Kansas has found a means to investigate underage sexual activity and chill abortion rights simultaneously.

The state government has subpoenaed abortion clinic records in their investigation of underage sexual intercourse.  The investigative technique being applied here flies in the face of physician/client privilege.  As explained in the link, they would also be developing information as to whether the doctors followed Kansas law to the letter in their abortion procedures.

They pre-suppose that there are multiple instances of females 16 years and younger being impregnated by males over 16.  It is a situation of placing the cart before the horse.  They do not even have the justification of investigating single, known incidents of statutory rape, but instead are conducting a broad fishing expedition.

The goal is multiple, but has a common theme--  imposition of a morality check on the populace.  Sound like someone in Kansas  is going to be seeking higher office some day!

this is a blatant attempt by a prolife atty general to put fear into any woman who seeks to get a legal procedure

i cant believe the courts are allowing this, and i hope the aclu and now take up this cause and fight this fascist in the courts

Both posters have manipulated the details to substantiate BS arguments.

From the CNN article:
"Kline is seeking the records of girls who had abortions and women who received late-term abortions. Sex involving someone under 16 is illegal in Kansas, and it is illegal in the state for doctors to perform an abortion after 22 weeks unless there is reason to believe it is needed to protect the mother's health."

Note the two legal issues: sex under 16, and post 22 weeks.

"The clinics said Kline demanded their complete, unedited medical records for women who sought abortions at least 22 weeks into their pregnancies in 2003, as well as those for girls 15 and younger who sought abortions. Court papers did not identify the clinics."

Clearly he asked for records that would indicate potential violation of the law.

"The clinics, which said nearly 90 women and girls would be affected, are offering to provide records with some key information, including names, edited out."

So you have the state Attorney General doing his job, and overzealous posters distorting the story for cheap political attacks. Why does that not surprise me considering the general leanings of the posters on this board.

Would that I were misrepresenting the article, then I would feel a whole lot better.

The Kansas A.G.'s overbroad request for records includes "the patient's name, medical history, details of her sex life, birth control practices and psychological profile."  Tell me: How is this relevant to an investigation of underage sexual intercourse and late term abortions?

Physician-patient privilege is sacred.  Such investigatory tactics can only prompt those under sixteen to go back to the old back-alley system of incompetent abortion practitioners, or worse, in order to avoid the overreach of the religious right.

These are the same types of people who want to restrict the distribution of contraceptive devices.  If they had their way, they would also be demanding that drug stores keep records of every condom purchase, and check the identification of every purchaser, with the goal in mind to set society back to the days before Grisold v. Connecticut.

I maintain my bottom line.  The Kansas A.G. is seeking to appeal to the far right in his state, with his eye on other political offices.  The trend is dangerous and disturbing.

"The Kansas A.G.'s overbroad request for records includes "the patient's name, medical history, details of her sex life, birth control practices and psychological profile."  Tell me: How is this relevant to an investigation of underage sexual intercourse and late term abortions?"

Let me see.......since the laws ban underage sex and late term except in the case of medical necesity I think those requirements are pretty reasonable for criminal investigation.

And the laws regarding patient-physician information do allow for the release of that data if deemed necesary in a criminal investigation.

Pateint's Name - Gotta have contact information to get the details of the story.

Medical History - Well gee, is there some medical condition that might be relevant to the reason behind the abortion?

Details of sex life - The only thing I can figure a Dr. would een care about would be the number of partners. My Dr has never asked me about my history of partners, so I don't know what other info they might provide. That info would help with the underage investigation.

Birth Control Practices - If it's against the law for under 16 teens, why would a Dr. prescribe?

Psychological profile - Many reasons for this inclduing assisting the investigators with approaches for questioning, vulnerability for esatblishing culpability, further reasoning for the abortion.

As for recording contraceptive purchaases, that's a deliberate exaggeration on your part. You have no clue what they are after.

This story just feeds the liberal conspiracy agenda machinations.

Since the 1977 Supreme Court Decision in Carey v. Population Services International, states cannot legislatively prevent those under 16 from acquiring contraceptives. The Court explained: "Since the State may not impose a blanket prohibition, or even a blanket requirement of parental consent, on the choice of a minor to terminate her pregnancy, the constitutionality of a blanket prohibition of the distribution of contraceptives to minors is . . . foreclosed."

Nevertheless, certain states will continue to attempt to impose a right wing agenda unless we are willing to stand up for our rights, and our sexual freedoms.  The right has been pushing their agenda for years.

Am I overexaggerating how far the right wing is willing to go?  I dare say that I am not.  Our history is replete with examples of religious zealots doing whatever they can to impose their will on others.  And nothing bothers them more than human sexuality.

Be rest assured that if Roe v. Wade is ever overturned, the next step will be to attack contraceptives. And with several seats expected to open on the court before the end of Bush's term, they will certainly see how far they can go?

The Kansas A.G.'s request goes above and beyond legitimate "investigation"  For an additional perspective, please see the attached link to today's New York Times. Hope the link works, if not check their site under national news.  It is clear that he will try any method to enforce his view of the constitution, no matter how wrong it is.

It is still a fishing expedition. The DA has no reason to believe a crime has been committed at all. There is no "probable cause" here.

The DA knows it is not constitutional and will be dismissed (or dropped) on such grounds. They just want to intimidate women and doctors who are involved in abortion by exposure their privacy.

Jbird, I know we have some fights, but you are way too smart to not see this for what it is.

You're making an assumption based upon your liberal beliefs and prejudices.

The article made it clear that this was leaked information from a private investigation.

Perhaps the AG was responding to a child rape allegation. Some parents of a 14 yo found out that their daughter had an abortion and they filed a complaint. After prelim. investigation, there was enough information to warrant further invesigation. The information may have been pointing to an affiliated group of clinics that were violating state law.

My whole point was that the article seems to be accurateky reporting an ongoing investigation into violations of state law. If these laws are violatng constitutional law, then the case MUST be allowed to proceed through the court system.

You both jumped on this story as some type of gross miscarriage of justice. The actual miscarriage would have been if the AG had NOT followed through on the case. It seems that both sides (libe & conserv.) are quick to scream about obeying the "letter of the law", but only when it benefits THEIR arguments.

Some Jefferson perspectives that are appropriate:

"The will of the people... is the only legitimate foundation of any government, and to protect its free expression should be our first object." --Thomas Jefferson to Benjamin Waring, 1801. ME 10:236

"All... being equally free, no one has a right to say what shall be law for the others. Our way is to put these questions to the vote, and to consider that as law for which the majority votes." --Thomas Jefferson: Address to the Cherokee Nation, 1809. ME 16:456

"The fundamental principle of [a common government of associated States] is that the will of the majority is to prevail." --Thomas Jefferson to William Eustis, 1809.

"[With a majority] having declared against [our proposal], we must suppose we are wrong, according to the fundamental law of every society, the lex majoris partis, to which we are bound to submit." --Thomas Jefferson to David Humphreys, 1789. ME 7:324

"If we are faithful to our country, if we acquiesce, with good will, in the decisions of the majority, and the nation moves in mass in the same direction, although it may not be that which every individual thinks best, we have nothing to fear from any quarter." --Thomas Jefferson to Virginia Baptists, 1808. ME 16:321

"We are sensible of the duty and expediency of submitting our opinions to the will of the majority, and can wait with patience till they get right if they happen to be at any time wrong." --Thomas Jefferson to John Breckenridge, 1800.

"It is my principle that the will of the majority should prevail. If they approve the proposed constitution in all its parts, I shall concur in it cheerfully, in hopes that they will amend it whenever they shall find it works wrong. This reliance cannot deceive us, as long as we remain virtuous." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1787. (Forrest version) ME 6:392

"If the measures which have been pursued are approved by the majority, it is the duty of the minority to acquiesce and conform." --Thomas Jefferson to William Duane, 1811. ME 13:51

"Laws made by common consent must not be trampled on by individuals." --Thomas Jefferson to Garret Vanmeter, 1781. ME 4:417, Papers 5:566

"It is not probable that local discontents can spread to such an extent as to be able to faze the sound parts of so extensive a Union; and if ever they should reach the majority, they would then become the regular government, acquire the ascendency in Congress and be able to redress their own grievances by laws peaceably and constitutionally passed." --Thomas Jefferson to A. L. C. Destutt de Tracy, 1811. ME 13:20

"State health records show that 78 Kansans younger than 15 received abortions in 2003 and that 491 abortions were performed past the 22nd week of pregnancy, though the late-term abortions were not broken down by the patients' ages."

If the laws exist, these statistics are clear violations. It is the AG's responsibility to push this as far as he can.

The opinions expressed by representatives of both sides who are NOT parties to the investigation/action are irrelevant and merely OPINIONS.

I say let it go all the way through the court system WITHOUT the editorialization and accusation based upon interepretation with no factual information.

If the federal courts declare the KS law unconstitutional, so be it.

And you should assume that no crime has been committed until you have information that gives you a "reasonable cause" that a crime HAS been committed too. Thas is what the Jurist Prudence system is built upon.

You are basically saying that THEY DO have probabe cause, we just do not know what it is. Fine. But you have no way of knowing that either since conveniently the "probable cause" part of the equation was NOT "leaked".

Therfore, until someone shows us the "probable cause" I will take this position.

HOWEVER, even *if* they have "probable cause" it does NOT mean they have the right to violate a doctor-client privelege.

The will of the majority does not apply here (other Jefferson quotes about human rights do apply though) -- this a BILL OF RIGHTS issue. In case you forgot, THE BILL OF RIGHTS was designed to protect the MINORITY from the MAJORITY on certain human and personal rights including the right to privacy, due process and the 5th amendmend against self-incrimination.

All of those rights are potentially being violated here as a means of intimidating women and doctors who have a ligitimate reason for having had appointments with each other.

You should be just as concerned as any of us. Where does this stuff stop? It is a slippery slope my friend...

...is a violation of the 5th amendment, and it completely changes the purpose for which this disclosure was required, thus breaking the intent of the law.  You quote Jefferson.  Jeffersonian principles are not going to stand at the end of this.  Instead of the will of the people, we are all going to end up with  Ken Starr-like prosecutors with unlimited latitude investigating all of us.  How would you like a personal Whitewater?  

Enjoy your tax break, JB, and save it, because it will be going to your defense lawyer.  

And no, I'm not going to wait and stifle my right to free speech like a good peasant while the court decides whether to discard my liberties.  

If the AG is successful, in the meantime, I will say that they are probably going to find that some late-term abortions        were performed illegally.  But pro-choice people need to stand up to the abortion industry and not let it drive the debate the way it has.  The problem is not that it's sleazier than any other industry, but it's as sleazy as any other.

my god, why do you neocons feel that we libs are stupid?

if this ag truly cared about stopping and prosecuting child rape, there are many other ways to go about it

why is the ag not asking for all records of all births from those under the age of 16?

simple, cuz he doesnt care

he just wants to forward his anti abortion agenda

as for late term abortions, since it is already illegal in kansas, what sane physician would perform one, unless he could prove it was medically neccessary?

dont play us for fools

this is just another example of the hypocracy of the red states

If we are aware that a law has been broken, it is a violation of our civil rights for the authorities to investigate and gather evidence to prosecute the crime?

That's what you imply.

There was evidence that 14 & 15 year olds in KS had abortions. I may only be a conservative, and I realize that you more liberal types have to descend from Mt. Olympus to mingle with us "inferior" types, but last time I heard-pregnancy required intercourse, and intercourse with a 14-15 year old is illegal under KS state law.

If Jeffersonian principles do not stand, then the Republic is doomed to fail because of selfish, self-centered, irresponsible people who cannot find and accept balance between the welfare of the republic and the welfare of the individual.

It's obvious to me that you have not familiarized yourself with Jefferson's perspective because that was his position. There MUST be balance between the rights of society and the rights of the individual.

Anyone whe believes in civil rights should very concerned with the outcome of this case, especially if it gets to the federal level. If the doctor-patient privilege is elimianted, what's next --  laywer-client, priest-confessee.

Some of you are making huge leaps here in assuming that crimes have been committed based simply on the numbers. The Kansas law provides exemptions to the 22 week standard if the health of the mother is an issue.  That includes not just physical health but mental health as well.  Also, one of the clinics being targeted by the AG is renowned for servicing out of state patients. So if a girl under 16 had sex in a different state where such activities are legal and then had an abortion in Kansas, where is the crime?

I have not seen any articles where this issue is addressed, but I would not be surprised if the A.G. has not attempted to obtain all birth records for females 16 and under.  Assuming he has not made this request, his anti-abortion witch hunt is even clearer.

... ask about births by women under 16.  after he handles all the cases there come back and talk about going after abortions.   If there is a law regarding late term abortiions in Kansas, he first has to prove that the abortion occured 22 weeks after conception (this isn't an exact science), and there was reason to believe the procedure was not medically necessary.  THEN he can sopena the records.

He may get some votes from the anit-abortion people in Kansas, but some court along the way is going to tell him he has his head up his ass.  That bullshit normally does not fly in front of a judge.

Harry

I guess that means you didn't read the entire article.

Or you skimmed it superficially and only keyed on items that validated your preconceived prejudices.

And I copied the entire paragraph, no editing.

You asked:
"So if a girl under 16 had sex in a different state where such activities are legal and then had an abortion in Kansas, where is the crime? "

That would be anwered by the records the AG is seeking. If the patient was identified as being from out of state, then the issue is whenter the abortion qualified as medically necessary.

My understanding is that these so-called priveleges can be overturend if the courts so decree, in the investigation of criminal activities they are not protected. It does require a judge to issue the appropriate court orders.

I'm alos curious how many of you are parents of pre-teen and early teen girls. Do you support your daughters under 16 having sex and abortions? By your theories, the parents should have no say in their children's activities then.

He has to start somehwere and from the article it seems that he has a good starting point.

The Fifth Amendment says that you have a right to not incriminate yourself.  If the State requires by law that doctors report abortion-patient information to them, ostensibly to keep anonymous statistics, and then turns around and indicts doctors just on the basis of that required disclosure, then the doctors have been compelled as the main witness against themselves-- the witness that started the investigation.

And that's only one angle from which I find this very disturbing.  

"If we are aware that a law has been broken, it is a violation of our civil rights for the authorities to investigate and gather evidence to prosecute the crime?"

Sometimes yes, depending on how and why the authorities investigate.  That's what a "right" is, like it or not, Bird.  Let the authorities have limitless power to investigate and what you get isn't a safer country, it's a criminal monopoly.

Sometimes there are higher causes than rooting out bad people and doing damage control, for which this country is now obsessed.  The Bill of Rights is not written to enable investigations of crimes, it's written so good people have a chance to thrive.  Sometimes prosecution and rights must conflict.

About the welfare of the Republic against the welfare of the individual: please explain to me how prosecuting any of these unreported "crimes" serves the Republic?  If a complaint is filed, I could see why it would be.  Don't tell me that the prosecutor has no choice, because prosecutors pick and choose what laws to enforce all the time, and plenty of laws have never been enforced.  Otherwise, it looks to me like a government bureaucrat is making himself look busy, hammering my rights while he does it, and getting accolades from blockheads who get a hard on about fighting some evil.  

I don't see the Republic getting stronger from it.  Tell me how it would, Bird?  In fact, it may be the end of honest medical reporting now.  A doctor should call a defense lawyer before he reports anything to the state, anything at all.  The Republic isn't going to get healthier or safer now.  The cost isn't worth finding somebody somewhere who might have sometime committed what  some prosecutor thinks is an unknown crime.

   
 

-- Modified on 2/27/2005 1:16:15 AM

"The Fifth Amendment says that you have a right to not incriminate yourself.  If the State requires by law that doctors report abortion-patient information to them, ostensibly to keep anonymous statistics, and then turns around and indicts doctors just on the basis of that required disclosure, then the doctors have been compelled as the main witness against themselves-- the witness that started the investigation."

Thsi isn't a case of self incrimination, that's a sham argument and a stretch of the application of the ammendment.

According to the article, two laws are involved: underage sex and later term abortions. A reasonable person can admit that in order to have an abortion you need to be pregnant. According to basic biology, to get pregnant sexual intercourse needs to occur. Therefore, if a 15 yo girl has an abortion, she has had sexual intercourse. Violation of underage sex law. A dr. who performs any abortion on someone under 16 is not guilty of having sex with the underage girl and tehrefore not guilty of violating the law pertaining to underage sex. The patient information can be used to prosecute the case, specifically a potential case of rape or statutory rape. I would suppose that the underage sex law applies equally to male and female. If you're dealing with two underage teesn, I would prefer the parents deal with the problem and the state to allow the parents to deal with it. However, if you have a case of a 20 yo male and a 15 yo female, that is a case of statutory rape and should be prosecuted. The tough one is the 17/15 yo relationship (two kids in high school).

Second case, the late term abortion. If the Dr. feels that there is medical necesity (regardless of the medial reason), then the state needs to back off. But it's fair for an independent medial panel to review the medical history and validate the "necessity" for the abortion. A Dr. practicing in KS must be aware of the law about late term abortion and if taht Dr. is performing abortions past 22 weeks, then the Dr. is willfully violating the law. The reporting aspect does not qualify under 5th amendment anyways because the Dr. has not been charged, therefore the Dr. is not guilty of incrimination. I agree with the one post that 22 weeks is hard to differentiate, so some leeway relating to actual fetal age is required.

What we don't know about this situation is what instigated the entire cause, yet. The article was clear that this was a secret investigation that "leaked". Everyone (myself included) has made suppositions based upon personal political beliefs.

My whole point in this has been that we do not have a complete picture, nor do we have access to all the information in this case. It may well be that the KS AG is crusading to overturn all abortions, in viloation of Roe v. Wade. That would end up with the case being thrown out. However, the information that was presented in the article indicated the probability that there was some degree of legitimacy in what the AG was doing and the attacks from the more liberal minded posters were unfair and unfounded at this time.

The original posts demonstrated a disregard for critical thinking and critical analysis. I can readily see the pundits for both sides screaming about this case, yet the details ahve not all been revealed.

It still does not mean that one must give up their rights as provided by the BILL OF RIGHTS. Including the right to privacy and the right against self incrimination.

BTW, why must you go on with the personal attacks like: "keyed on items that validated your preconceived prejudices"?

Dude, you are as about as biased as anybody on this board and defend the undefendabe on a regular bases. You have never admitted when the Republicans or Bush have been wrong. Nobody is perfect including your party and president. Why can't you admit their many failures, mistakes and deceptions? Maybe it is because of "your preconceived prejudices"?

I know I have attacked you in the past, but it is almost always in response to your attack. So let's stop with the personal attacks and just discuss the issues, okay, bro?

It definitely does apply if the Doctor is brought up on charges from this investigation.  I'll admit that it's hypothetical, but I can't think of who else would be charged with performing a discretionary late-term abortion.  

We agree about the medial panel, I think.  

Perhaps you are right that not enough information is available yet.  I'll just say I'm anticipating the worst.

I despise you and the positions you often take.

And your statement that I "defend the undefendabe" is another of your misguided interpretations.

And I have attacked the extremist positions taken by both sides.

What you perceive as my "defend(ing) the undefendabe" is often my response to extremist attacks of the current admin by you and others like you.

If liberals would attempt to extract their rectal-cranial inversions long enough to listen to those that do not agree with their Bsuh hatred, they would hear that many of us are not pleased or thrilled with the President, however, we feel that he was the better choice offered in the last two elections. Sometimes political choices are like medicine-you don't want to take the medicine, but the alternatives are worse.

I supect that if all of the liberal nutcases stopped posting their diatribes for a month, you'd find the righties would disappear as well. Most of the stupidity on this board is swarm mentality. Someone posts a derogatory, smart-ass attack on a conservative sore point and the conservatives jump in to defend.

This discussion board was creatied to get the pre-election political sniping off the general board, and now that the election has happened, the sniping has continued.

Bottom line is liberals hate conservatives and conservatives hate liberals. It won't change and this discussion board won't help make matters any better.

can you please explain how bush was/is the better choice?

what has he done or what is he doing that makes him better?

the war in iraq is a farce, the social security crisis is a fraud, his budget is joke, he has attempted to control the media in a way not seen since nixon, his anti enviroment stance is attrocious, he continues the giant corporate hand out, he cares little for the middle class or small biz, his no child left behind is unconstitutional....etc

I promised the moderator on this board that I would be civil if he "unmoderated" me. I intent to keep my word.

I am trying to NOT fight with you but have a meaningful discussion. We do not have to agree, but we can at least be civil, can we not?

Look, I agree with a lot of what you just wrote. My only difference would be that I believe it is the radical, living-in-fantasy-land, hypocritical, neo-conservatives who need to extract their rectal-cranial inversions long enough to be objective to the obvious truth that they work so hard to avoid.

Liberals get so frustrated at the lack of acknowledgment of the failures and intentional dishonesty of this administration and the neoconservative movement. THAT is why we post "diatribes". If the conservatives would acknowledge these failures, liberals would stop posting "diatribes". The reason we post them is because we think conservatibes are in denial about what is happening. If you stop denying and we'll stop "diatribing". Deal?

If you dispise me so much then why do you respond?