Advertisement

Archive for Thursday, September 6, 2012

Kansas doctor wants license back in abortion case

September 6, 2012

Advertisement

— An attorney for a Kansas doctor sanctioned over her referrals of young patients for late-term abortions says a court battle she's started to regain her medical license is likely to be lengthy.

Kelly Kauffman, an attorney representing Dr. Ann Kristin Neuhaus, said Thursday it's likely to take two years or more to settle the challenge filed by Neuhaus in Shawnee County District Court.

Neuhaus hopes to overturn the State Board of Healing Arts decision in June to revoke her medical license.

The board ratified an administrative judge's earlier finding that Neuhaus didn't perform adequate mental health exams on 11 young patients she referred in 2003 to the late George Tiller, the Wichita physician who performed late-term abortions. Neuhaus filed her court petition last month and strongly disputes the allegations.

Comments

SageonPage 2 years, 1 month ago

This woman is no friend of women or defenseless children in the womb. Her license should never be restored, she needs to find a way to become a poster child for B.O. , or perhaps get a job in Kathleen Sebelius office promoting abortions, and arguing with the Holy See.

2

kuguardgrl13 2 years, 1 month ago

Defenseless children in the womb? This doctor approved a late term abortion for a mentally disabled TEN YEAR OLD. A ten year old is not a woman. That's still a little girl. Very few girls that age even have their monthly cycle, although it's becoming more and more common. No child should have to give birth to another child, especially if they are disabled. Can you honestly expect that little girl to be a good mother just because she's female? Not all mothering is second nature to us. There's a level of maturity that girls and teens have not reached yet. Would you willingly pay taxes that go to make sure that baby is healthy and that that mother can maybe graduate high school and get a job to support her child? Shame on you. Back in the middle ages, young girls became mothers, but they also had husbands and families to support them. In this day and age, I can't support a society that forces a child to have a child. Teenage girls who mess around made a choice. Little girls generally don't make that kind of choice. They want to have pretend families with their dolls. Let them.

6

Cait McKnelly 2 years, 1 month ago

I would also point out that in the time periods when it was acceptable for 13 year olds to marry and have babies, general life expectancy was in the early forties, maternal mortality was over 30%, mostly due to puerperal fever but some of which was undoubtedly due to children having children.

1

Mike1949 2 years, 1 month ago

No one ever said that we don't have messed up people here in Kansas. But this far right dictatorship has to stop before everyone looses their rights!

1

Cait McKnelly 2 years, 1 month ago

Every single case with which Dr. Neuhaus was charged in this kangaroo court was of a girl 15 years old or younger, Sage, This was not an "isolated case". As for "sealed medical records", they are sealed. No names were named, no locations given; but the ages of the children involved in this case were given as part of the phony charge. You want to protect "innocent life" then protect the girls this happened to. Oh, I forgot. They had sex, willingly or no, so as far as you're concerned they're s***s and deserve what they get.

0

Armored_One 2 years, 1 month ago

So who, in your judgment, should be appointed by the court to be the represenative of the child, since it is supposed to have full and complete legal protection?

How does this person, or group of people, communicate with said 'individual' to convey, in any sense of the term, it's wishes?

What will be the vetting process to ensure that there is no ulterior motivations in the represenatives for the 'unborn individual', including influences of religion or personal perspectives? Also, what will be the process for disputing said person's theoretical objectivity if there is concern on the part of the 'gestating woman' in regards to the comments and actions of the represenative of the 'unborn individual'?

In essence, since I doubt you have much, if any, answer to any of the above questions, you simply want the choice removed from the woman for the sake of your own personal beliefs.

An additional question, that I know will also not be adequately answered, would be would there be a punishment for a woman that engaged in an abortion, assuming that they are outlawed? The punishment for performing said abortion? What would the classification of said crime be? What kind of parole options would be available? Legal defenses permissible?

And above all...

If a woman has an abortion to protest a law banning abortion, would you willingly and gladly support her right to petition the government for redress? Yes, I know that would be extreme, but in this day and age, do you honestly think a lawyer won't conceive of attempting this exact type of defense?

0

msezdsit 2 years, 1 month ago

Hopefully she won't get a kangaroo court this time. The trial can't be in this bigoted state where the government wants to force women to live their lives as the bigoted right wingers demand of women to live their lives. Stealing this womens means of working and making a living is just another demand the government is willing to impose on women that don't obey them.

2

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 2 years, 1 month ago

"Not just women, but all law-breakers..."

Hmm, so women are now law-breakers by mere fact of their gender.

4

Cait McKnelly 2 years, 1 month ago

So all LIBERAL women are lawbreakers. If we aren't barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen making our man a sandwich, we deserve jail. NOW I get it!

4

Glenn Reed 2 years, 1 month ago

I'm sure a decent owner would have shod their women, at the least... :P

2

Liberty275 2 years, 1 month ago

Shodding women is expensive! I go though one pair of shoes per year while my wife can't leave the house without a new pair.

1

Katara 2 years, 1 month ago

I don't know why you bother to respond to him, cait48. He is just a caricature of a right winger and is just upping the crazy to get the attention he craves.

And you have to remember that this is the same guy who time and time again believes he is insulting male posters on this forum by referring to them as being effeminate or not "real men".

In other words, he is nothing but a big fat joke.

3

Glenn Reed 2 years, 1 month ago

You're an easy read. I don't think any of the ladies misunderstood your thought process, such that it is, anyway.

I wrote some other stuff down, but it isn't all that polite...

1

cowboy 2 years, 1 month ago

Get yur Romney Ryan 2012  Magic Underwear
Show yur woman who's boss
Not available for women / must present proper ID to puchase

Get yur Romney Ryan 2012 Magic Underwear Show yur woman who's boss Not available for women / must present proper ID to puchase by cowboy

3

Liberty275 2 years, 1 month ago

What makes them magical?

Also, since one of the magical underwears has room for breasts, and since they aren't available for women, I take it they are for pre-op transgender cult members that have already had hormone therapy.

0

Cait McKnelly 2 years, 1 month ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

0

Kathy Getto 2 years, 1 month ago

Oh my, now cait has been censored!! However will us poor liberal women get that coveted affirmation?

2

Liberty275 2 years, 1 month ago

One last generation of liberalism. Not a bad idea in theory, but it is unconstitutional. Why don't we just let Obamacare rid America of liberalism? When 30 years olds have to choose between an acceptable home and health insurance they never use, they'll flush progressivism down the toilet and turn on the fan to get rid of the stench of theft that goes with it.

0

Glenn Reed 2 years, 1 month ago

Small skirmish in a large conflict.

I hope she gets her license back.

1

Cait McKnelly 2 years, 1 month ago

Except she wasn't convicted in a court of law. She was convicted by a regulatory board whose appointments were influenced by politics. The appeals process is just now bringing it into court.

1

Cait McKnelly 2 years, 1 month ago

By the way, an appeals court can ONLY rule on whether or not the law was followed and whether there were any errors made in the decision making process, itself. It cannot reverse the decision of a lower court or regulatory proceeding for any other reason. The members of the board better hope they dotted their "i's" and crossed their "t's".

2

Kathy Getto 2 years, 1 month ago

The blahs: a feeling of physical uneasiness, general discomfort, depression, malaise. Gosh, hope you get to feeling better soon. :-)

4

akt2 2 years, 1 month ago

If she is allowed to practice again she should retain a child psychologist on staff. All future mental health evaluations for pregnant children could be referred to that professional. They could take it a step further and submit the final reports to the courts and social service agencies for further follow-up.

0

jjinks 2 years, 1 month ago

Let's see if I got this right, she kills babies for a living and wants her license, what could ever be wrong with that? The society is so lucky to have a killer like that! They don't even have to go to prison for murder.

And folks wonder what happened to the morals of this country.

1

paulveer 2 years, 1 month ago

no problem, we have you here to judge everybody.

1

Liberty275 2 years, 1 month ago

If she get's her license back, maybe she can afford better software and actually care about her job enough to do it properly this time around.

We can only hope.

"she kills babies for a living"

She rubber-stamped cases for Tiller the parasite killer. I'm under the impression she did none of the actual killing for some years before they took her license for doing shoddy work.

"And folks wonder what happened to the morals of this country."

People figured out the "morals" in this country were based on a book of lies and abandoned them. Unfortunately, most Americans were subject to "morals" long enough to forget how to be ethical. Now they are neither.

0

Deb Engstrom 2 years, 1 month ago

Because they are indeed what you said they are. It goes with the territory. I can't imagine that anyone who spouts this supposedly pro-life rhetoric has ever been in a position of needing to make this decision. I'm so glad that the pro-choice option was available to me and others I care about. I hope she is able to get her license back after doing the right thing in a very tough situation.

1

jonas_opines 2 years, 1 month ago

Morals are based on books of lies!

Now let me tell you about ethics!!

lmao

0

Liberty275 2 years, 1 month ago

Gay marriage is ethical. It is not moral according to the people that follow the book of lies. Choose your side.

1

jonas_opines 2 years, 1 month ago

"Choose your side."

Doesn't matter. Ethics are relative to the individual, morals are relative to the individual, and ultimately it's only about power.

Ask 100 people of disparate origins, learnings, and backgrounds what the correct way to behave is, and you'll get, in essence, the exact same answer at least 9 times out of 10.

My way is.

/and I hope you're still not trying to claim you're a nihilist.

0

Daniel Speicher 2 years, 1 month ago

I am not going to delve into the religious side of this debate. But, I have an honest question to ask those who are pro-choice. I'm not trying to be disrespectful, I simply am looking to further understand your point.

From a sheerly scientific standpoint, how can you deny that a fetus is anything less than a human life? It is a unique organism with it's own unique DNA, comprising of strands from both the father and the mother. It cannot and will not become anything but a living, breathing human if allowed to mature to gestation. Never before has a person had sex, the egg been fertilized and nine months later, an amoeba was born or a cancerous tumor was somehow formed in place of the fetus. A fetus, scientifically, is the earliest stage of a human life. Now, I understand we have differences of opinion. And, I'm not going to sit here and condemn every person who believes otherwise because my scientific understanding and my religious belief dictate a different way of seeing this. (And, I hope you can do the same for me.)

I truly wish to understand your viewpoint.

Respectfully, Danny Speicher

0

jafs 2 years, 1 month ago

A fetus is a developing organism that will, given certain conditions, and a fair amount of luck, develop into a human being.

Given other conditions, it will fail to do so.

In my view, it is neither simply a part of a woman's body, nor is it a separate life - it's something in between. Before the point of viability outside the womb, it's more like part of the mother's body, and after that point, it's more like a separate life.

This complexity and ambiguity makes it a very difficult issue, because most people seem to want to oversimplify things like this.

In a perfect world, I'd like to see many fewer unwanted unplanned pregnancies, and those carried to term and adopted (except for rape, incest, etc.).

Perhaps you can explain why pro-life folks seem uninterested in a variety of things that help prevent unwanted pregnancies, and why they seem to lose interest in people once born.

1

Katara 2 years, 1 month ago

" Never before has a person had sex, the egg been fertilized and nine months later, an amoeba was born or a cancerous tumor was somehow formed in place of the fetus."

Molar pregnancy

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0001907/

This situation is a case where fertilization occurs & something else is formed in the place of a fetus.

0

Katara 2 years, 1 month ago

" It cannot and will not become anything but a living, breathing human if allowed to mature to gestation."

Stone baby http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithopedion

Ectopic pregnancy http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0001897/

fetal death in utero (stillbirth) http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/259165-overview

These are situations in which your statement is not accurate or true.

0

osi 2 years, 1 month ago

I am pro-choice. I would never deny that a human fetus is not human life but it resides in the mother's body for months. Without the mother it can not live. It is her responsibility and hers alone. While I appreciate fathers being involved and supporting. It is natural that the woman has this choice and God gave that responsibility to women to carry that baby. If a mother cannot care for her baby or does not want the baby, the government should not be allowed to force her to birth the child. If you want to look at what would happen if the government took over control of women's reproduction look to Romania when abortion and birth control were outlawed in 1966. Watch the documentary Children Underground. All children should be wanted when they are born. It is very important to their early development that they are wanted and loved. The government can force a women to have a baby (if they outlaw abortion) but they can't force her to love it or want it.

0

paulveer 2 years, 1 month ago

Danny, Yes, your post is respectful, but if you hadn't filled it full of your personal beliefs in order to prove a point, I would more likely believe that you truly wish to understand.

0

Daniel Speicher 2 years, 1 month ago

Those personal beliefs are what I believe to be scientific. Surely you aren't saying that I can't state my point of view before you state yours. I am, in fact, trying to understand why the view that a fetus is not a human is considered scientifically viable, whereas the opposite is not.

0

Katara 2 years, 1 month ago

There is no view that a fetus is not human. The fetus is not a person (yet) and has not achieved personhood.

0

Daniel Speicher 2 years, 1 month ago

Okay... I definitely understand your logic. And, I thank you for your response and not trying to make me look like an idiot which seems to be the go-to response from both sides of any argument on this forum. But, let me ask you this, then... What defines an independent human life?

0

paulveer 2 years, 1 month ago

Danny, I apologize for the tone of my post. It was not my intention to make you look like an idiot. I commend you for your desire to understand the viewpoints of others.

0

Daniel Speicher 2 years, 1 month ago

I understand the argument for fetal viability. And, I can definitely understand why this has become the status quo for the scientific community's view of human life. And, while I appreciate the well-thought out answers by you, ag... I want you to understand where I'm coming from as well, so bear with me as I tell you where my mind goes when I think of abortion.

First off, I'm not a religious zealot... I don't support condemning young ladies (or even grown women) who make the choice to abort their baby (or fetus). I believe there are only a handful of women each year who flippantly make such a decision. Most women struggle with this decision before pulling the trigger and doing what they feel is best for them and their family. Even if they make the decision flippantly, even then I don't condemn, because I have a hard time believing they would make a decision so flippantly if they believed that was a human life. And, as such... It comes down to that. Whereas I believe it is a human life, they do not. And, as it is a simple difference of opinion, I can't very well stand in judgment, as I would hope that no one would stand in judgment of me when and if I practiced something that was entirely legal that was abhorrent to the beliefs of others... Especially if that decision was for the benefit of my family or my success.

Having said all of that, do I oppose this practice being legal? Yes. And, it is for this reason and this reason alone: Life. For what it's worth, I understand that every religion (or lack of religion) has a different view on the beginning of life. I recognize that. But, what disturbs me about these differences is that science, to this day, cannot tell me when life begins... Not with any certainty. Even the wiki link you sent, ag, stated, "There is no sharp limit of development, age, or weight at which a fetus automatically becomes viable." The link even goes on to talk about this story (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6384621.stm) which talks about a baby born at 21 weeks and six days. The baby not only lived, but is, as far as I could find, not only living, but THRIVING (http://www.growingyourbaby.com/2008/10/25/amillia-taylor-turns-2/), or at least was at two years old in 2008.

So, I say all of that to say this... It is a guessing game, at best, is it not? By all accounts, under current regulations, could baby Amelia not been aborted at the time she was born? And, in theory, if her mother had chosen that, would she not be ending a human life? No, not every 21 week old is viable... But, if that is our measure, how do we know which fetuses would have and which would not? Is it not reasonable to say that, even if we don't agree when life begins, we can agree that life CAN begin much earlier than we once assumed? And, the 50 million fetuses aborted were, at least in part, also viable human beings? And, if that is true... Have we not killed them, unknowingly?

((continued below))

0

Daniel Speicher 2 years, 1 month ago

((continued from previous))

Even though I believe we have. And, even though I believe that life begins far before "viability", I still don't condemn. But, I do question this. And, really, this is the question I hope some of you answer. If we knew that at least some of those fetuses were viable humans... Would we still make the choice to abort? Even if it meant having to carry the fetus to term... And go through the headache of the adoption process... Or, mothering (and fathering) the child and giving up some of our dreams to give them the chance to dream... Would we make a different choice if we knew they were actually alive?

Maybe not. But, the way I see it and the way I have seen it thus far... Is that if even one of those 50 million fetuses were a human life, than we have made a grave error in putting one life as more important than the other. We wouldn't put a gun to the head of a one year old because it was inconvenient for a parent. We wouldn't cut the throat of a two year old because they reminded us of a person who violated us. So, if we believe that even one of those fetuses was a human life, why is it okay, then, to abort a fetus because it is inconvenient or causes emotional strain?

I ask these questions, still, legitimately wanting to find at least a common viewpoint or something I can understand. Whereas my heart breaks for those who have gone through tragedies such as rape, I do question how two wrongs, as it were, makes a right... If we can agree that killing an innocent party is wrong and that the fetus within may very well be a viable human and, therefore, the very definition of innocent.

Thanks for reading. Please don't judge me harshly for the questions I ask... And, please don't mistake me for someone who dismisses the emotional agony of those who have experienced rape, for I am neither. I just want to know where the common ground lies.

--Danny

0

Daniel Speicher 2 years, 1 month ago

:) What does this have to do with anything?

0

notajayhawk 2 years, 1 month ago

And for the $64,000 question, what's the definition of "late term" abortion in this state? (Actually, and more pertinent to this case, at what point is the referral from a second physician necessary?)

0

scarlett 2 years, 1 month ago

All of the convos about abortion are useless. A woman's right to choose abortion is the law of the land. Backward states like kansas are doing everything they can to prevent that right. Little girls, disabled or not, should not be forced to have a child. Punishing the doctor is ridiculous. The doctor in this case was more compassionate by far than any of the white right winger nut jobs ever dreamed of being. Being christian is just a dream for them and a means to judge people and try to force them to obey their own beliefs. If any one of them thinks that women in this country are going back to the dark ages they are mistaken and, frankly, delusional. I hope the doctor in this case is soon a doctor again and that it's proven that the whole to-do is nothing more than political maneuvering.

3

Daniel Speicher 2 years, 1 month ago

I, for one, don't disagree with you. I believe the doctors (as well as the girls and women, themselves) believe they are doing what's best. It's a difference of opinion as to when life begins. I don't fault anyone for having it done or those doing the procedure. Having said that, my opposition lies in this...

If I am correct and life does begin at conception (or even earlier than the allowed timeframe in which abortions can be performed), than we are killing innocent humans by allowing abortions to occur. This is where my dilemma lies.

0

notajayhawk 2 years, 1 month ago

Despite the efforts of Dr Neuhaus, and the usual knee-jerk liberals in Lawrence, trying to turn this into a women's rights issue, it's not. It's a professional competence issue. There are only two possibilities here, either 1) that she didn't perform the assessments or 2) that she did but didn't document them, as she claims. Here's the thing: EITHER ONE of those is cause for a finding of professional incompetence and losing her license, and not just in Kansas, but anywhere in this country.

Sorry for the interuption, please resume your self-righteous and totally irrelevant rants.

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.