In early 2005, [tag]Kansas[/tag] Attorney General [tag]Phill Kline[/tag] (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. In February, the Kansas Supreme Court today blocked Kline’s plan, ruling that the initiative would violate patients’ [tag]privacy[/tag].
But Kline wasn’t done. He then launched an initiative to force medical professionals to report sexually-active teenagers to the state as incidents of child abuse. This week, Kline’s losing streak continued, this time in federal court.
In a victory for an abortion rights group, a federal judge ruled Tuesday that abortion clinic doctors and other professionals are not required under Kansas law to report underage sex between consenting youths.
The ruling by U.S. District Judge J. Thomas Marten was a setback for Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline, an abortion foe.
Kline contended a 1982 Kansas law requiring doctors, teachers and others to alert the state and law enforcement about potential child abuse covers consensual sex between minors. He argued that the law applies to [tag]abortion[/tag] clinics, and later extended that to other health professionals and teachers. The Center for Reproductive Rights challenged that interpretation in court, and the judge sided with the organization.
The judge said, “This case certainly is not about promoting sexual promiscuity among underage persons. Each and every witness testified that underage sex should be discouraged. No witness suggested that sexual intercourse under the age of 12 should not be reported…. [The law] recognizes that sexual activity among underage persons occurs, and that any such activity that injures the minor will be reported.” The bottom line, he said, is that health professionals will have the discretion to recognize the difference between abuse and consensual relations.
Josh Rosenau explained that the case wasn’t so much about the law as Kline’s bizarre and unjustified interpretation of it.
As the ruling notes, Kline overruled a 1992 opinion by preventing a mandatory reporter from having any discretion about whether a minor was injured by sexual contact. Kline declared nearly all sexual contact as injurious. The suit does not seem to have challenged the law itself, merely the interpretation Kline offered for it.
There’s common thread to Kline’s efforts. He seems anxious to use his office to a) pressure doctors’ offices; and b) learn about teenage sex. Given his track record in court, he may need to find a new hobby.