Topeka — The Kansas attorney general's office has paid outside lawyers $476,000 in defending abortion laws enacted this year.
The office says it has paid nearly $258,000 to a Wichita law firm involved in defending a provision of the state budget that denied federal family planning dollars for non-abortion services to Planned Parenthood. The group is challenging the provision in a federal lawsuit.
The attorney general's office has paid $138,000 to a Lawrence firm helping the state defend new health and safety regulations for abortion providers. Two Kansas City-area physicians are challenging the rules in both state and federal court.
The same firm also received $80,000 for work in a federal lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union against a law restricting private insurance coverage elective abortions.
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.
somebodynew (anonymous) says…
OK, I know it is early and maybe I am reading this wrong - but does not the end of this say the same firm is taking money from *both* sides.??? I know there are different lawyers doing the cases, but I wouldn't want to spend my money that has partners on the other side of whatever case I was bringing.
And isn't it nice to know that the State isn't broke like they claim??? Gosh, being able to spend all that money for *outside* lawyers - paticularly since the State obviously has not hired enough of their own. /sarcasm off
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) replies…
Looks like the same firm was working on two different cases, not opposite sides of the same case.
beatnik (anonymous) says…
the queastion i have is who is the lawrence firm?
somebodynew (anonymous) replies…
The other question is, how much is the other side spending?? I can't help but think these firms are making big bucks from the State, while the other side has attorneys that charge more regular rates.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) replies…
Look at the donations lists for Republicans.
headdoctor (anonymous) replies…
I believe Steve McAllister is the lawrence attorney.
Hooligan_016 (anonymous) says…
Fantastic.
/sarcasm
dowser (anonymous) says…
Talk about a waste of money to legislate morality.
rtwngr (anonymous) replies…
We legislate morality every day. Rape, theft, assault and, yes, murder. A female child deserves protection from an incestuous family member without an abortion facility standing in the way of reporting these heinous abuses, in the name of "reproductive rights". A child in the womb deserves protection from being dismembered for "convenience" just the same as you deserve protection from someone coming up and assaulting you.
We legislate morality every day when we tell corporations they can't dump their stinking waste into our rivers and streams. We legislate morality when we preserve natural timber and grasslands for the sake of an endangered species.
So save it on your obtuse, moralistic argument when we are talking about humans that can't speak for themselves much like someone in a coma or developmentally challenged.
TheSychophant (anonymous) says…
God doesn't live by a budget.
Fatty_McButterpants (anonymous) replies…
And the Anti-abortion folks are NOT God, so they darn well better live by a budget.
TheSychophant (anonymous) replies…
True, but they think they are fulfilling God's will, which allows them to rationalize all kinds of illegal, immoral, and inappropriate acts, include acts of extreme violence for the most violent and deluded ones.
vocal (anonymous) says…
I thought we were supposed to be cutting costs...wasn't that the big reason everyone voted Brownback into office? Promoting business...and HE wants to cut spending...really? Can I have my tax dollars back? I'm pro-choice, and I really would rather my tax dollars go to supporting schools, health care, the elderly...anything but these dark ages laws.
situveux1 (anonymous) says…
Yea, and all that money spent by school districts to get more money from the state was just fine. I guess it's all in what you believe in.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) replies…
"I guess it's all in what you believe in."
You mean little things like the state constitution and providing adequate education rather than tax breaks to the Koch Bros.?
observant (anonymous) says…
No money out of AG or brownies pockets. The taxpayers have unlimited funds for protecting the AG and brownies personal beliefs.
ModerateOne (anonymous) replies…
And the personal beliefs of a majority of Kansas voters. That's sort of how it's supposed to work, this representative government thing.
somebodynew (anonymous) replies…
Well, but you "majority" beliefs seemed to have been trumped by the *Supreme Court*.
That right - I almost forgot I live in Kansas, where things like that don't matter. Just whatever (your) god says to you goes.
Scribeoflight (anonymous) replies…
Except that the beliefs of the majority do not outweigh the rights of the minority. It's that representative government, democracy/republic thing.
autie (anonymous) says…
I don't think the AG cares that much about the merit of the cases as much as the merit of having his name out there...so when Pat Roberts finally gives it up to go be a full time grandpa....just got to be ready. The day will come soon enough and he can go back to being Senator Schmidt.
artichokeheart (anonymous) says…
Oh well. If some would take sexual responsability money could be saved.
thebigspoon (anonymous) replies…
Oh, well, if some would take respons*i*bility for their every action, ther would be no need for police, either. And we all know how that works out for ya. Think.
deec (anonymous) replies…
True. If men would keep their zippers up, there would be no need for abortion. Mandatory, reversible vasectomies at puberty for all males would eliminate the need for abortion. I bet some medical device company could come up with a little spigot to put in there.
overthemoon (anonymous) replies…
Exactly. The guys are encouraged to prove their little manhood. The women are vilified and held responsible for the results, no matter how devastating they may be. Same old story.
lunacydetector (anonymous) says…
if there was a test to determine if a baby would be straight or gay, and women were aborting their homosexual babies, i wonder if the left would find it acceptable or would they claim the baby was being discriminated against?
Scribeoflight (anonymous) replies…
I think one would have to make a distinction between:
Legal but a bad idea
Legal
Acceptable
A good idea
Mandatory
In this instance, my choice would be "Legal but a bad idea". But the situation you describe is fairly common in China, except it is not Homosexuality they are screening for, but the actual gender of the child. Since families are only allowed one child, they tend to abort the daughters and keep the sons.
Abortions for this reason are illegal in china, and thus there is a booming back alley business.
texburgh (anonymous) replies…
Ask yourself another question: "if there was a test to determine if a baby would be straight or gay, and women were aborting their homosexual babies, i wonder if the right would find it acceptable to abort that child to rid the world of another homosexual?"
Look at your politicians - those who oppose legal abortions are generally also those who support discrimination against gays and lesbians. They are also those who call homosexuality an abomination - you know, folks like Michelle Bachman.
My guess is many of them would be willing to turn a blind eye to the aborting of homosexual fetuses.
JackMcKee (anonymous) says…
What's the record of previous administrations on this? If the state is not competent to prosecute it's own laws maybe that's an impeachable offense.
its_just_math (anonymous) says…
50,000,000 and counting dead babies say, "Thank you". A drop in the bucket to address a horrific 40 years of America's history.
Scribeoflight (anonymous) replies…
No, they don't say anything, they're dead.
That is, of course, assuming that their development reached the point that they had Lungs, vocal cords, and a functioning cortex capable of speech.
Your arguments are based around your beliefs, which I, and others, do not share.
Therefore you do not get to make laws telling us to live by your beliefs.
juma (anonymous) says…
I am very confused. The AG is supposedly a lawyer, he has lawyers working on staff; yes? So why is tax dollars going for outside fees to support laws passed by a bunch of scum bags ( excuse me, I mean the legislature). Most of whom have law degrees. What is the old saying about 'thiefs support themselves' This is good money squandered. What about education? Not as important as strip-clubs.
observant (anonymous) replies…
The AG must outsource to Koch supported lawyers, how else do they receive the reimbursement for campaign contributions?
observant (anonymous) replies…
As well as legislators must do same. they need Koch money to continuing their career as "public" servants. After all, they can't survive under laws they pass.
pace (anonymous) says…
Brownback's job program, create a bunch of oppressive and prescriptive laws, hire lawyers. Then the lawyers can hire more lawyers.
its_just_math (anonymous) says…
The outcry over Morrison's scumbag presence went unnoticed by the loons. Not a greivance to be found then when he turned out to be a cheating adultering scum bag. Oh, I forgot, he's a Dem and supported Sebelius and Tiller's late term abortion agenda. Excuse me for mentioning it at all.
deec (anonymous) replies…
Since you seem to dislike adultery, I assume you do not support two-time adulterer the newt?
LarryNative (anonymous) says…
I love how our gov. slashes school funding which is for actual, real living , breathing children but blows a 1/2 million on unborn fetus.
kochmoney (anonymous) replies…
Unborn fetuses that would theoretically require even more funding for school.
citizen1 (anonymous) says…
So what is news worthy here. If those seeking to stop the rights of the unborn would stop suing those protecting the rights of the unborn then we would not have spent the money.
vertigo (Jesse Crittenden) replies…
If the State would stop restricting people's freedoms then there wouldn't be anything to sue over.
khunt (anonymous) says…
Would it not make more sense to spend that money on children who are already here and are in need? Too many politicians try to out do each other proving who is more conservative. We have no one to blame but ourselves for either not voting or voting these angry middle aged men into office.
citizen1 (anonymous) says…
Vertigo I ask a simple question: The mother seeking the right to kill a child certainly also had the to cross he legs, doesn't she?
With over 50 million abortions performed since Roe, not all are rape, & with millions more born because their parents wanted them, health isn't the issue either.
Abortion used as contraception is the issue.
The mother has the right and the responsibility to act to prevent pregnancy when she is sexually active and not wanting children.
somebodynew (anonymous) replies…
And I guess in *your* world (and so many others of your thinking) the *Male* part of the baby making formula has NO responsibilty ????
Seems like typical thinking for a certain part of society. Not in my world though.
citizen1 (anonymous) replies…
Didn't say that. Just that the women decides what happens, when, where & how.
jafs (anonymous) replies…
Really?
Why do men have so little power in the equation?
Don't they also decide those things, and have the ability to use birth control if they choose to do so?
vertigo (Jesse Crittenden) replies…
No one has the right to kill a child.
They do have the right to abort a fetus before viability.
thuja (anonymous) says…
Just think of what real-world applications this money could have been put to.
Like helping kids that are here already, and need the help.
BornAgainAmerican (anonymous) says…
Where does the money come from for liberals to sue the state over abortion? Seems to me that the tax payer gets stuck with this also, and the cost in dollars undoubtedly exceeds the state costs.
vertigo (Jesse Crittenden) replies…
So it appears the state should stop writing illegal legislation which would put an end to the lawsuits thus saving us much more money.
Valkyrie_of_Reason (Kathy Getto) replies…
@ vertigo - Sadly, no matter how simple nor how many times we tell them, they just don't get it. (audible heavy sigh...) when the souls of the right-wing- religious extremists become clouded, religion then becomes idolization.
BornAgainAmerican (anonymous) replies…
Who are you to call anyone an extremist? And what makes you believe my politics are rooted in theocracy? As I have to remind all libs, my monicker reads Born AgainAmerican. It does not read BornAgainChristian. Another typical lib comment doing what libs do. Why not assign the whole spectrum of names to my monicker...racist, bigot, xenophobe, knuckle dragger, violent, among others. Funny thing is that no one personifies these names as well as the name callers.
Valkyrie_of_Reason (Kathy Getto) replies…
Whoa there BAA - my reply was to vertigo, not you.
I find it interesting, comical even, if it weren't so sad, that you identify with Born Again American. Are you also a PAW member? You do realize that with your use of that name comes responsibility? The responsibility for others and our country? Hate to tell you, but this means loving your neighbor as yourself, including us "libs".
BornAgainAmerican (anonymous) replies…
Googled PAW and found the following:
Performance Automotive Warehouse
Pentacostical Assemblies of the World
I am not a member of either of the above.
And last of all Wiki lists PAW as a Lawrence rock band. I am certain I am not a rocker.
It does appear that there are several groups indentifying themselves as Born Again American. I am attached to none of these. I wonder if I had the original idea? It never occurred to me that there were others when I took my monicker. However, I don't think that I will allow you to "liberally" assign me to any of the other born again groups on the web. I will define myself thank you.
Valkyrie_of_Reason (Kathy Getto) replies…
Your google-fu is weak, grasshopper.
Let me help.
http://www.bornagainamerican.org/take...
leads you here:
http://www.pfaw.org/
BornAgainAmerican (anonymous) replies…
Sheeesh! I knew I should have patented my monicker...
Valkyrie_of_Reason (Kathy Getto) replies…
:-)
BornAgainAmerican (anonymous) replies…
Typical...libs blaming the other side for something they (libs) caused to happen. Of couse, it has been proven, time and again, that the left does not mind spending other people's money if it means advancing their progressive agenda. When they can't win at the ballot box, they will attempt to force their agenda on others through the courts. I tend to agree with pro choce advocates when rape is involved and this is always brought to the fore by pro choice advocates. Likewise, I can agree with abortion if the mother's life is endangered by child birth. However, we both know that these kinds of abortions comprise a very low number when compared to abortions performed as birth control don't we?
vertigo (Jesse Crittenden) replies…
Sure... but that doesn't mean we restrict the rights of individuals because it's something we personally wouldn't do.
Can you explain to me how the libs caused the legislature to write illegal laws restricting a legal medical procedure?
BornAgainAmerican (anonymous) replies…
I think you are putting the cart before the horse. I am not sure that the courts have made "final" determinations on any of the pro life legislation as of this writing. As your leader once so skillfully articulated "Elections have consequences". Live by sword, die by teh sword.
jafs (anonymous) replies…
The courts can't make any determinations unless there are cases brought before them, ie. lawsuits.
And, the amounts of money necessary to fight the suits depends partly on whether the AG's office hires outside counsel or not.
Also, why do you assume that funding comes from tax dollars?
Planned Parenthood, for one, has a variety of funding sources, as does the ACLU.
What we know for sure is that state costs are taxpayer funded, so it would seem to me that the state should use it's own resources rather than hiring expensive outside counsel instead.
BornAgainAmerican (anonymous) replies…
"The courts can't make any determinations unless there are cases brought before them, ie. lawsuits."
Apparently, there are lawsuiits in progress. I am unsure of your point here.
"And, the amounts of money necessary to fight the suits depends partly on whether the AG's office hires outside counsel or not."
Not sure about the state of Kansas, but federal agencies often contract with private law firms at discounted rates to handle the overflow of lawsuits in todays very litigous society. Even at discounted rates, these contracts are very lucrative for private law firms.
If Planned Parenthood and the ACLU have other sources of funding, then we should look at allowing them to operate with their own funding sources rather than contributing to thier questionable practices with tax payer funds. Of course they would probably file law suits over such funding losses again costing the tax payers money.
jafs (anonymous) replies…
Yes, and you are complaining about them, as if the decision of whether or not certain laws are constitutional could be decided otherwise, which isn't the case.
I don't get your point here - isn't it cheaper to use existing government staff than to hire outside counsel, even at discounted rates?
Again, my point here was that your comment about these suits using taxpayer funding seemed to ignore the fact that the organizations have other funding sources as well - one would have to do a bit of research to determine where the money for their lawsuits comes from.
So you're against funding an organization that exists to protect our constitutional rights now? Wow - I thought conservatives were all about those.
sunny (anonymous) says…
Abortion is murder. Using my tax dollars for your contraceptive is stealing!
toe (anonymous) says…
This article is irrelevant. The AG's offices entire budge is used to defend all the laws of the State. The water fight, air pollution, murder, you name it. The real question is should some laws not be defended? Apparently drunk driving is in this category.
vertigo (Jesse Crittenden) replies…
Its not irrelevant in that if the legislature doesn't write laws restricting a legal medical procedure there wouldn't be lawsuits against the state thus saving the taxpayers in this time of budget cuts and lower revenues.
It makes no sense to frivolously spend money defending laws that should never have been enacted in the first place- especially when cuts are being made that directly affect our kids lives - school and social services. The money that is being spent defending illegal laws could have either been used for taxpayer cuts or spent on our children's schools.
Agnostick (anonymous) says…
Ah, so *this* is where all the jobs development money went... lawyers!
Same firm that works for Kochs?
brianjay1 (anonymous) says…
Or relatively cheap protection of little people