Kansas

What's happening in Kansas?

A LOT to be concerned about ...

UPDATE to what's below: February 3, 2006 -- The Kansas Supreme Court ruled that the medical files are not open for unlimited review by the state Attorney General unless he can show a need. It's a victory for prochoice supporters, but it's not over yet. A lower court will now determine whether the Attorney General had a need to see women's private medical records. NPR reported the update here: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5188020

And get the full background below.

Hands Off My Medical History
By Ann Farmer

Women's eNews www.womensenews.org (excerpted)

Monday 06 June 2005

As the government shows more interest in seizing reproductive health histories, women are becoming more tight-lipped with doctors.

Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline served subpoenas on two Kansas reproductive health clinics seeking access to the medical records of at least 90 women who had used its abortion services.

Attorneys for the two clinics - Comprehensive Health, a Planned Parenthood clinic located in the suburbs of Kansas City and Women's Health Care Services, located in Wichita - filed an appeal on March 16 with the Kansas Supreme Court to block Kline's access to the unedited files, which include the patient's name, medical history, psychological profile and sexual history.

"We made a commitment to our patients that their records are confidential and private," says Peter Brownlie, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri, which, along with Women's Health Care Services, has not released any files to date.

The decision on whether to uphold Kline's injunction is pending review by the seven-member Kansas Supreme Court and may not be issued for months.

The Kansas women whose medical records were subpoenaed have expressed outrage at what they see as an incursion into their privacy, says Julie Burkhardt, executive director of ProKanDo, a pro-choice political action committee that she founded along with Dr. George Tiller, medical director of Women's Health Care Services. "They're very concerned that a non-medical official was going to be searching through their medical records."

Power of Office

Both clinics cited in the subpoenas offer legal second-trimester abortion services.

Kline says that he's investigating possible violations of a state law limiting late-term abortions and another that requires the mandatory reporting of suspected child rape.

"This is a fishing expedition," retorts Brownlie of Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri, noting that Kline is poised to run next year for either a second term as attorney general or for the governorship. "We fully comply with Kansas' laws."

Whitney Watson, spokesperson for Kansas Attorney General Kline, refused to discuss any potential evidence, saying only that the District Court judge who signed the subpoenas had determined that probable cause existed.

Critics say Kline is pushing an anti-choice agenda.

"He has been very clear throughout his political career that he is out to get abortion providers," Burkhardt says. "When this inquisition broke back in February, he repeatedly said that this is about protecting children from child rapists."

But she says that Kline has subpoenaed the records of all women - not just the very young - who had abortions at or after 22 weeks of pregnancy during 2003.

She says if Kline's motive was to uncover possible instances of child sexual abuse he'd also be looking at the records of family physicians, psychologists, social workers and others.

When asked about that, Watson responded, "You don't know that we're not."

A spokesperson for the Indiana attorney general's office also says that it is pursuing its legal obligation to investigate potential wrongdoing involving minors.

Signs of Intimidation

Although Planned Parenthood declines to say exactly how much activity it lost at the Kansas clinic, it contends that the empty places in its appointment books indicate that Kline's actions were intimidating women who would normally be seeking its health care services.

"We are concerned about the chilling effect," says Brownlie. "We had phone calls from patients wanting to know if their privacy was at risk."

Concealing their medical histories can put patients' health at risk, says Katharine O'Connell, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Columbia University.

For instance, says O'Connell, many teens today take the acne drug Accutane. If they do not reveal to their doctors that they are pregnant, they might continue taking the drug, which can cause serious birth defects.

"Doctors trust that patients will be open to them," says O'Connell.

Health workers, however, say patients often feel there is a bigger risk in sharing their information.

Discouraging Headlines

Carole Joffe, a professor of sociology at the University of California, Davis, believes even more women would conceal their abortion history if they knew what was going on in Kansas and Indiana.

"When young women in society see headline after headline that says the attorney general is seeking abortion records, it just adds to the sense that abortion is stigmatized. And that your records may be subpoenaed."

This stigma surrounding abortion, she says, compels many women to reach for their pocketbook rather than use their health insurance to cover the procedure. "They're afraid to let their insurance company know or have it become part of their permanent medical record."

Both state cases follow a failed attempt in 2003 by former U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft to gain access to women's medical records across the nation as part of litigation to defend an anti-choice law passed by Congress which would have banned abortions after the 12th week of pregnancy.

Ann Farmer is a freelance writer who lives in Brooklyn, NY. Update: The Kansas Supreme Court will hear an appeal from clinics on Sept. 8. A court in Indiana temporarily enjoined subpoenas.

-------------------------------------------

What pro-choicers are up against ... the anti-choice perspective ... put on your seat belt ...

OP ED: Taking abortion rights way too far

Date : Tuesday, June 07, 2005

Kansas City Star --- by Rich Lowry

Why would a feminist organization not be eager to cooperate in a fight against the sexual exploitation of young girls? Can you say "perverse"? Planned Parenthood in Indiana and Kansas is effectively fighting to protect child rapists from potential prosecution in two high-profile legal fights.

That an organization devoted to the interests of women finds itself in this position is a cautionary tale of abortion-rights extremism.

In Indiana, the attorney general is seeking the records of girls younger than 14 who have visited Planned Parenthood clinics. Let that sink in: We're talking about 12- and 13-year-old girls.

It is a crime to have sex with a child younger than 14 in the state. Under law, individuals with reason to believe a child is a victim of sex abuse are required to report it to the proper authorities.

In Kansas, the attorney general is carrying on the same fight (he is also looking for evidence of illegal late-term abortions).

An Indiana judge upheld the Indiana attorney general's request, although the case is under appeal.

"The great public interest," the county superior judge wrote, "in the reporting, investigation and prosecution of child abuse trumps even the patient's interest in privileged communication with her physician because, in the end, both the patient and the state are benefited by the disclosure."

The loopiest free-sex advocates might imagine that after sex-ed courses on how to put a condom on a banana, 13-year-old girls blissfully explore their bodies with 13-year-old boys.

Put aside that this vision will make most parents gag -- it's not how it works. Teen sex often involves adult men exploiting teen girls.

Why would a feminist organization not be eager to cooperate in a fight against the sexual exploitation of young girls? Well, Planned Parenthood represents that wing of the feminist billed as "sex positive," although that phrase doesn't quite capture it. Planned Parenthood is developing the "statutory rape-positive" wing of feminism.

These feminists are unwilling to pass judgment on any sex in any circumstances, don't care if parents are cut out of the equation entirely, believe the right to an abortion trumps any other consideration, and embrace a notion of privacy so sweeping it includes men who have, under law, raped their young sexual partners.

Privacy is a mere excuse not to provide the records. It is not at all unusual for criminal prosecutions to involve medical records. And no one is going to make public the names of the girls involved.

"We've been doing these investigations since the 1970s, and there's never been a case where we have not maintained the confidentiality of records," Indiana Attorney General Steve Carter told a local columnist.

In Kansas -- where the case is pending before the state Supreme Court -- Attorney General Phill Kline wrote the state's rape shield law when he was in the Kansas Legislature. It is not the girl in any of these cases who will be in jeopardy, but her adult abuser (if there is one).

This fight is so important because our culture relentlessly sexualizes children. The message, for instance, of Britney Spears' act before she came of age was "teen girls are hot." Pop culture won't change, but the law can at least try to send an opposite signal.

Key Democrats from Hillary Clinton to Howard Dean have of late said their party needs to become more moderate on abortion. They could add substance to the rhetoric by opposing Planned Parenthood's position in these cases.

Of course, that will never happen. The abortion absolutists control the Democratic Party, a sad fact for those Americans who have moral qualms about abortion, but a happy one for men who impregnate 13-year-olds.

----------------------------------------------------------------

This is what the Kansas Attorney General thinks of teens --

any kissing and hooking up of teens is illegal ... and it's those records of girls, he wants to get his hands on!

MEDIA ADVISORY

KANSAS ATTORNEY GENERAL PHILL KLINE’S

“KISS AND TELL” LAW GOES BEFORE APPEALS COURT

WHAT: Oral argument in Aid for Women v. Foulston will be heard at U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

The Tenth Circuit will review the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas’ July 2004 decision, temporarily blocking the reporting of consensual sexual activity between teens by health care providers and counseling professionals to child services. The original challenge against the law was brought by the Center for Reproductive Rights on behalf of obstetricians and gynecologists, registered nurses, psychologists, social workers, a family practice physician, a sex education teacher, and a perinatologist.

WHEN: Tuesday, September 13, 2005 at 9:00 a.m. (Mountain Daylight Time)

WHERE: Byron White U.S. Courthouse, 1823 Stout Street, Courtroom II, Denver, CO.

For directions please log on to: http://www.ck10.uscourts.gov/info.cfm?part=5.

BACKGROUND:

In 2003, Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline issued a new interpretation of the state’s child-abuse reporting law, requiring that doctors, school counselors and psychotherapists, among others, report sexual activity involving a teen younger than 16 as evidence of child abuse. The law is so broad it would even require a psychologist to report a teen who disclosed that she was "making out" with her boyfriend. On October 3, 2003, the Center for Reproductive Rights filed a lawsuit challenging the attorney general’s opinion on behalf of a group of health-care providers and counseling professionals. The plaintiffs argue that the attorney general’s interpretation violates adolescents’ right to informational privacy and deters adolescents from seeking confidential health care or counseling.

The Center for Reproductive Rights uses the law to advance reproductive freedom as a fundamental right that all governments are obligated to protect, respect and fulfill.