Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.
Posted on 02/27/2005 10:22:22 PM PST by Former Military Chick
In a shocking abuse of office, the attorney general of Kansas is conducting a stealth campaign to violate the privacy of about 90 women who obtained late-term abortions, offering the flimsy claim that he's looking for evidence of crime.
Protected by a sweeping gag order from a local judge, Attorney General Phill Kline has been demanding the women's records from two clinics that have been unable to even warn clients that their intimate histories are being sought. When the inquiry finally came to light through a court brief, Mr. Kline maintained that he needed all the women's records - including their identities, sexual histories, clinical profiles and birth control methods - to prosecute statutory rape and other suspected sexual crimes.
Kansans deserve a full explanation of this gross intrusion into medical confidences that are supposed to be carefully protected by law. But Mr. Kline, a fervid anti-abortion campaigner throughout his career as a Republican politician, would not answer reporters' questions about his investigation. "Clinics should not act to protect the secrecy of the predator," he insisted in a statement, offering a blanket smear in lieu of a proper explanation.
Mr. Kline's campaign echoes a similar salvo last year by Attorney General John Ashcroft. Federal judges eventually cited privacy laws to stop his attempt to forage through hundreds of records at a half-dozen hospitals. Two years ago, Mr. Kline called on health-care providers to report underage sexual activity, but a federal judge ruled him out of line. Mr. Kline deserves another rebuff, beginning with the suspension of the gag order.
The targeted clinics say they have observed state requirements to report possible crimes. They have filed an appeal to the State Supreme Court, complaining that Mr. Kline is conducting a fishing expedition, not a case-specific inquiry. The clinics have suggested a compromise - that the identities of the women be blacked out with the option for more information from any whose records might yield evidence of crimes like statutory rape.
It's not at all clear how that crime is linked in particular to late-term abortions, which just happen to be the current target of Republican anti-abortion activists across the country. Late-term abortions - beyond 22 weeks of gestation - are illegal in Kansas, except when they are done to protect a woman's health. But Mr. Kline offers no evidence to suggest he has any legal ground to justify pawing through the confidential records of the 90 women he has targeted for his mission of harassment. As for predatory abuse of girls under the age of sexual consent, they could have obtained abortions earlier than 22 weeks.
There is no disputing that Mr. Kline has the duty and power to uphold the law. No one wishes child abusers to walk free. But Mr. Kline also has privacy laws to uphold. His demand for the clinics' records is not only insupportable legally; it smacks of an ideological dragnet.
With the gag order it is my belief we are still missing many parts of the puzzle. But, it is still a damn good editorial to discuss.
Another concern I have about this issue is why aren't the doctors already abiding by the law.
Isn't it their job to report a crime. Is it not the job of the police to decide if a crime has been committed and then to take it to the DA for further review.
I am just at the beginning of this issue and perhaps there will be others who might have a bit more insight on this current issue facing Kansans?
I do not agree with the left that it is about abortions front or backdoor but I am not sure I agree with the government retaining my records from my doctor to make sure I was of age, not raped, that the abortion was done in the time legally set up for the procedure.
I do have concerns on this issue.
Very late abortion is illegal in Kansas. The left does not accept this. The want this law to die as unenforceable, by pretending the same privacy arguments they have repeatedly tried to claim establish abortion on demand as a fundamental constitutional right, prevent anyone ever knowing whether a very late abortion has occurred.
The law as stated contains the exception, unless necessary for the health of the woman. This is meant for legitimate cases of medical necessity, complications during pregnancy. The clinics opposed to any enforcement of the law, wish to exploit the existence of this legitimate exception, to claim a very late abortion occurring is in itself no evidence of that the law has been violated. Because "maybe" there was such a necessity. And, the kicker, nobody is allowed to ask if there really was, because that is "private".
Which would make the law dead letter. So the AG wants to see records, that would substantiate or refute the idea, that there actually were was any such necessity in these cases. He does so by citing his other legitimate duties that might require the same medical information, because it is well established, legally speaking, that clinics have no absolute right to withhold such records, when by doing so they are protecting criminal acts. Indeed, they have duty to disclose medical evidence of potential crimes, to the responsible authorities. They just refuse to recognize very late abortions as crimes.
If the AG gets the records, he is sure to find that there have not been any medical necessities in the cases in question. That is why the clinics are livid and the NYT is wading it to defend them with fire and brimstone. As soon as the AG legally knows (he personally knows it already) as a matter of medical record and thereby legal fact, that the exception clause does not apply, these were criminal actions under the present no very late abortions Kansas law.
This is all part of the left's refusal to accept any regulation of even the most barbaric procedures in this area - partial birth abortion etc. They just do not want to admit any role for legislation on the matter. And the AG is determined to show that there is, that the Kansas law is actually a law in Kansas, and cannot be flouted by leftists with impunity. Their private ideology is not the law.
There are four people one should always feel free to discuss the most intimate details of one's life with: Their spouse; their Pastor/Priest (or other such clergy); their lawyer; and their physician.
Not sure where I come down on this yet, either, but, as you say, it is important to discuss.
I have met Phil Kline and he is a nice guy. He also has been the target of vicious attacks from the left all his political life.
This is not a fishing expedition. And the clinics who aborted these girls were required to report that girls this young had sexual intercourse with someone. There are also specific reasons for the other 12 people. The Times is basing its editorial on a false statement of the facts.
Congressman Billybob
So if my physician supports my heroin habit, it's private. Okay? Agreed a line has to be drawn, and it is always between a confidant and teller. But absolute legal confidence requires discretion by the teller, and legal conduct by the confidant.
Thank you. You made a sound argument without having to saying anything that would bring an emotional reply.
If a doctor breaks the law then he should be called on to the carpet. But, what do other states do. I can understand how those who value privacy are concerned?
Granted the following might not be the best example but when Rush's medical records were pulled to see the doctors that were writing script's (doctor shopping felt it was wrong -- privacy and all) to put the doc's and Rush accountable if they broke the law. It is a slippery slope.
Nice way to put words in my mouth, but I never said any such thing.
Perhaps subtlety eludes you, but I stated my ambiguity about the matter forthrightly, your cheap attempt to cast aspersions notwithstanding.
Agreed a line has to be drawn
And that is where the rub comes in: where should that line be drawn? That is the question I believe the poster of this thread asked us to discuss--not some phony hypothetical falsely attributed, as you posited here.
And I said that there are times such confidence should not be respected. I merely used an example to illustrate my point. As for the case in hand, I have no probelm whatsoever with Kansas law enforcement asking discretely for records of abortions, in order to enforce its abortion laws.
Our local WB affiliate a few years ago called 100 abortion clinics and pretended to be a minor who was imnpregnated by an older man, statutory rape... only 1 would obey the law... and she was a minor but she just had to bring in an adult to pretend to be a parent, the abortion clinics said that too.
BUMP, see #10
On the other hand, if the police think that a crime might have been committed, but need the medical records even to establish that a crime has been committed. then they should not get a warrant. Keep in mind that either way, a judge or magistrate has to rule on whether there is "probable cause."
John / Billybob
Not quite, but nice try. What you attempted to do was the old juvenile, pedestrian trick of trying to associate a deplorable behavior with a position I did not take in an effort to discredit a truism I stated.
As a rule, those four examples of confidential communication should stand; in practice there are certainly instances where they shouldn't.
It's one of the oldest trick postures in the world when it comes to debating (and one of the smarmiest, I might add) predicated along these lines:
Would you support shoving an old woman down in the street?
Well, no, of course not...
Ah-ha! So if someone pushed down an old woman in the street to avoid her being run over by a truck, you'd be against that!?! Answer yes or no!!!
Some of us have been around long enough to recognize the pattern of those whom "debate" by impugning phony "beliefs" to those they disagree with, and they always howl that it was just an innocent "example" the way you just did when called on it. But, as I say, nice try...
I was quite clear in my language and you are acting like a troll.
No, you weren't: you made an utterly bogus, phony implication, and tried to leave the vague impression that it somehow had something to do with a position I'd taken in the doing of it.
you are acting like a troll
Funny, I was thinking the same thing--about you.
BTW, is the passing smear the only way you know how to debate, or do you have another act you put on from time-to-time?
Slow down there bub. We're probably on the same wavelength. Reread our exchange.
Done.
Point (and it's a pretty good one) taken.
Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.
Per Time Magazine, some of the records sought were for women 16 (the age of consent) and above. Also the girls may have been impregnated by boys under the age of 16, if a 13-year old boy impregnates a 14-year old girl, is he guilty of statutory rape? I would think that impregnation by boys in the girls own age cohort would be the most common situation; which means that, unless young teenage boys are going to be prosecuted for statutory rape, pregnancy is not prima facie evidence that a crime has been committed.
What is the difference between this case and Rush Limbaugh's case? In both cases the authorities want to look at medical records to find out if a crime has been committed. In Rushes case the left is for this and the right is against it. In this case, the right is for this and the left is against it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.