WTF? (political)

[rgraham666]

Was looking at the news over on the stories page. This was on there.

My mood is now swinging back and forth between , and .

Jesus, can't these effen do-gooders mind their own business for once?

 

[BlackShanglan]

When they're looking at evidence that 10 and 12 year old children have been raped?

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Was looking at the news over on the stories page. This was on there.

My mood is now swinging back and forth between , and .

Jesus, can't these effen do-gooders mind their own business for once?

Fear.

They haven't been successsful outlawing abortion, so they are going to try to make women fear having their privacy invaded if they get one. Just a new tactic in an ongoing war against women.

 

[rgraham666]

I didn't see any evidence of that, Shang.

And the AG was asking for everything including the client's sex lives and psych profiles.

And over 90 clients? This sure sounds like a fishing expedition to me.

And in secret as well.

If the AG is after a particular case, they should request only that particular case.

No, this is politically motivated in my opinion. Next election, "Look at all the horror that happens because of abortion. I will to put an end to it. Vote for me."

So some ideologue can get power, women and kids who made a very difficult decision will have their lives placed on public display.

Bastards.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

When they're looking at evidence that 10 and 12 year old children have been raped?

If, you as attorney general, have sufficient evidence a crime has been commited, you go before a judge & provide probable cause. He will then issue a subpena that allows you to violate a person's privacy and seize their medical records.

If you think a clinic has commited a crime, then release of the information, minus names, social security numbers and other identifying information should provide you with the relevant information, i.e. age of the patient and how far along the pregnancy was when terminated.

In case one, you need a prepnderance of proof a crime has been commited. Apparently they don't have it.

In case two, you do not need the personal information on patients, until such time as you get a grand jury indictment against the clinic/doctor and must present witnesses.

But this? Blanket release of complete medical records of all patients as part of an invetigation? Bullshit.

 

[BlackShanglan]

I heard more coverage of this on NPR yesterday. The statements made then were that all record requests were part of an ungoing investigation into child sex abuse. The ages I mentioned in the above post were taken from the comments of the spokesman interviewed. The record requests were made under a state law requiring teachers and physicians to report evidence of child abuse. Under that law, requesting records of abortions performed on children under the age of sexual consent is legal, as the pregnancy of a child of that age is itself considered evidence that a crime is likely to have been committed (and in fact should have been brought immediately to the attention of the police by the health care workers).

Shanglan

 

[rgraham666]

Bullshit indeed, Colleen.

I don't know much about the law. I believe I have some idea of the difference between right and wrong.

This is wrong.

And it's what always happens to True Believers of all stripes. Their cause is glorious and just, therefore any action they take is glorious and just.

Bullshit indeed.

 

[BlackShanglan]

So some ideologue can get power, women and kids who made a very difficult decision will have their lives placed on public display.

Actually, the investigator stated that all records came to him with names redacted.

Shanglan

 

[rgraham666]

And how many of the cases specifically came under the child sex abuse heading Shang? All 90 of them?

And they need every last scrap of info? Sex histories and psych profiles?

I find that very difficult to believe.

 

[BlackShanglan]

And how many of the cases specifically came under the child sex abuse heading Shang? All 90 of them?

And they need every last scrap of info? Sex histories and psych profiles?

I find that very difficult to believe.

That was the statement made, yes. That the only records pulled were those related to children who were underage. One assumes that they need the histories and profiles to determine if a crime has actually been committed. If the father is another 12 year old, statutory rape has not occurred. If it's an adult, then it has.

Shanglan

 

[Weird Harold]

I heard more coverage of this on NPR yesterday. The statements made then were that all record requests were part of an ungoing investigation into child sex abuse. The ages I mentioned in the above post were taken from the comments of the spokesman interviewed. The record requests were made under a state law requiring teachers and physicians to report evidence of child abuse. Under that law, requesting records of abortions performed on children under the age of sexual consent is legal, as the pregnancy of a child of that age is itself considered evidence that a crime is likely to have been committed (and in fact should have been brought immediately to the attention of the police).

Shanglan

That justification doesn't match up with the requests for medical files on late term abortions regardless of age.

What information is available on the nature of the requested records and the "justifiction" for requesting them certainly screams "Political Witch Hunt" to me. It seems to me that this DA is overstepping his job description -- he's supposed to be prosecuting crimes, not searching for them; uncovering crimes is the job of the police and state bureau of investigations.

 

[BlackShanglan]

That justification doesn't match up with the requests for medical files on late term abortions regardless of age.

What information is available on the nature of the requested records and the "justifiction" for requesting them certainly screams "Political Witch Hunt" to me. It seems to me that this DA is overstepping his job description -- he's supposed to be prosecuting crimes, not searching for them; uncovering crimes is the job of the police and state bureau of investigations.

And, under the state law requiring disclosure of evidence of child abuse, it is also the job of the abortion provider. Failure to report those cases in a timely fashion comprised a violation of that state law.

Shanglan

 

[rgraham666]

Actually, the investigator stated that all records came to him with names redacted.

Shanglan

From the article 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.

The records sought include the patient's name, medical history, details of her sex life, birth control practices and psychological profile.

Uhm, that's not what I read, Shang.

 

[BlackShanglan]

*shrug* Can't tell you which of two conflicting sources is right. Just know what I heard the DA say.

 

[minsue]

I heard more coverage of this on NPR yesterday. The statements made then were that all record requests were part of an ungoing investigation into child sex abuse. The ages I mentioned in the above post were taken from the comments of the spokesman interviewed. The record requests were made under a state law requiring teachers and physicians to report evidence of child abuse. Under that law, requesting records of abortions performed on children under the age of sexual consent is legal, as the pregnancy of a child of that age is itself considered evidence that a crime is likely to have been committed (and in fact should have been brought immediately to the attention of the police by the health care workers).

Shanglan

Shanglan, I had an abortion while under the age of consent. Was I abused? Not in the least. I simply wasn't 18, the magic number in this state.

If the county attorney's office pulled my records under the exuse of investigating a crime (which my pregnancy was evidence, by AZ law) I would be spitting nails.

I can also guarantee that the doctor did not report the crime of my pregnancy to the authorities.

I have no problem with proscuters going after child abusers. I think they're actually quite lax in that. But I can't see this as being anything other than political, especially with the caveat that the requests are made under a law that would have required said doctors to report the abortions as evidence of a crime. So when does the prosecuting of doctors and their staff start for not reporting it? Do you really think they'd let it these cases go without that? That part would be the icing on the cake.

 

[Weird Harold]

That was the statement made, yes. That the only records pulled were those related to children who were underage. One assumes that they need the histories and profiles to determine if a crime has actually been committed. If the father is another 12 year old, statutory rape has not occurred. If it's an adult, then it has.

Shanglan

But Attorney General Phill Kline, an abortion opponent, insisted Thursday: "I have the duty to investigate and prosecute child rape and other crimes in order to protect Kansas children."

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.
...
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.

Whatever Kline and/or his spokespeople claim, the requested records sure sound like he's targeting abortions and not child abuse.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Last I checked, the fourth amendment to the constitution forbade unlawful search and seizure. Unless I misremember, the exact wording demanded probable cause backed up by an oath.

Since forever, blanket search warrants have been held unconstituional. Demanding the records of 90 odd people is without a doubt a blanket warrant, infringing up on their rights to privacy. The fact that the providers are not allowed to inform a client thier records are being seized, is suspicious, in that no person will be able to oppose release of his records or get a fair hearing, where the Ag has to put forward his case and prove probable cause.

 

[Weird Harold]

And, under the state law requiring disclosure of evidence of child abuse, it is also the job of the abortion provider. Failure to report those cases in a timely fashion comprised a violation of that state law.

Shanglan

That assumes that preganancy is defacto proof of abuse rather than stupidity. It's quite possible for an underage girl to become pregnant without being "sexually abused."

If the father is another 12 year old, statutory rape has not occurred. If it's an adult, then it has.

You said it yourself there is no statutory rape if the father is also underage and thus no need for doctors to report "abuse." Why is it necessary to assume that the doctors AREN'T reporting the cases of abuse in addition to not reporting the cases that aren't abuse?

 

[Colleen Thomas]

That assumes that preganancy is defacto proof of abuse rather than stupidity. It's quite possible for an underage girl to become pregnant without being "sexually abused."



You said it yourself there is no statutory rape if the father is also underage and thus no need for doctors to report "abuse." Why is it necessary to assume that the doctors AREN'T reporting the cases of abuse in addition to not reporting the cases that aren't abuse?

From our buddies at Fox news, a decidedly uliberal bunch:

Kline began pushing in 2003 to require health care professionals to report underage sexual activity. Kline contends state law requires such reporting, but a federal judge blocked him. The case has yet to be resolved.


Even his grounds for demanding the records are shakey. His contention that state law requires reporting is not even an accomplished fact, but has been blocked by a federal judge.

 

[Weird Harold]

From our buddies at Fox news, a decidedly uliberal bunch:

Kline began pushing in 2003 to require health care professionals to report underage sexual activity. Kline contends state law requires such reporting, but a federal judge blocked him. The case has yet to be resolved.

It looks like Fox and CNN are using the same AP article; the exact same wording is in the linked CNN article.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

It loks like Fox and CNN are using the same AP article; the exact same wording is in the linked CNN article.

Considering the implications, it surprised me how little I could find about it in my initial search.

 

[angelicminx]

I agree y'all! This is complete and total bullshit. I can't stand the fact that people in authority use anything they can to invade the private lives of others. The "morality" laws on the books should not be there. Who the hell are they to decide what my morals should be?

Shanglan, I agree that, in the case of children being raped or abused, records should be released. Those records should have automatically been reported!

But a blanket release of records? NO. To not be given the right to protest the release of their own records is also WRONG!

I don't care that it's against the law in Kansas to have sex under the age of 16. It's an idiotic law. I would have been in deep trouble myself. We have people being murdered across the country and he is fishing into underage sex?! My God!

Imagine a world where no one was judged by their beliefs or morals.

 

[Weird Harold]

Considering the implications, it surprised me how little I could find about it in my initial search.

I guess the implications are not as obvious to some people as they are to others.

I did find another article that isnt a copy of the AP story:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw...rt26feb26,0,5710011.story?coll=la-home-nation

...In a news conference Thursday, Kline said he needed the medical files to put together criminal prosecutions.

He referred in particular to possible charges of statutory rape or child sexual abuse in cases in which the patients seeking abortions were under 16. But Kline subpoenaed the records of scores of women — not just teenagers — who came into the clinics more than 4 1/2 months into their pregnancies.
...

The LA Times article emphasizes the anti-abortion and "deterance" implictions more than the AP article does.

 

[Halo_n_horns]

Was looking at the news over on the stories page. This was on there.

My mood is now swinging back and forth between , and .

Jesus, can't these effen do-gooders mind their own business for once?

Obviously this has a couple of merits, but ultimately it'll just be another way for Big Brother to get even bigger, and further into our bedrooms than he already is.

 

[Weird Harold]

An interesting op-ed piece google news turned up on a site it labels "satire"(?) This particular article doesn't sound very satirical.

NOW: Kansas Attorney General Negotiates Secret Attack on Women's Rights

By: NOW
Published: Feb 25, 2005

"The National Organization for Women condemns the latest action by anti-abortion zealots bent on invading the privacy of women and girls," said NOW President Kim Gandy. "This is outrageous harassment of women and their doctors for base political motives."

The Kansas Attorney General, Phill Kline, is seeking medical records of women—including their name, medical history, sexual history, birth control practices and psychological profiles—from two state abortion clinics as part of an alleged criminal investigation he claims is about sexual abuse of minors.

"If the brief had not been filed publicly, we wouldn't even know that a Kansas court, operating in secret and using a gag rule on the doctors, is demanding the most personal and private information ...."

...
"There's obviously no allegation of wrongdoing or criminal behavior by these women—if there were, they'd have the right to know the charges, the right to challenge release of their information, the right to confront their accusers, the right to due process and the right to an attorney," said Gandy. ...

I seldom agree with NOW policy statements, but this is one instance where I think they're absolutely correct.