Goddard — A group of Republican legislators say the Kansas Supreme Court overstepped its authority when it put on hold a grand jury investigation into a Wichita doctor who is one of the nation's few late-term abortion providers.
At a news conference at a Lake Afton lodge on Friday, the 17 legislators said the Supreme Court should allow Sedgwick County to move forward with empaneling a grand jury to investigate Dr. George Tiller.
The grand jury was initiated by anti-abortion groups that circulated citizen petitions. Kansas is one of the few states that allow citizens to petition to empanel a grand jury.
The court last month put the grand jury on hold in response to a petition filed Tiller. In the order, Chief Justice Kay McFarland said that it was issued "by virtue of the unique circumstances of this case and to allow full consideration of the petition."
Rep. Steve Brunk, R-Bel Aire, said the court appears to have a political agenda.
"The highest court in Kansas should be interpreting the laws of Kansas and not trying to ... legislate from the bench," Brunk said.
Tiller's lawyer, Dan Monnat, said that politics, not the law, is the driving force against Tiller. He said the lawmakers at Friday's conference "get re-elected by fomenting opposition to a woman's right to choose."
"I seriously doubt the court will be bullied by these politicians into acting more quickly or acting at all," he said.
Abortion opponents claim Tiller has violated a 1998 state law restricting late-term abortions, something his attorneys repeatedly have said is unfounded.
Tiller's petition seeking to stop the grand jury named Judge Michael Corrigan and retired Judge Paul Buchanan as defendants. Corrigan is Sedgwick County's chief judge, and Buchanan was assigned to supervise the grand jury.
The court told them to respond by Nov. 16.
The lawmakers noted that a federal and a state court already have rejected Tiller's effort to shut down the grand jury.
Tiller's defense team has argued that he has been repeatedly investigated by criminal and regulatory authorities and that subjecting him to another investigation would be harassment.
Last year, for example, abortion foes successfully petitioned Sedgwick County to create a grand jury to review the death of a Texas woman who had had an abortion at Tiller's clinic. The grand jury issued no indictments.
In June, Attorney General Paul Morrison charged Tiller with 19 misdemeanor charges accusing him of failing to get a second opinion on some late-term abortions from an independent physician, as required by state law.
But abortion opponents contend prosecutors and regulators have not been as aggressive as they should in pursuing some allegations against Tiller, particularly allegations that he has violated the 1998 law designed to limit late-term abortions to medical emergencies.
Comments
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.
Ragingbear (anonymous) says…
Wait... the Supreme Court overstepped their authority? What they did is exactly what the Supreme Court is supposed to do. They evaluated a situation and made a decision regarding rule and application of law. These "lawmakers" are just bitter because they lost. I am sure that if they were on the winning side that they would have no complaints.
Well, I got something to say to each and every one of you "lawmakers" out there.
Shut up. Adults are talking about adult stuff now.
situveux1 (anonymous) says…
K.S.A 22-3001(2) A grand jury shall be summoned in any county within 60 days after a petition praying therefor is presented to the district court, bearing the signatures of a number of electors equal to 100 plus 2% of the total number of votes cast for governor in the county in the last preceding election.
Tell me RagingBear, what part of this law did the adult Supreme Court 'evaluate' and 'decide' upon? I guess I didn't see the part where they can stop a grand jury seating just because the situation is "unique." Maybe you can direct me to that part of the statute??? Or maybe not???
Ragingbear (anonymous) says…
Yeah. It's in U.S- ID:10-T subsection 6 of the EEBUAC code.
sinedie (anonymous) says…
Steve Brunk accused someone of pursuing a personal political agenda...LOL
Uncle_Raisin (anonymous) says…
I think I remember an episode of The Untouchables where Al Capone's lawyer said his client had "been repeatedly investigated by criminal and regulatory authorities and that subjecting him to another investigation would be harassment," exatly what Tiller's lawyer, Dan Monnat, said. Birds of a feather.....
Uncle Raisin
UncleRaisin . com
"Raisin" the Standard Against Injustice
ndmoderate (anonymous) says…
Don't these 17 legislators realize that they're.....legislators? You know, like, law-makers? As in...they should try to pass a law about the situation in the Supreme Court instead of pitching a coniption fit in front of reporters?
situveux1 (anonymous) says…
Ohhh, PukeBear, your wit astounds me!!!
Listen to me, I'm a serious person with a serious comment...adult talk, you know...what's that, you mean what I said isn't factually correct...ahhhhhh, I'm a funny person and I'll just write something funny to cover up the fact that my previous post was full of crap.
What a novel idea, I've never seen that before.
Ragingbear (anonymous) says…
~~Listen to me, I'm a serious person with a serious comment:~~
Yeah. Like somehow your post has merit. That's funny. If I were you, I would go out and take a good look at reality before you post here again.
situveux1 (anonymous) says…
You bet, posting the actual statue, that doesn't have merit. Where did they teach you that, KU?
Ragingbear (anonymous) says…
situveux1, trying to win an argument on the Internet is like trying to win the Special Olympics. Even if you win, your still retarded.
badger (anonymous) says…
Nice, ragingbear, take cheap shots at the Special Olympics. Those of us with handicapped family members really appreciate it. Jerk.
Seems to me Tiller's been investigated for this and cleared. Now, if he's still on the hook for the dodgy consult thing, that's fine with me. But he's been investigated for the patient death and cleared. There's a reason the concept behind double jeopardy exists in this country, and it's not to make twice as much money as the first round of jeopardy. It's so that someone who is cleared of a crime can't be convicted and harrassed and hounded by constant investigation and court charge.
Legislators got no business telling the Supreme Court where to get off. If they don't like the way the Supremes interpret the laws, then it's their purview to change those laws or propose Constitutional Amendments.
grimpeur (anonymous) says…
americorps, well done! Another scato-sexual neologism (phelps: from felt (Ger. "hand-operated", from "felch" (High Dutch "slippery hand"), from fummelren (Middle Dutch "all thumbs") from Middle English, from Latin faecs, pl. of faex, dregs.
See also http://www.spreadingsantorum.com
SettingTheRecordStraight (anonymous) says…
"Evangelical crazies"? "Christian Supremicists"?
Wow, liberal tolerance is so compelling.
The tide is actually turning on abortion. http://www.overbrookresearch.com/docs...
SettingTheRecordStraight (anonymous) says…
So if a Christian has zeal, she's "crazy"? If a Christian evangelizes, she's "crazy"? Please explain.