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
somebodynew 1 year, 4 months ago
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 1 year, 4 months ago
Looks like the same firm was working on two different cases, not opposite sides of the same case.
beatnik 1 year, 4 months ago
the queastion i have is who is the lawrence firm?
somebodynew 1 year, 4 months ago
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 1 year, 4 months ago
Look at the donations lists for Republicans.
headdoctor 1 year, 4 months ago
I believe Steve McAllister is the lawrence attorney.
Hooligan_016 1 year, 4 months ago
Fantastic.
/sarcasm
dowser 1 year, 4 months ago
Talk about a waste of money to legislate morality.
rtwngr 1 year, 4 months ago
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 1 year, 4 months ago
God doesn't live by a budget.
Fatty_McButterpants 1 year, 4 months ago
And the Anti-abortion folks are NOT God, so they darn well better live by a budget.
TheSychophant 1 year, 4 months ago
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 1 year, 4 months ago
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 1 year, 4 months ago
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 1 year, 4 months ago
"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.?
ModerateOne 1 year, 4 months ago
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 1 year, 4 months ago
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 1 year, 4 months ago
Except that the beliefs of the majority do not outweigh the rights of the minority. It's that representative government, democracy/republic thing.
artichokeheart 1 year, 4 months ago
Oh well. If some would take sexual responsability money could be saved.
thebigspoon 1 year, 4 months ago
Oh, well, if some would take responsibility for their every action, ther would be no need for police, either. And we all know how that works out for ya. Think.
deec 1 year, 4 months ago
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 1 year, 4 months ago
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.
Bob_Keeshan 1 year, 4 months ago
Says the opponent of "government health care".
Sad.
Scribeoflight 1 year, 4 months ago
Or we could ask them at 16 when they run away from an abusive home where their mother screams at them daily, "You ruined my life! I didn't want you and still don't want you!"
Or we could ask them that same question after their parents feed them NyQuil so they stay quiet while they slowly starve to death.
Paul R. Getto 1 year, 4 months ago
I think the bible has already answered that question, PM. Deuteronomy 21:18-21
18 If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, 19 his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. 20 They shall say to the elders, "This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a profligate and a drunkard." 21 Then all the men of his town shall stone him to death. You must purge the evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid.
kochmoney 1 year, 4 months ago
We're pretty likely go look him up in jail, according to the Donohue-Levitt analysis.
kochmoney 1 year, 4 months ago
So insure that every child is a wanted child.
kochmoney 1 year, 4 months ago
Ah yes. That homophone slip reminds me that we've now regulated the private insurance industry to ensure that they adhere to your religious beliefs, too. Good catch.
Point remains that a society in which every child is a choice is a society with less crime, and the data backs it up. You can reduce the number of people making the (still legal) choices with which you disagree by making sure they've got education, health care, birth control, and access to upward economic mobility. Or you can continue to spout meaningless rhetoric about fetal cell "murder," pretend that embryos are "children," force rape and incest victims to birth, and continue with policies that only make life more miserable for everyone in the name of your rigid belief system.
Oh, and you get adverse economic policies shoved into your wedge issues by sociopathic "social issues" politicians at no extra cost. You've been played like a violin.
kochmoney 1 year, 4 months ago
So, you've chose the path of idiotic rhetoric and will now label nonviable fetuses, zygotes, and assorted other products of conception as "babies," because it removes moral uncertainty you face when you force raped women and incest victims to birth. Now, I realize that most abortions don't happen because of rape or incest, but if you allow exceptions, it means you can justify what you call murder.
kochmoney 1 year, 4 months ago
Sorry, that should be "chosen."
cait48 1 year, 4 months ago
These were illegal abortions; the equivalent of the back alley. Which is exactly what you and your ilk want to drive women back to.
lunacydetector 1 year, 4 months ago
if the abortions in maryland were performed prior to 2005, they would have been perfectly legal.
ivalueamerica 1 year, 4 months ago
I realize you defy the Constitution of the United States by defying the Supreme Court who has determined that Abortion is a legal medical procedure, but that only makes you a traitor to America.
I realize you defy the Bible who instructs priests to perform abortions on unwed mothers, but that only makes you a traitor to God.
I realize you defy the Bible who states very clearly to render unto Cesar that which is Cesar's, but that only makes you a traitor of the Bible.
I realize you defy honesty because if 51% of the people were pro choice, you still would find an excuse why my tax dollars should be spent to defeat it, but that only makes you a traitor to the truth.
UnAmerican, UnChristian, , UnBiblical, dishonest.
God bless you.
ivalueamerica 1 year, 4 months ago
you have no morals or values, you only have sides, you are without honor
You make your points dishonestly, you are a liar.
You do so in the name of God, you are a false witness.
You offer nothing of value to the discussion.
ivalueamerica 1 year, 4 months ago
yes, every time you lie, I will call you a liar.
If that bothers you, 2 suggestions.
Stop repeating lies
At least stop posting them in my eyesight
Otherwise, as often as you lie, I will expose you as a liar.
ivalueamerica 1 year, 4 months ago
no, it is much more simple than that, the problem is when someone says something that is verifiable not true to make their point, they are a liar.
And there are plenty of examples of me calling out the left when they bypass the truth as well.
You are called a liar because you lie, not because of what side of the political spectrum you support.
lunacydetector 1 year, 4 months ago
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 1 year, 4 months ago
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 1 year, 4 months ago
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 1 year, 4 months ago
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.
Scribeoflight 1 year, 4 months ago
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 1 year, 4 months ago
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.
pace 1 year, 4 months ago
Brownback's job program, create a bunch of oppressive and prescriptive laws, hire lawyers. Then the lawyers can hire more lawyers.
deec 1 year, 4 months ago
Since you seem to dislike adultery, I assume you do not support two-time adulterer the newt?
LarryNative 1 year, 4 months ago
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 1 year, 4 months ago
Unborn fetuses that would theoretically require even more funding for school.
citizen1 1 year, 4 months ago
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 1 year, 4 months ago
If the State would stop restricting people's freedoms then there wouldn't be anything to sue over.
khunt 1 year, 4 months ago
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 1 year, 4 months ago
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 1 year, 4 months ago
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 1 year, 4 months ago
Didn't say that. Just that the women decides what happens, when, where & how.
jafs 1 year, 4 months ago
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 1 year, 4 months ago
No one has the right to kill a child.
They do have the right to abort a fetus before viability.
vertigo 1 year, 4 months ago
It comes down to intent then doesn't it? Does the parent intend to give birth or not?
If they do then the fetus will likely become a child and they are then endangering it.
If they have no intention of giving birth...
vertigo 1 year, 4 months ago
So it appears the state should stop writing illegal legislation which would put an end to the lawsuits thus saving us much more money.
Kathy Getto 1 year, 4 months ago
@ 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.
Kathy Getto 1 year, 4 months ago
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".
Kathy Getto 1 year, 4 months ago
Your google-fu is weak, grasshopper. Let me help.
http://www.bornagainamerican.org/take.html leads you here: http://www.pfaw.org/
Kathy Getto 1 year, 4 months ago
:-)
vertigo 1 year, 4 months ago
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?
jafs 1 year, 4 months ago
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.
jafs 1 year, 4 months ago
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 1 year, 4 months ago
Abortion is murder. Using my tax dollars for your contraceptive is stealing!
toe 1 year, 4 months ago
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 1 year, 4 months ago
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 1 year, 4 months ago
Ah, so this is where all the jobs development money went... lawyers!
Same firm that works for Kochs?
brianjay1 1 year, 4 months ago
Or relatively cheap protection of little people
Commenting has been disabled for this item.