Atty. Gen. Phill Kline has been in the news a good bit recently. I have to confess that I’ve been rather disappointed in his actions, at least those that have been reported.

First, of course, there were two meetings with the conservative members of the Kansas State Board of Education. These have led to a letter of protest from a group of newspapers (including this one) and a request by two state legislators to have the Shawnee County district attorney investigate the private meetings. Then, most recently, was his request for detailed records relating to late-term abortions performed in Kansas. In both cases, I find myself questioning the attorney general’s judgment and his seeming political partisanship in office. I find it very troubling.

The AG’s meetings with six out of ten members of the state Board of Education to advise them on such matters as the legality of stickers on school textbooks is, for me at least, very troubling. He maintains that these meetings did not violate the state open meetings law. News media would appear to disagree.

But whether or not the attorney general violated the open meetings law, I think it is fair to say that meeting with only six members of the Board of Education on matters of interest to all of ten members has to be interpreted as very partisan behavior on his part. This is, in itself, in my opinion, not appropriate.

The attorney general is the legal adviser and highest legal officer for the state of Kansas and all of its officials, not simply for those whose political views on a particular matter coincide with his own. Didn’t the other four members of the board also have a right to his advice?

Kline’s attempt to subpoena the medical records of patients who underwent late-term abortions are troubling to me on other grounds. Leaving aside whether these actions fully comply with the law, they raise very serious issues. This is not, to my mind, about abortion; it is about privacy.

So far as I know, there has been no suggestion that any of the women, whose records are being sought by the attorney general, have committed any crimes. The abortions performed were all legally done under existing Kansas law. The attorney general has said that he is seeking these records in order to discover if there were any instances of statutory rape involved. But if this is so, why limit his search only to women who had these particular type of abortions? And why ask for records that cover far more than the names of potential rapists, if they list these names at all?

Indeed, why does the attorney general need to know the women’s names or have their medical records? It seems to me, and to many others, that this is simply an attempt by Kline to frighten women away from having these legal abortions by making them fear that their personal information might become public. By doing this he puts doctor-patient confidentiality at great and needless risk, a risk not simply for the women involved but for every citizen of Kansas.

The job of attorney general is an important job. Kline is the highest legal officer in the state government. As such, I would hope that he would display not only a fervent regard for the law but also an honest effort at non-partisanship in the discharge of his duties and a prudence worthy of his title.

— Mike Hoeflich, a professor in the Kansas University School of Law, writes a regular column for the

Journal-World.