Chat with Kansas Atty. Gen. Phill Kline / LJWorld.com

Archive for Thursday, February 9, 2006

February 9, 2006

Welcome to our online chat with Kansas Atty. Gen. Phill Kline.

The chat took place on Thursday, February 9, at 2:30 PM and is now closed, but you can read the full transcript on this page.

Moderator: Welcome today to our chat with Kansas Atty. Gen. Phill Kline.

I'm Dave Toplikar, World Online editor, and I'll be moderating the chat today.

General, thanks for coming to our office today in Lawrence.

We've got many questions in the hopper today, so lets get started.

Atty. Gen. Phill Kline: Thanks Dave. I appreciate the opportunity.

Darrell, Bonner Springs: Mr. Kline:

I am concerned that your Christian religious beliefs guide your legal judgments. How can a citizen like myself, who does not believe in religion be assured that my rights are protected and that my choices as a citizen are protected despite your personal religious beliefs? Am I a full citizen with full representation in your office even if I don't share your religion?

Photo by Nick Krug

Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline responds to readers' questions during an online chat Thursday afternoon in the News Center.

Atty. Gen. Phill Kline: Thanks for the question Darrell. I have taken an oath to uphold the law - this is my role as Attorney General. Through the years there have been those who have engaged in civil disobedience against laws that they believe are morally supported - Rosa Parks is an example - they express their belief non-violently and take the consequences of their actions to prove a point. I respect such an effort if done in a non-violent manner. I, however, have the honor of serving as Attorney General and upholding the law and this is what I will do.

Atty. Gen. Phill Kline: If you disagree with one of our state's laws you have the right and opportunity to seek change through the legislative process.

Tom, Topeka: AG Kline,

As a KS taxpayer, I am concerned about how much your anti-abortion lawsuits are costing us. I recently read a newspaper report indicating that your office paid $150,000 to an expert witness for your trial in Wichita. How much money have you spent on these trials, and don't you think these funds should be used to fight crime?

Atty. Gen. Phill Kline: My office is spending less funds overall than my predecessor four years ago. Furthermore, I have dedicated greater resources to criminal prosecution and we are handling numerous more homicide, rape and child exploitation cases than ever before. The lawsuit you are referring to was not initiated by my office. We were sued by an out of state organization that is arguing that Kansas mandatory reporting laws regarding child rape are unconstitutional. I strongly disagree. Although there is a legitimate debate regarding the policy that debate belongs in the legislature not in a courtroom. These laws are important tools in our fight against child rape. Just this week the Sedgwick County District Attorney, a democrat, testified as to the significance and importance of these laws in the fight against child sexual exploitation. It is my job to defend the constitutionality of these laws. By the way - it has nothing to do with abortion.

Video

Atty. Gen. Kline discusses whether he will run for office again. Enlarge video

Ben, Washington DC: Mr. Attorney General - In reference to your allegations that children were potential victims of sexual assault at the clinics in question; was this supposition on your part or did you have substantiated evidence that these alleged incidents were taking place?

Atty. Gen. Phill Kline: I cannot speak about the evidence presented to the trial judge who issued the subpoenas except to say that the judge found "probable cause to believe a crime has been committed and that evidence of the crime is in the clinic files."

Naomi, Lindsborg: How can you tell from abortion records if child abuse has occurred? Why not subpoena records from any woman who has had a baby?

How many child abusers have you found using this method?

You are obviously on a witch hunt.

Atty. Gen. Phill Kline: Since I have served as Attorney General my office and the KBI, which I oversee, have investigated or referred for investigation, prosecuted or referred for prosecution over 700 cases of adults sexually exploiting children. Evidence of these crimes comes from numerous sources including hospitals, doctor's offices, nurses, SRS and yes, live birth records. This simply has not been reported in the media as we do not make the particulars public in order to protect the privacy of victims. Furthermore, I want to point out that I wrote the laws that help prevent the publication of sex crime victims. Privacy is certainly important but no one has the right to keep their rape of a child private.

Ray, Overland Park: Will your investigation into illegal abortions address the publicized allegations of neglect and malpractice in the death one year ago of the Down Syndrome Texas teenager caused by Tiller's risky late-term abortion in Wichita? (Petitions are currently circulating in Sedgwick County to bring Tiller before a grand jury investigation of this death.)

Video

Atty. Gen. Kline talks about the things that did not come up during the chat. Enlarge video

Atty. Gen. Phill Kline: I do not comment on investigations. The one investigation that made so much news was only public on order of the Kansas Supreme Court granting the motion of the abortion clinics to make the subpoenas public. No that the matter has been referred back to the District Court where it belongs I will not comment.

Brock, Lawrence: I want to know why you search through medical records for abortions, when the only people legally allowed to do that are a doctor, and a patient. As Attorney General, I don't believe that you have the right or need to do it.

Atty. Gen. Phill Kline: First let me say that I spend very little time on this issue. My office has dozens of homicide cases, numerous cases of child rape, significant consumer protection matters and large water litigation efforts that consume much more of my time than this issue. Having said that - the media seems fixated on this one issue.

Atty. Gen. Phill Kline: Now to answer your question. (1) we have medical records in virtually every violent crime case we prosecute; (2) medical records that I authorized seek a subpoena for were critical in the BTK arrest; (3) we always protect the privacy of all involved; (4) it is long-standing law that a judge who finds reasonable suspicion to believe a crime has been committed and that evidence of the crime is in medical records may issue a subpoena for the records; (5) it was a judge that issued these subpoenas not my office.

Frank, Bluff City KS: General Kline seems to be using taxpayer money to fund his ideological and "moral" agenda, and to make campaign appearances with public funds. Examples include, besides his anti-choice agenda, his meeting with the conservative majority on the state Board of Education, the Matthew Limon case, his testimony in support of the importation of out of state inmates to fill for-profit prisons in Kansas and his trips for cameos at the Dennis Rader post-arrest press conferences. Can he address this issue?

Video

Atty. Gen. Kline talks about the abortion subpoenas. Enlarge video

Atty. Gen. Phill Kline: Note quite sure what "issue" you raise but it does demonstrate a lack of understanding on your part of the role of Attorney General. General Stovall defended the sentencing of Matthew Limon under the Kansas law providing for a 17 year sentence on his third conviction of sexually exploiting a child.

Atty. Gen. Phill Kline: Kansas law did provide for a weaker sentence if the act that Mr. Limon engaged in had been heterosexual rather than homosexual in nature. I voted against that distinction. I believe sexually exploiting a child is just as wrong whether hetero or homosexual in nature. Regardless of my opposition to the law, it is my job as AG to defend the law.

John, Lawrence: So if a 15 year-old boy and a 15-year old girl have sex, you have stated that each is a sex offender as well as a victim of sexual abuse. You have also stated that a mandated reporter (social worker, teacher, et al) has to report knowledge or even suspicion of such activity to law enforcement. Your opinion requires adults best positioned to help such kids to betray their confidences by informing against them thereby compromising the child's legal interests. Do you think such a big government solution to such an inherently personal and family-focused problem is really warranted?

Atty. Gen. Phill Kline: That is incorrect. I have repeatedly stated that prosecutors do not, nor will I, prosecute consensual relationships between children of a similar age. Kansas law, not I, makes it a crime. It is not prosecuted. I will say, however, that children do not report their own sexual abuse. Many are terrified, fearful of harm and some in co-dependent relationships. Accordingly, as the 11 year old is telling the abortion intake nurse please do not tell - it was my boyfriend - the 27 year old step father is out in the car having told her to say that or she is not coming home. That is a case I will prosecute. Docs, nurses, etc, need to be in partnership with SRS and law enforcement to prevent child sexual exploitation.

Charmaine/kcks: Your plan to incarcerate sex offenders for long terms seems to make sense on the surface, but today we have juvenile sex offenders incarcerated that exceed $150 cost a day. How do you plan to reduce this cost?

Atty. Gen. Phill Kline: Some who forcibly rapes a child should and must be in prison - the cost to future victims, societal safety, etc. is too high to do otherwise.

Atty. Gen. Phill Kline: Let me give you an example - in the year 2000 the legislature passed a bill reducing parole and probation supervision on hundreds of felons and actually letting some felons out early - in the four years since hundreds have gone out on our streets, found new victims, committed new crimes and are back in prison. You do not "save" money by letting folks out of prison early.

Mike, Prairie Village: On February 9, 2005 you held a closed door meeting with the five conservative members of the Kansas School Board ostensibly to discuss the growing controversy over the state's science standards, you also publicly stated that you would support placing stickers on science textbooks similar to those being used in other parts of the country. My question is, how is the evolution debate in anyway related to your job as the state's top law enforcement officer? Why is your office in any way involved in this issue? Should this not be a matter for the school board and the local school districts?

Atty. Gen. Phill Kline: We did not meet on evolution. We spoke about the impact of "no child left behind" and education standards vs. goals and the impact on the Kansas Montoy case. I had been asked whether stating that evolution was a "theory" was constitutional. I stated it was. AG's are routinely asked opinions regarding the constitutionality of actions. My answer took 30 seconds and that is the amount of time I have spent on that issue.

Andrew, Lawrence: What are you doing to make sure that corporate crime, like that which happened during the Westar scandal, doesn't happen again?

Atty. Gen. Phill Kline: I have established a public corruption and white collar crime unit in my office and we are moving forward with several cases. I have attempted to strengthen penalties, with limited success, for white collar crime. Also, my office is aggressive in preventing consumer exploitation - we were the first in the nation to take action against price gouging during the flu vaccine scare - shutting down a Florida company; we shuttered the doors of a Wichita dating service company that was exploiting the disabled and we led the way in the investigation leading to the prosecution of the Kaufman's for exploiting their patients. In the last year my office has received 3x more monetary judgments against those who commit medicaid fraud than the 7 years previous years to my administration combined. We are active and aggressive in this area.

Moderator: That will have to be our last question.

General, we understand you have to catch a plane. Thanks for stopping in today to respond to many of our readers' questions.

I'd also like to thank our readers for their questions.

Atty. Gen. Phill Kline: My honor to be here - thanks for the opportunity.

Discussion

LJWorld.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post.
Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.

9 February 2006
at 3:36 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

cutny (Anonymous) says…

Great questions…nice and tough for an absolutely loathsome individual…well done netizens of Kansas.
9 February 2006
at 4:02 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Baille (Anonymous) says…

“That is incorrect. I have repeatedly stated that prosecutors do not, nor will I, prosecute consensual relationships between children of a similar age. Kansas law, not I, makes it a crime. It is not prosecuted. I will say, however, that children do not report their own sexual abuse. Many are terrified, fearful of harm and some in co-dependent relationships. Accordingly, as the 11 year old is telling the abortion intake nurse please do not tell - it was my boyfriend - the 27 year old step father is out in the car having told her to say that or she is not coming home. That is a case I will prosecute. Docs, nurses, etc, need to be in partnership with SRS and law enforcement to prevent child sexual exploitation.”

Obfuscation and misdirection.

The question was why he thinsk forcing teachers, social workers, pastors, and other mandated reporters to report consensual sex between 15 year-olds is a good idea, not whether he planned to prosecute or whether an “abortion intake nurse” should report a pregnant eleven year-old. That had nothing to do with the question.

I can't stand Kline.
9 February 2006
at 4:23 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

princess (Anonymous) says…

Kline gave this as an example of why he needs to see abortion records:
“Accordingly, as the 11 year old is telling the abortion intake nurse please do not tell - it was my boyfriend - the 27 year old step father is out in the car having told her to say that or she is not coming home.”

Really? So…if said 11 year old told the medical worker that it was her boyfriend then would it not be logical to assume that her record at that clinic would also read as such? (without mentioning the stepfather at all.) Then tell me how looking at these medical records is going to help in his hunt for abusers? Is he going to get all of the records and then further invade the privacy of these women by questioning each of the further about this very private subject?
9 February 2006
at 4:25 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

absolutelyridiculous (Anonymous) says…

I was raped by a babysitter at 7 and am still living with the consequences of that rape. The AG is doing everything in his power to uphold the law. Unfortunately, this liberal child molester loving, abortion happy town and media can't bear that thought of protecting children and putting criminals behind bars…why that would be so “uncompassionate” to put someone behind bars who should actually be there. And if it weren't for the moral character formed by those with faith in something greater than themselves, people like Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks or Ghandi, where would we be? If you are an atheist, I pray for your soul and those you try to influence with your lies and deceptive rhetoric. God help you.
9 February 2006
at 4:25 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

badger (Anonymous) says…

“Your job, as citizens, is to inform on one another whenever we tell you to. We don't want you using your judgment about what is or isn't abuse, what is or isn't dangerous, what is or isn't threatening. You just tell us what everyone who confides in you is doing, and we'll decide what to do with that information based on which particular special-interest group we're appeasing this week.”

I wonder, honestly, if the “We don't prosecute consensual sex between children of the same age,” receives the same treatment if it's a 16-year-old football player and a 15-year-old cheerleader as it does if it's a 16-year-old football player and his 15-year-old male teammate. The notion that something could be illegal by law (minors having sex) but subject to discretionary prosecution by someone who claims his sole purpose is to uphold the law as it is regardless of his personal views seems a little…contradictory?
9 February 2006
at 4:30 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

princess (Anonymous) says…

absolutelyridiculous: I am terribly sorry for your pain and for you ever having to go through something so horrendous.

Do you think that if someone had obtained your medical records during your youth it could have helped you?
9 February 2006
at 4:33 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Baille (Anonymous) says…

OK, absolutelyridiculous, lots of us have been the victims of childhood sexual abuse. The question posed did not minimialize such abuse - it did not even pertain to such abuse!

“Kline gave this as an example of why he needs to see abortion records:
“Accordingly, as the 11 year old is telling the abortion intake nurse please do not tell - it was my boyfriend - the 27 year old step father is out in the car having told her to say that or she is not coming home.”

That may have been his example, but that wasn't the question. He was asked why he thought it was a good idea to make the people that work with teenagers reprot consensual sex to law enforcement when those adults were in a better position that law enforcement to handle the problem sensitively and with some hope of success. He did not answer the question.

On the abortion records, Justice Bier was succint inher opinion. There was a better way to do it so that names would not be revealed to anyone until evidence of a crime had been produced. The subpeonas could be issued but needed to be redone. The trial court needed to make a finding on compliance with federal law. And the AG was just this short of lucky that he didn't get his behind swatted with a contempt charge. Luckily, he kept his mouth shut long enough for a competent AG, Bob Stephan, to make his case.

But again, teh question did not deal with abortion records or 11 year-olds being raped. It had to do with teenagers having consensual sex - as they are wont to do - and teh responsible adulst in tehir lives dealing with the issue without Big Brother Kline sticking his nose in it.

9 February 2006
at 4:34 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

badger (Anonymous) says…

I refer to the contradiction posed by these statements:

“Darrell. I have taken an oath to uphold the law - this is my role as Attorney General. ”

then later:

” I have repeatedly stated that prosecutors do not, nor will I, prosecute consensual relationships between children of a similar age. Kansas law, not I, makes it a crime. It is not prosecuted.”

and finally:

“If you disagree with one of our state's laws you have the right and opportunity to seek change through the legislative process.”

What is he saying, here? “I am sworn to uphold the law, but I will engage in discretionary prosecution even though I know that the correct path is to advocate for the change of laws I don't believe they represent the best interests of the people?”

The Attorney General's Office, simplyridiculous, is not the place for Rosa Parks or civil disobedience. It is the place for support and defense of the laws of the state. If your conscience prohibits you from fair application of *all* the laws of the land in their entirety, the path of resignation remains rather than the path of violating your oath to abide by and protect the laws of the state.
9 February 2006
at 4:34 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

absolutelyridiculous (Anonymous) says…

It would not have helped if someone had obtained my medical records…I'm male and we don't get a voice when we are raped and there is not a chance 1. we'd ever talk about it and 2. there would be no evidence. If I were female, I probably wouldn't have talked about it either. thank god the medical records can expose the secrecy behind some abortions and help the victims from being abused again by the clinics. The clinics can not be held above the law.
9 February 2006
at 4:35 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

badger (Anonymous) says…

My apologies. You're absolute, not simple. I regret that I misspoke with regard to your name, absolutelyridiculous.
9 February 2006
at 4:36 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

princess (Anonymous) says…

Badger:

I have to agree and actually feel it is beyond just being contradictory in the AG's case, but should be grounds for a resignation.

Setting a precedence of saying this: “I have taken an oath to uphold the law - this is my role as Attorney General.” (Which is true. That is what is suppose to be doing for the people of Kansas.)

And following it by saying that you are selective about cases and flat out ignore the laws with which you don't agree disturbs be greatly.
9 February 2006
at 4:43 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

princess (Anonymous) says…

absolutelyridiculous said:
thank god the medical records can expose the secrecy behind some abortions and help the victims from being abused again by the clinics.

But I ask you then…. how do you pick and choose which records to view in order to find abuse? Should the AG and his/her staff get to view the medical record of every woman who has an abortion in order to “troll” for abusers? How effective is this really going to be? Enough that it is worth the invasion of the doctor patient privilege?
9 February 2006
at 4:44 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

absolutelyridiculous (Anonymous) says…

final post for the day before my freaking heart explodes. If you want to analyze every word the AG says, go for it, see if that makes your life better. If you want to analyze his process, maybe you should join his team to make sure he does this properly. Whether you agree or disagree with his method (of which is pretty fuzzy by all reports from the media) he IS trying to hold some folks, who have a great responsibility, accountable for thier actions. Kids deserve to live in a place without a bunch of predators going after them. If you agree with that, please step the hell out of the way and let the man do his job.
9 February 2006
at 4:48 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

absolutelyridiculous (Anonymous) says…

princess…I think we need to do whatever it takes short of exposing patient and victim names in public. Can you imagine the field day the media would have then? I say whatever it takes to get the job done. I would die for my kids so riffling through a ton of paper would be appropriate. If it meant saving one kid from being abused again and again, it would be worth it.
9 February 2006
at 4:58 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

justthefacts (Anonymous) says…

The Kansas law makers passed laws that say:

1. Doctors (among others) have to report child abuse.
2. Having sexual relations with a child is a crime.

Thus, pregnancy of a child is defacto evidence that a crime has taken place.

If the people in Kansas do not like the two above laws, they should talk to their lawmakers. They are who make and change laws. The Attorney General enforces laws.

It is pretty telling that all of the questions rasked estate the same basic tune: Phill Kline is evil, all he wants to do (in life) is ban abortion, and he does not care about victims or privacy rights.

If the court allows access to the medical records in question, the names of the patients will be redacted. Removed. Not seen by the AG or his people. Ever. Knowing the identity of a child is not necessary to determine and prove if a pregnancy of an 11 year old was reported, or not. All that needs to be done is to see if a particular doctor reported the pregnancy of a girl that age. If not, he violated the laws as now written. Even Nola, a Democrat prosecutor, agrees that this is the law and must be enforced.

What is being reviewed, with the court's oversight and permission, is whether there have been pregnancies of really young girls that were not reported, as required by current law.

If you don't like the Attorney General, vote for someone else next time. If you don't like the laws, get them changed. But get your facts straight and don't confuse your personal opinions with facts! Your policy arguments need to be made to the policy makers - the lawmakers.

9 February 2006
at 5:09 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Baille (Anonymous) says…

“Kids deserve to live in a place without a bunch of predators going after them. If you agree with that, please step the hell out of the way and let the man do his job.”

BS. Huge load of BS. Kline isn't doing anything to help these kids with his position on teh mandated reporter issue. As far as the abortion records, in his zeal to do his job properly and within the bounds of the law, he runs the risk of causing further harm to the victims.

Justthefacts, read AG Stephan's opinion on the mandated reporter issue. He seems to have the right of it, and we did well with his opinion for 20 years. Now as mandated reporters we have to worry that Kline with point his department at us for failing to report teenagers to law enforcement for having sex. Thank god, his legal skills are only slightly better than his ability to read, understand and respond to a written question.
9 February 2006
at 5:29 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

cowboy (Anonymous) says…

Kline is nothing more than an activist pursuing a far right agenda and doing it pretty poorly I might add given the recent court rulings against him,

If this were a dem pursuing pro-abortion agenda the repubs would be crying about how precedent should be followed and label them radical activists. He is a sorry excuse for an attorney general and a narrow minded politician setting himself up for a higher office elected by the western kansas whack jobs.

just another embarrasing Kansas politician.
9 February 2006
at 5:45 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Baille (Anonymous) says…

How, truthlawrence? Please elaborate.
9 February 2006
at 6:26 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

justthefacts (Anonymous) says…

Facts:

Stephan was representing Kline in defense of the subpoena's in question. So apparently, even RTS has changed his opinion… Probably because since the issuance of the Stephan opinion, laws got changed. Also, the judge writing the recent opinion was a recently Sebilius appointed Democrat.

Again - if your issue is with what the laws provide (NOW) or on whether to enforce the laws as written, get those laws changed or vote in a new enforcer who'll ignore those violations.

If the REAL issue is that you object to Kline's complete candor about being Anti-abortion, fine - If you want to presume his every action promotes that position, fine. Just be aware that your every word exhibits a personal bias on your part and woeful lack of familiarity with the facts. Do not expect everyone to ignore the facts.
9 February 2006
at 6:36 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

justthefacts (Anonymous) says…

The concept of prosecutorial discretion has been around since the dawn of prosecutors - it merely means that not all law breakers must be prosecuted….Because that would be an impossible task. Not all speeders on K-10 get caught and/or ticketed.

So any/all prosecutors (elected or appointed) must (are required/allowed) to wade through the laws and facts that exist, to determine if they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a violation of a law they enforce has taken place, and even after they do that, they must then decide what resources to allocate where.

Just because you do not agree with a particular allocation of resources or prosecutorial decision does not mean the laws being broken don't exist or that violaters should not be prosecuted.

If you think doctors should not be required to report (to SRS) the pregnacies of 11 year old girls, so that they can decide whether abuse has occurred, then just say so and start lobbying your lawmakers.
9 February 2006
at 6:39 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

justthefacts (Anonymous) says…

Finally, the court's decision upheld the right of the AG to subpoena these records if the privacy rights of those involved are protected in the manner set out, and agreed to by the AG.

Darned pesky facts.
9 February 2006
at 6:42 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Baille (Anonymous) says…

“Stephan was representing Kline in defense of the subpoena's in question. So apparently, even RTS has changed his opinion… Probably because since the issuance of the Stephan opinion, laws got changed. Also, the judge writing the recent opinion was a recently Sebilius appointed Democrat.”

No he hasn't. He represented a client on a separate issue from the one raised by the questioner. The laws in question have not changed since the Stephan opinion. And Biers political history has no bearing on her opinion (which again covers a separate issue).

“Again - if your issue is with what the laws provide (NOW) or on whether to enforce the laws as written, get those laws changed or vote in a new enforcer who'll ignore those violations.”

The position is what the word “harm” means. The past interpretation has interpreted it to mean physical harm or psychological trauma requiring professional intervention. Kline says a hand job makes both kids sex offenders. Whose is the more reasoned view?

“If the REAL issue is that you object to Kline's complete candor about being Anti-abortion, fine - If you want to presume his every action promotes that position, fine. Just be aware that your every word exhibits a personal bias on your part and woeful lack of familiarity with the facts. Do not expect everyone to ignore the facts.”

The real issue is just as I have stated it. At least the issue I am concerned with, and while I do not expect you to ignore the facts, I do expect you to know them.
”
9 February 2006
at 6:57 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Baille (Anonymous) says…

OK, I didn't bring up your little abortion issue, but I can address your analysis.

“Finally, the court's decision upheld the right of the AG to subpoena these records if the privacy rights of those involved are protected in the manner set out, and agreed to by the AG.”

Not exactly. In the first of the points regarding Judge Anderson's error, the Court pointed out that the scope of the search and of any prosecution would be much more limited than that sought by the AG - “or” v. “and,” don't you know?

The Court's second point regarding Judge Anderson requires the AG to prove that his position was legally justified. The trial has yet to do that, and the Court laid out a fairly detailed scheme of what needed to be done to determine the issue.

In the third point, the Court required that all the identifying information be redacted even for the in camera inspection. This is the method advocated by people such as myself, and strongly resisited by the AG.

And whether or not the AG agress - which he never has before - is irrelevant. He has no choice. He can try to spin this as a win, but on reading the opinion he got slapped down and was lucky not to be held in contempt or turned over to the disciplinary committee for unprofessional conduct.

And Beier may have been appointed by a Democrat, but I didn't see a dissent. Did you?

Sorry, man. But you know those “facts” can be darned pesky.

9 February 2006
at 6:59 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Hawker44 (Anonymous) says…

Mr. Kline is an American who stands for his beliefs. I admire that. However, the fact that he allows his religious beliefs to interfere and place judgement on others in the political, public eye is a shame. He has and does abuse his power in office to forcefully chase people who do not do as Kline does. He, along with the Phelps family, enjoy the time in national spotlight who prove to the rest of the nation that Kansas IS as biggoted as they (we) think.
9 February 2006
at 8:11 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

justthefacts (Anonymous) says…

“The trial has yet to do that, and the Court laid out a fairly detailed scheme of what needed to be done to determine the issue.”

The S. Ct. did not have the lower courts record before it. As far as they and we and you know, Judge Anderson has already made those findings addressed in the opinion.

Granted, Stephan represented Kline on the contempt issue, it is true. But does anyone of sound mind believe he would have agreed to do so and been part of this case had he disagreed with Kline's stance on the other issues taken up?

The court told the judge to avoid doing anything to reveal the names of the patients involved. A plan already agreed to and suggested by the AG.

And the point about Carol writing the opinion was made in response to someone's comment that the court is pro-Republican.

Like him or hate him, Kline is enforcing the laws as written. Even Nola Fulston, Democrat to the core, knows that and has publicly said so.

Again - if you do not believe that doctors should be required to report - to srs (kansas's child abuse investigation experts) - the pregnancies of girls 16 and under, because such pregnancies are fairly good evidence that someone has been having sex with them (which is against the law) OR if you believe (as do many of the NABLA proponents) that children adult sex should not ever be illegal, just admit that is your policy stance and step up, publicly, to ask the Kansas lawmakers to change the reporting or underage sex laws!!
9 February 2006
at 8:22 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

MyName (Anonymous) says…

>Also, the judge writing the recent opinion was a recently Sebilius appointed Democrat.

What does this fact have to do with anything? It was a *unanimous* decision. And as far as I know, there weren't any concurring opinions. Either the whole KS supreme court has been stocked up with liberal “activists” going back to before Graves was governor, or you're just being paranoid. My vote is for #2.

>If you want to presume his every action promotes that position, fine. Just be aware that your every word exhibits a personal bias on your part and woeful lack of familiarity with the facts. Do not expect everyone to ignore the facts.

The *fact* is that it would be alot easier to believe Kline's actions were only motivated by Child Abuse laws if he had also tried to get the records of women in Hospitals instead of solely focusing on Abortion Clinics. Clinics, I might add, that have been the whipping boy for social conservatives in this state for years. How can you claim we're the ones “ignoring the facts,” when you've yet to deal with this fact in any of your rants?

Either Kline is motivated solely by a desire to help children, in which case it would seem odd to the unbiased observer that he is focusing solely on these clinics, or he is using the issue of child abuse as a cover for his own political machinations. In which case, shame on him!
9 February 2006
at 8:38 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

justthefacts (Anonymous) says…

Ahhhh. Once again, the facts are not known.
For all you know, the inquistion covers more than the 2 entities challenging the inquiry. Because the proceeding is closed, by law, we aren't allowed to know who else was subpoenaed and complied. As far as anyone not connected with the case knows, he asked for and got the subpoened records from all other facilities from which they were requested (not just abortion clinics). Only the two Alpha and Beta clinics refused to comply with the court's subpoenas (and then proceeded to publicized the existence of the inquiry - which before then was not open). I am willing to bet several steak dinners that there were many other doctors who had seen pregnant patients who quietly complied with the request. Perhaps because they had reported as the law requires?
9 February 2006
at 8:49 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

justthefacts (Anonymous) says…

rants? LOL….. Saying “Here is the law” and suggesting the rational approach of changing the laws if one objects to enforcement efforts of said laws…that is ranting?
9 February 2006
at 9:22 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Baille (Anonymous) says…

“Granted, Stephan represented Kline on the contempt issue, it is true. But does anyone of sound mind believe he would have agreed to do so and been part of this case had he disagreed with Kline's stance on the other issues taken up?”

The issue about the mandated reporters having to report teenagers who engage in consensual sex because they are both victim and perpetrator has not been taken up.

Separate. Issue.

“The court told the judge to avoid doing anything to reveal the names of the patients involved. A plan already agreed to and suggested by the AG.”

No. No it was not. Kline resisted this. Period. Koback was on Agar's show last night suggesting this. It is not true. Kline agreed that only the judge and a panel of doctors would know the names and not the AG's office. this is not the Court's ruling. The Court ruled that no one would know the names until a specific ruling on probable cause based on redacted records could be made.

“Like him or hate him, Kline is enforcing the laws as written. Even Nola Fulston, Democrat to the core, knows that and has publicly said so.”

Maybe. But the Court said there has to be findings on that issue made.

“Again - if you do not believe that doctors should be required to report - to srs (kansas's child abuse investigation experts) - the pregnancies of girls 16 and under, because such pregnancies are fairly good evidence that someone has been having sex with them (which is against the law) OR if you believe (as do many of the NABLA proponents) that children adult sex should not ever be illegal, just admit that is your policy stance and step up, publicly, to ask the Kansas lawmakers to change the reporting or underage sex laws!!”

not the issue raised. For the love of all that is holy, focus. Until you focus on what are two separate, although somewhat related issues, this is pointless.
9 February 2006
at 11:54 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ssauble (Anonymous) says…

In the first question, how did civil disobedience come into play?

Nonsensical.
10 February 2006
at 8:01 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

justthefacts (Anonymous) says…

Whether you want to focus on the issue or not, the issue being litigated was and is access to medical records from many offices (not just abortion clinics) where young (under the age of 16) girls went when pregnant to get the records needed for determining if the doctors in question reported their pregnancies to the correct authorities (SRS) so that an independent investigation (by SRS) could be done to determine if it was merely children having sex with children, or something much more alarming (adults having sex with children). Period. So….

Again - if you do not believe that doctors should be required to report - to srs (kansas's child abuse investigation experts) - the pregnancies of girls 16 and under, because such pregnancies are fairly good evidence that someone has been having sex with them (which is against the law) OR if you believe (as do many of the NABLA proponents) that children adult sex should not ever be illegal, just admit that is your policy stance and step up, publicly, to ask the Kansas lawmakers to change the reporting or underage sex laws!!”

10 February 2006
at 11:09 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

optimist (Anonymous) says…

The law requires healthcare providers performing any services to contact SRS when any person under 16 presents to deliver a child, have an abortion, is treated for an STD or any other relevant procedure. Nearly every medical facility in the state has complied except for a couple of clinics that apparently perform abortions.

These clinics decided to make the inquiry public risking exposure of their clients. They chose to fight this fight in the media rather than the courts. Any logical person should be suspicious of this and conclude a high likelihood that they've violated the reporting law and are using politics of abortion to protect themselves at the expense of children, victims and all of their clients.

The AG's point seems to be that doctors are required by law to report this activity without discretion. Medical professionals are not qualified to determine whether or not a child has been victimized sexually or not. That is up to SRS and law enforcement to investigate and conclude and then determine whether or not prosecution is warranted. It is well within his discretion to, after reviewing the records and investigating the circumstances, determine whether or not it was sex between two kids and refrain from prosecuting them. Does anyone think doing so would be productive?

Probable cause has been established. If this case didn't involve an abortion clinic none of this would be an issue. It is being pursued like any other criminal investigation despite the heightened level of paranoia by those who so dogmatically support abortion. They are as much a threat to the rule of law in this case as they accuse Klein of being. Put the pro-abortion politics aside on this one. It's too important no to.
10 February 2006
at 1:16 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

bettie (Anonymous) says…

optimist: you are incorrect. the law does not require “healthcare providers performing any services to contact SRS when any person under 16 presents to deliver a child, have an abortion, is treated for an STD or any other relevant procedure.” (your words.) that is the way that kline interprets the law. his interpretation, however, was put under injunction (that is, not allowed to be enforced), when a lawsuit was raised challenging it on constitutional grounds. that is a separate case before 9th U.S. district court right now. an opinion is expected next week.

i find it interesting that kline would make this claim:

“Although there is a legitimate debate regarding the policy that debate belongs in the legislature not in a courtroom.”

This issue was debated in the legislature when the mandatory reporting statute was debated. It was not until kline issued an opinion interpreting that statute in a way that contradicted the previous interpretation, which mandatory reporters are and have been working under since the statute was created, that this debate entered the courtroom.

It's amazing that he would start such a controversy and then complain that it is playing out in court.

Currently, mandatory reporters are required to report sexual activity that is suspected to be injurious. Kline claims that sexual activity among minors is injurious simply because it is illegal (the age of consent is 16.)

This interpretation would put sexually-active teens at risk. They could no longer get birth control or std testing without the fear that they or their partners will come under investigation. If Kline really truly doesn't want to prosecute consentual sex between age-mates, he shouldn't require reporting of this activity. It endangers kids and would actually hamper the investigations of actual abuse by flooding the srs with reports to sift through.
11 February 2006
at 8:48 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

justthefacts (Anonymous) says…

If the state lawmakers, policy wonks, courts, or anyone else does not want the law interpreted so that teachers, doctors, nurses and other professionals are required to report abuse of children (current law), then change the law. Lots of these professionals have long struggled with what and when to report. They know they aren't likely to understand the whole story, and they fear getting a family in trouble for no good reason.

If the state lawmakers, policy wonks, courts or anyone else do not want sexual conduct involving someone 16 and under, change the statutory rape laws. Current law makes such sex a crime. Every investigator of such allegations (be it the city cops, KBI,sheriff's offices or - as in most cases SRS) would then not be required to determine who got the girl in a family way. And no prosecutor would be required/allowed to prosecute the father - if he/she believed the facts warranted.

PK has interpreted the law to say statutory rape has occurred whenever a child under the age of 16 is pregnant, so the relevant investigators should be contacted so that they may look a little further in order to determine if the father was in fact a rapist, or just some other kid etc. His well known personal views on abortion may be driving his interpretation, or not. But the fact remains that having sex with a girl under the age of 16 is against the law because the legislature deemed it injurious to the child, and mandatory reporters are supposed to report injuries of children to the proper authorities.

Sexuality of teens has already been deemed risky, by most state lawmakers. But if you, in accordance with the stance of many well organized child/adult promoters, believe that teens under the age of 16 have a right to have sex without the state intervening in it, by all means ask your lawmakers to strike the statutory rape laws.
11 February 2006
at 10:39 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Applied_Logic (Anonymous) says…

I went in search of the exact Kansas Laws concerning age limits and such about abortion. I didn't find them other than Kansas requires the permission of a parent for an underage teen to get an abortion. How does the clinic verify it's the parent? Nothing I read answered that. I did find this, though:
http://www.family.org/cforum/news/a00…
It talks about a law that was in the process requiring tissue samples of the fetus of underage abortions be sent to law enforcement. This wasn't brought up in the article. DNA typing the fetus through a data bank of known criminals? Secretly obtaining the dna of the father or neighber? Was this used to build the cases now so hotly debated? Food for thought.

Not all victims keep their mouth shut out of fear. Love is far more powerful a tool used by molesters.

If this all comes out in the wash in Kline's favor will the 'monsters' then turn to home abortions to avoid being caught?

Will 'teen consentual partners' turn once again to back alley butchers?

A trusting, loving relationship with ones children is our first line and seemingly only defense against predation.
11 February 2006
at 5:37 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

bettie (Anonymous) says…

applied logic: kansas law requires parental notification rather than permission for minors seeking abortion. a parent does not need to accompany the minor to the clinic.

the law requiring submission of fetal tissue to the kbi was originally in a bill drafted by rep. mary pilcher-cook last year shortly after the clinic records case became public. the bill went nowhere - it didn't even get a committee hearing.

so sen. kay o'connor waited until a non-controversial bill about the office of the attorney general had passed the house and made it to the senate floor, at which point she amended it to include the language from pilcher-cook's bill. she called it the 'child rape protection act' and there was no chance for senators to even think about it before a vote was called for. of course, it was passed.

from there, it should have gone to a conference committee, where members of the house and senate committees which originally heard the bill could talk about the changes and come to an agreement. instead, rep. lance kinzer forced a vote on the house floor on the amended bill. again, there were no hearings and little discussion on the issue before everyone had to vote on the 'child rape protection act.'

very sneaky. not unlike what happened a couple weeks ago with rep. dick kelsey's anti-abortion amendment to a bill regarding the insurance-purchasing power of the state board of regents.
11 February 2006
at 5:46 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

bettie (Anonymous) says…

justthefacts: here's a fact.

you referred to kline's interpretation of the mandatory reporting laws regarding minors and sexual activity. the only problem is that his interpretation was placed under injuction shortly after it was issued, so it really does not apply to the current situation. that case (whether or not his interpretation is constitutional) is now in the u.s. 9th district court. a decision is expected early next week.

“Lots of these professionals have long struggled with what and when to report.” and if kline's interpretation stands (which doesn't, by the way, sound likely), they will have to struggle between breaking the law by failing to report consensual sex between minors and betraying their client's privacy by reporting them. if i were one of these professionals, i'd probably prefer to be in the first group.

the laws don't, as you suggest, need to be changed. the laws observe the very delicate and important balance between respecting patient privacy and addressing potential abuse. things only got confusing when kline issued an opinion that drastically departed from the interpretation of those laws that has been working for years.