catholic as well. He is very well aware of the Vatican’s positions on homosexuality. Yet he refuses to leave the Church. Why, you might ask (as I have often asked him). Well, it’s because his faith is not about one issue. It encompasses all of the teachings of the Church. He disagrees with the Church’s position on homosexuality, but he believes (rightfully or erroneously) that there is so much more good that comes out of the entire Church and all of its works that he would rather be a part of it, while at the same time working to convince the Vatican its position on homosexuality as it currently stands is wrong. That is his choice, and I think it is the right choice. He has chosen to be a part of something that he finds to be 95% correct and good, and work to change, to some extent that 5% he does not find entirely proper. And that is on something that is so very personal to him, something that affects his life every single day. Just so you know, I am pro choice but believe in further restrictions to the period for when women can seek an unrestricted abortion. I catch lots of crap for that from some of my female Demo friends, but that is OK. Everything else the Democratic generally party stands for shows that it is the party that will do good for and by people. So you can choose the GOP, but you do so knowing how they stand on those other issues and you then accept the consequences of their actions. I know I would not want that on my conscience. Or you can choose the Dems, and push, in a respectful way, for change on those items you take issue with, knowing that they support 95% of what you believe.

  • Zeitgast, you said:
    “poll after poll shows that the general public continues to support Roe v Wade by significant majorities.”

    As far as I know, we don’t decide morality by popular opinion polls! That reminds me of teenagers who say, “well, everybody else is doing it!” It really doesn’t work that way. My faith has definite truths that don’t change. No opinion polls needed.

    The year before Roe v Wade, my husband placed 39 babies for adoption in the county where he worked. The next year, after Roe v. Wade, he place 1. We found that very sad, whether you do or not. The climate has certainly changed in recent years. It is no longer a stigma for a teenager to keep a baby and raise the child. It is also a fact that there are fewer teenage pregnancies in recent years so that is a good thing.

    Well, it has been interesting to post here. Thanks for all the good comments, guys. I’ll take your comments to heart.

  • Helen, you state:

    “It is no longer a stigma for a teenager to keep a baby and raise the child. It is also a fact that there are fewer teenage pregnancies in recent years so that is a good thing.”

    I absolutely, positively guarantee that this is not because of GOP policies. The reduction in pregnancies is due to many things, but a very large part of it is due directly to Demo programs adopted and implemented at the national and state levels. GOP loves stigma. Uses stigma often. A recent example is their whole “traitor” memo against those who dare speak out against them and their actions.

    So choose wisely.

  • Helen – I believe that Zeitgast, wrote “poll after poll” to argue against your claim that the Democratic stance re: abortion is driving people away; not on the argument re: abortion’s morality.

    Helen – yes it is interesting to post here. While not calling you a liar, can you provide some factual links to support your “39 babies for adoption…next year…place 1” statement. Otherwise, I’m willling to propose that the drop in #s may be that you had your husband on a tighter leash. Respectful tone – no. Potential \ realistic point – yes.

  • Hi Duffy,
    Why not do some research of your own? Go to any county in the US and ask to see adoption statistics for those years before and after Roe v Wade.

  • Hey Helen you getting all your drugs alright under BushCos’ new drug ripoff plan?

    Abortion? Terrible. Teaching that condoms don’t work in abstinance programs isn’t going to help.

    Old and poor people dying in their sickbeds cause neo-cons can’t pull their head out of the hole in the sand long enough to make a single program work for anyone who didn’t donate $100K last cycle? Thank Bush for that one.

    • Comments are closed.