Associated Press Friday, February 25, 2005; Page A22
TOPEKA, Kan., Feb. 24 -- The Kansas attorney general is demanding that abortion clinics turn over the complete medical records of nearly 90 women and girls, saying he needs the material for an investigation into underage sex and illegal late-term abortions.
Two clinics are fighting the request in Kansas Supreme Court, saying the state has no right to such personal information.
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 younger than 16 is illegal in Kansas, as is an abortion after 22 weeks unless there is reason to believe it is needed to protect the mother's health.
Kline spoke to reporters after details of the secret investigation, which began in October, surfaced in a legal brief filed by attorneys for two medical clinics. The clinics argued that unless the high court intervenes, women who obtained abortions could find government agents knocking at their door.
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.
The clinics, which said nearly 90 women and girls would be affected, are offering records with some key information edited out.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Well, here's the thing. While medical privacy is something I hold dear, if the clinics are breaking the law by performing abortions over 22 weeks, there has to be some way to investigate that. I can understand the reluctance to accept "edited" records, because it would be pretty easy for the clinic to edit out the evidences of what they've done, especially if they know they could be prosecuted for it.
Perhaps names, social security numbers, and addresses could be obscured, but everything else left intact, and if the state finds evidence that the abortions were illegal, then they could obtain the rest of the information to investigate further. Then the only doors they would be knocking on would be the ones of people who had broken the law by having an illegal abortion.
I don't know how workable that would be in the situation, though.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
This is hideous.
I've just deleted everything I was going to say, I can't respond to this yet. I'm sympathetic to Belle's words, although I wouldn't have said them myself, but the girls under 16 part... I really really hope to clinics win on this one.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I agree. I'm far more concerned about using the records to identify teen girls who have had sex underage. While some might argue that all such cases are rape (and they are such under the laws of most states, I think), there's got to be a mixed bag in there of victims of violent rape, statutory rape and incest, along with a fair number of 14 year olds messing around with other 14 year olds.
I'm not really sure what the state is going to do with those records, but the logical next step after talking to the clinic personnel is to contact and interrogate the girls, right? I'm not sure how I feel about that in terms of the girls' safety not to mention their privacy.
As for the illegal abortions past 22 weeks, the state is asking for full records, no names expunged, if I read the article correctly.
[ February 25, 2005, 09:08 AM: Message edited by: Bob_Scopatz ]
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Disgusting.
This is a poor attempt to disguise an attack on their rights to receive legal medical care.
It is intimidation at it's worse, done by government officials.
[ February 25, 2005, 09:08 AM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Well, he's only asking for information on the 90 that he believes were illegal (I guess based on tips or whatever), not all abortion records for every abortion in the state.
And I really don't think Kline is doing this to prosecute the people who had illegal abortions (although that may happen) - he is doing it to crack down on the abortion doctors here who perform them illegally and we have no way of knowing. They basically get by with almost anything because any time they are investigated, it becomes a major political deal. (where people like Kwea accuse them of attacking rights, even thought they are legitimately investigating illegal activity -- just like any other illegal activity)
Farmgirl
[ February 25, 2005, 09:09 AM: Message edited by: Farmgirl ]
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
I agree with most of you. If the state is truly looking for crimes, hire an independent counsel who works for both sides and will only edit out information that is not necessary for the investigation. Otherwise, stop attacking abortion under the guise of "the law".
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
Looking on rape and pregnancy as something to be ashamed of is one of the great puzzles to me about the women's movement. However, I think the privacy of medical records is important as well, any medical records and not these moreso because of their connection to abortion. I absolutely disagree with the politicization of abortion. It's a medical procedure and should only be done for medical reasons. I do think it should be weighted as if it were an amputation of a part of the patient's body.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Well, either way -- they have to have the concrete "evidence" (which is in the records) in order to prosecute the clinics for performing abortions not within the terms of the law.
You notice this is in my state, and BIG news in my state, yet I purposely didn't post it here (and was hoping no one would) because I knew exactly how this discussion would go. We pretty much already know everyone's feeling on abortion on this forum.
But to me this isn't an abortion issue. It's a criminal issue. If they are performing ones over 22 weeks, or on underaged girls, they are breaking the law.
Farmgirl
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
People like me?
I guess that would be people who have actually worked with the people you are talking about, in a medical setting, and care about the patients right to privacy.
Those who know how much of a betrayal of trust this has the potential to become.
It is enough of an issue that there have been major laws about privacy issues passed by the federal government in recent years.
((Edited to clarify that I didn't work in an abortion clinic, but that I have worked with rape victims in college on a rape hotline. Also, I worked in the medical field for 3 years while in the Army, and have a better background with regards to medical records than most.))
[ February 25, 2005, 09:18 AM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
If the clinics are breaking the laws of the state, then they must be investigated. Unfortunately, the polarization over the issue of abortion clouds everyone's perceptions and judgement when it comes to handling the issue, and allows neither side the flexibility to cooperate.
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
Farmgirl,
Is it illegal for a minor to get an abortion *at all* in Kansas? Or just if they don't receive parental consent?
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
quote: This is a poor attempt to disguise an attack on their rights to receive legal medical care.
Except abortions after 22 weeks aren't legal medical care in Kansas.
I don't necessarily agree with what's being done. Besides, I have a hard time believing the clinic ever put the actual time of pregnancy on the records. If they knew it was past 22 weeks and knew it was illegal, why would they put that information on the records?
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
FG -- The abortions after 22 weeks, yes, are illegal except for the "health of the mother" clause. But are the abortions on the under 16 year olds? Yes, I know that having sex with them is a crime, but is performing an abortion on them? Also, does Kansas have a parental consent law?
If so, and these girls and their parents decided that an abortion was the best decision, then I do not see what right he as to ask for their records.
If there isn't a parental consent law, I still don't think this is right... if performing an abortion on a 15 year old is not a crime and he wants the information to go trolling for people to accuse of a different crime... although I wish every woman who was sexually assulted reported it and filed charges, I know that's not the choice some women make, and I think we should respect that choice, even at a younger age. Plus I don't think he can force them to cooperate with the investigation anyway, so while if there is no a parental consent law there is a chance he will find a girl who was raped and didn't tell anyone but just went and had an abortion, for the most part I think he is going to be harrassing and embarassing young girls who have already been through way too much. And I don't really believe that once the records get in the government's hands they will manage to keep them private. How are those girls going to feel when all their classmates know they had an abortion?
So, okay, have a pro-life doctor review the records of the after 22 week abortions, give an opinion on the medical necessaty, and attempt to prosecute those where it was flimsy. But leave the kids alone.
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
It's illegal for someone to have induced them to have sex because they can't legally consent, Kasie. The legality of the abortion is not the issue, it's evidence of probably statutory rape or child molestation.
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
What bothers me is that I severely doubt the prosecutor's office is not busy enough without undertaking this. Also, we have all had to sign to open our medical records to law enforcement pursuant to homeland security. I don't see how they can say this is homeland security. I long for the day when the unborn are seen as citizens, but the fact is right now they are not, and even if they were they are not receiving violence from foreigners or factions who want to overthrow our government.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Cover the names and personal info of the patients but leave the ages. Evidence of wrong-doing can lead to a deeper investigation where complete records can be seized.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
quote:Sex involving someone younger than 16 is illegal in Kansas, as is an abortion after 22 weeks unless there is reason to believe it is needed to protect the mother's health.
If that is the case, then more likely than not the crime would be committed by the abortion clinic and not the individual. It is ultimately the abortion clinic which has to decide whether there is a sufficient medical justification for an late term abortion. If that is the case, why would it be necessary to get the women's personal information? Isn't their anonymous medical records enough?
[ack, Eljay beat me to it. ]
quote:The clinics, which said nearly 90 women and girls would be affected, are offering records with some key information edited out.
I wonder what key information they offered to edit out.
[ February 25, 2005, 09:27 AM: Message edited by: Beren One Hand ]
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
[editted because the information was incorrect]
Farmgirl
(this was in reply to Kasie -- I keep getting interrupted by work and can't keep up with this thread)
[ February 25, 2005, 02:24 PM: Message edited by: Farmgirl ]
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I can see why this would be tempting, but I feel that the further harm done to these kids is going to be almost as bad as the decision to have an abortion was in the first place.
There should be another way to handle this, but the AG isn't willing to compromise for the sake of the victims...or at least he doesn't appear to be willing to compromise from the limited articles I have seen so far.
The potential for misuse of that information is huge, and clashes completely with patients rights issues head on.
BTW, I would feel this way about any medical procedure where the potential for harm would outweigh the benefits. There is a long standing practice/realization in rape cases that you really can't force a victim to testify...it rarely works well, and usually doesn't work at all.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
I think I better double check our exact laws before I speak further. Give me a few minutes.
Farmgirl
Posted by AntiCool (Member # 7386) on :
quote: If that is the case, why would it be necessary to get the women's personal information? Isn't their anonymous medical records enough?
Because they don't trust the people who might be implicated by the records to not edit out the evidence that would implicate them.
[ February 25, 2005, 09:32 AM: Message edited by: AntiCool ]
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
I may be just plain wrong, but it doesn't seem American to go sweeping for classes of crimes like this.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Well, either way, excuse me if I just withdraw from this particular thread and discussion -- simply because Phill Kline is a personal friend of mine. I don't want to allow this discussion to upset me.
So I'm just going to let you all discuss it and I'm going to stay out and not read the thread -- go ahead and bash away.
[ February 25, 2005, 09:43 AM: Message edited by: Farmgirl ]
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
I'm as conservative as they come, and you can't fight fire with fire (that is, advance the conservative cause by employing such heavy handed big government tactics).
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
quote:Because they don't trust the people who might be implicated by the records to not edit out the evidence that would implicate them.
Ah, I didn't think of that. So the state would evaluate whether there was a medical necessity based on testimony of the women instead of their medical records? Since the women do not have medical training, I doubt their testimony on the subject would be helpful unless the women testified that they knew the clinic was giving them abortions they were not entitled to receive. And if that were the case, the women would also be culpable and probably would not honestly incriminate themselves.
[ February 25, 2005, 09:44 AM: Message edited by: Beren One Hand ]
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Bash?
I said that I had limited info, but I didn't like where it seemed to be going....and that even if he found evidence (about minors having sex or rape) that it would be next to impossible to procecute under current rules.
I also questioned his motives, since I assume he is good at his job; he would know how difficult they are to prosecute, so I wonder if he has alterior motives.
Since you know him, perhaps you know better....but considering the possible ramifications to this nationwide ( and I know he HAS to have been aware of those), I don't think I was out of line or just "bashing".
[ February 25, 2005, 09:48 AM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
Somehow I knew this thread would turn to be one of those which are written so fast you can't read them and there's no much agressivity in the air you have a headache just by breathing.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
Thanks for the link Farmgirl. Is there another statement regarding the late term abortions?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Im read the official site, and one problem rose right away while reading it...it says that the children would be under no legal scrutiny.
What do you call a police officer knocing at your door 9 months later, asking who got you pregnant. If a woman chooses not to report a rape, I may not agree with her choice (I don't), but I would not force that type of "scrutiny" on her. Also, in order to comply wth this but not release any information, alll the clinics would ahve to do is stop keeping records. Is that something we want to encourage?
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
I like the idea of getting an independent counsel to redact the names and like from the records, prior to handing it over to the government. I think the "past 22 weeks" cases are fair game, but am worried about the repurcussions if any concrete info on the under-16 girls came out, even if they weren't raped violently.
-Bok
Posted by AntiCool (Member # 7386) on :
quote:Ah, I didn't think of that. So the state would evaluate whether there was a medical necessity based on testimony of the women instead of their medical records?
I don't think so. I think that they just don't trust the people being investigated for crimes (the people running the abortion clinic) to properly edit the documents. The only way to be confident that they aren't hiding evidence is to not let them edit anything out.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
quote:If a woman chooses not to report a rape, I may not agree with her choice
I know where you're coming from Kwea, but the other side of this argument is also compelling. These are girls under the age of 14. It is quite possible that these girls do not have the maturity to make that decision. Worse still, these girls could be victims of their immediate family members.
BTW, are Kansas abortion clinics required to provide any counseling to children who receive abortions?
MPH, thanks for clarifying that. My brain is just not working properly this morning. So I guess most of us here would agree on the independent counsel idea?
[ February 25, 2005, 10:02 AM: Message edited by: Beren One Hand ]
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
quote: The only way to be confident that they aren't hiding evidence is to not let them edit anything out.
As I mentioned before, why do you think the incriminating evidence was ever recorded in the first place?
Posted by AntiCool (Member # 7386) on :
It's not me that thinks it. I didn't subpoena the records.
I don't know what justification they gave for the subpoenas.
But if there really is enough reason for a subpoeana, it seems to me there's enough reason to not let them cover anything up.
[ February 25, 2005, 10:27 AM: Message edited by: AntiCool ]
Posted by Zeugma (Member # 6636) on :
Is he also demanding hospital records for minors who carried pregnancies to term? Shouldn't they be investigated, too? Or are their records already public?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Isn't a pregnancy at age 14 something that needs to be reported anyway? I thought doctors had to report signs of abuse?
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
Apart from the potential of the minor's pregnancy being directly related to a rape or other sex crime, teen pregnancies are fraught with dangers for both the mother and the developing fetus.
So, it would be very interesting to know if Kansas has safeguards in place for minors, in order to protect their health.
An impartial third-party to black out identifying information would be good - but let's face it - if they find that there were sex crimes involved, they WILL need to get all the pertinent information - I hope that in that case they target their court actions to the clinics involved.
I don't know about Kansas, but Washington has mandated reporting laws for providers of medical care.
*ponders and wanders off to get some coffee*
*pops back in to quickly say - I heard this on NPR first thing this a.m. and knew you all would have things to say!*
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
I suspect there wasn't a comment on late term abortions because the legality is pretty clear.
As far as the under 14 age abortions, especially the 10, 11, and 12 year old ones, I can see why this might be necessary and why records with even personal information might be needed. I suspect doctors of girls who proceeded with the pregnancy or who got an abortion with a regular doctor and hospital probably already have that kind of information reported. As stated, it can be a sign of abuse and they are required to report all such signs. I suspect abortion clinics are also required to report signs of abuse as well, but are less likely to comply. It isn't difficult to come up with the scenario of incest or molestation being covered up by taking the child to an abortion clinic rather than the family doctor or OB.
They already have the statistics. They may even have names. They need to know the incidentals, not for persecution against abortion, but to find evidence against sexual predators.
[ February 25, 2005, 11:08 AM: Message edited by: Amka ]
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Interesting. The link Farmgirl provided (edit: before the last one )didn't say anything about the AG investigating abortions over 22 weeks. According to her link, it's all about the children.
*drums fingers on table*
The logic that the AG is using makes me really uncomfortable. Pregnancy is those under 16 indicates a crime has been committed. It is the responsibility of the state to prosecute crimes that it knows that it has been committed. In order for the state to do this, it must know who the crime has been committed against.
My question is, how far does this extend? For example, if someone comes into a hospital and gets treated for OD'ing on illegal drugs, can the state then force the hospital to either report that person or just periodically search the hospital records for those people who came into the hospital for treatment for that in order to prosecute?
What about stab wounds and gunshot wounds which are likely indicators of some kind of assault?
*drums fingers on table* This is actually a really convoluted situation. The first order of business for a hospital is to provide medical care to people. Anything that gets in the way of this is not something the hospital should embrace. Obviously, if the state is peering over the hospital's shoulder beyond a quality of care mode, this is going to scare people away from getting treatment, which is not good.
On the other hand, if a criminal is caught, this prevents them from doing further harm.
Hmmmm.
[ February 25, 2005, 11:10 AM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
So, HIPAA doesn't apply in this case?
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
There are a lot more abortions in the 10-14 crowd than the 78 records they have subpeonaed. Since they have it narrowed down so much, I really suspect they are targeting cases they already have suspicions about.
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
Jesus.
Does that chart line up with the rest of the country? With the *vast majority* of abortions being performed on girls 10-14 years of age?
Posted by AntiCool (Member # 7386) on :
quote:What about stab wounds and gunshot wounds which are likely indicators of some kind of assault?
I believe hospitals are already required to report these.
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
Actually, I think it does. I understood that it had to do with anything illegal, not just homeland security, even though the new privacy act came about to support homeland security.
Posted by Lady Jane (Member # 7249) on :
Fourteen year old girls are not made pregnant by fourteen year old boys.
Oh, I need to go and dig up some pages that will support this, but from my experience, stories, and classes, when young girls are having sex, they are having it with older men.
I don't know if that makes a difference in any of your opinions, but the eighth grade girls are most likely NOT sleeping with the eighth grader next door. They are sleeping with the high seniors, college sophomores, or the weird twenty somethings that graduated from high school but found adult women too intimidating.
[ February 25, 2005, 11:16 AM: Message edited by: Lady Jane ]
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote: With the *vast majority* of abortions being performed on girls 10-14 years of age?
Whoa whoa whoa! That chart shows the ratio of abortions to live births. Read the fine print. For every 1000 live births, that's the number of abortions performed. That does NOT mean that there are more abortions performed on 10 - 14 year olds. It means that when a 10 - 14 year old gets pregnant, she is much more likely to have an abortion.
Added: It freaked me out and confused me when I first saw it, too. That's why I looked closer. But you cannot in fact tell how many abortions are performed on each age group from that particular chart.
[ February 25, 2005, 11:18 AM: Message edited by: ElJay ]
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I hope that they will be investigating these children's families, though, not intimidating the girls inadvertently.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
ElJay: glad you pointed that out. That makes much more sense (especially since, as said before, it's often medically necessary when the mother is that age).
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
I don't have much more time this a.m., but I'll try a brief CDC check on stats. The link of Kansas stats is very disturbing -
Abortion Surveillance—United States, 2001 View PDF 350KB In 2001, 853,485 legal induced abortions were reported to CDC. This total represents a 0.5 percent decrease from the 857,475 abortions reported in 2000. When the same 48 reporting areas are compared to total number of abortions, the total also dropped 0.5 percent between 2000 and 2001. The abortion ratio for 2001 increased minimally since 2000. The ratio was 246 legal induced abortions per 1,000 live births in 2001, compared to 245 in 2000. In 2001, the abortion rate was 16 per 1,000 women aged 15-44 years of age, the same as in 2000. For 1997 through 1999, the abortion rate was 17 per 1,000 women in this age range when comparing the same 48 states. As in the past, a higher number of abortions were obtained by white women, unmarried women, and women under 25 years of age. More than half (59%) of the reported legal induced abortions were performed during the first 8 weeks of gestation; 88% were performed within the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. Source: MMWR, November 26, 2004/Vol.53/No.SS-9.
I haven't explored - gotta run and take the kitty in to the groomer, spring shedding and dander season is gonna kill me . . .
[ February 25, 2005, 11:23 AM: Message edited by: Shan ]
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Investigations into the families WOULD intimidate the girls. There's no way around it.
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
OH. Okay. Thanks, ElJay, that makes a ton more sense. The CDC reports ~20% of all abortions are performed on women <=19 years of age, at least as of 1991 ...still digging for newer study)...
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
Investigators of any crime against children tend to be extra careful toward the victims. Minors are not required to testify live in court, though they may have to testify privately with a judge and/or give a video tape testimony.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I know, mack. But I'm hoping at least they will not interrogate the girls themselves and be ready to take them into protective custody if necessary. Posted by Lady Jane (Member # 7249) on :
Isn't refraining from investigating possible cases of statuatory rape playing into the long-standing tradition of sweeping things like rape and abuse under to rug?
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Well, now I'm confused and may need to make some calls..
Because the last link I posted (on abortions by age) was directly off the Kansas Department of Health & Environment government site.
However, that data does not match This Data off of the SAME KDHE site, which has a 13-page complete summary of all abortions
(a large number of Kansas abortions are performed on out-of-staters who come here because it isn't allowed in their state past a certain point)
Farmgirl
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:So, HIPAA doesn't apply in this case?
Sure it does. And HIPAA has provisions for complying with subpoenas. So I don't see a HIPAA problem here.
The gunshot wound reporting is a good parallel, as is the mandatory abuse reporting.
Dagonee
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Lady Jane, note that's why that's not what I'm advocating, whatever the privacy concerns may be. I just think they should be investigating with as little disturbance as possible for the girls themselves until it's absolutely necessary to have the girls speak to the judge. Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
FG -- Check out my post on the first page. The data are not condratictory, they are measuring different things. Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
Unfortunately, if evidence of a crime is established, they will need to talk to the girls.
Taking them into protective custody may even be traumatic. Child molestation is very complicated, with the victims often sympathizing with the perpetrators.
These girls are already traumatized, and it isn't the fault of the judicial system trying to make things right, with the caveat that the system handles the situation correctly. But even correctly handled, it is going to be very painful for the girls. Unfortunately, there is no way around it. Except that they will hopefully grow up to be healthier adults than had things not been taken care of.
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
Exactly my point, Lady Jane.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
That's true. I just hurt for the poor babies.
If someone did that to my 13-year-old, I would hunt them down myself. I don't care if it was a family friend, a relative, what, they would be in police custody before you could say "rape". Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Ah - thanks ElJay. I knew it said "ratio" but my mind just interpreted that of "percentage ratio of all abortions performed" instead of "ratio in comparison of live births" Thanks
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Welcome. Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I think that as doctors, they would fall under mandatory reporters, no? mack maybe you can answer that, since you work in the social services field.
So, if these doctors are mandatory reporters of evidence of sexual abuse and/or rape, and they perform abortions on girls under 16 without reporting the evidence of rape and/or abuse (and let's face it, a pregnant 14 year old is definitely evidence of statutory rape) then the doctors are violating the law, no? Or are they just violating medical ethics? I'm not sure.
Either way, they should be investigated.
Posted by screechowl (Member # 2651) on :
This is the same AG that met with conservative state board of education members in possible violation of the state's open meetings laws. He did not include moderates in these meetings with the board in any case.
You may add that to your conclusions about what he is really up to. In my opinion he has only one agenda regarding abortion. He has found a new way to attack the right to choose.
This is my opinion only and is based upon living in Kansas and following this man's career.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
He has found a new way to protect the life of the unborn? Good for him.
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
So the right to choose is more important than the safety of those girls, eh, screechowl?
I wonder if people realize how often young girls are coerced into abortion? My family once took in a 21 year old deaf girl whose boyfriend AND parents were putting a LOT of pressure on her to get an abortion.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Can someone under the age of 16 get an abortion in Kansas without parental consent?
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
Apparently, from the little googling I've done, Kansas requires notification of one parent if the girl is under 18. This can be waived by a judge.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Apparently so. The fact that KDHE has those stats, tells me that it can be performed legally.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:He has found a new way to protect the life of the unborn? Good for him.
I agree but this isn't just about the life of the unborn. It's about the girls that are being raped.
Say you do have a young girl involved in a relationship with an older man. She gets pregnant, he can pay for an abortion and be off the hook.
But, if it becomes mandatory that all cases of pregnant young girls seeking abortions are investigated criminally (and they should be) then suddenly statutory rape is a much more risky venture for this type of man.
I think it's a good thing. And if she's being abused by someone or it's a case of incest - so much the better too. If abortion clinics have to report this information, and it gets investigated then the girl has a chance to be rescued from that type of situation. We're talking about minor children here, they need and deserve protection.
The fact that abortion clinics want to perform abortions on these girls and not report the incidents sickens me. What's wrong with the idea that if a caregiver sees evidence of a crime, he/she should be mandated to report it?
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote: The fact that abortion clinics want to perform abortions on these girls and not report the incidents sickens me.
We have no evidence that they in fact want to do that. That is speculation.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I am inferring it by the fact that the AG feels he needs to subpeona the records to get evidence, if the clinic were voluntarily turning over such information, there would be no need.
But I will say, that I'll revise my opinion if the clinics come out and say they absolutely wish to cooperate with the criminal investigations into rape and abuse and turn over all records immediately, and announce that a new policy is in place whereby all caregivers will immediately report evidences of abuse and/or statutory rape.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
What if that policy is already in place?
What if the clinic reported it to the required agency, the agency checked with the local police, and there was already an investigation? Or the local police contacted the family and they refused to cooperate with an investigation because they thought it would be more traumatic for their daughter?
The AG didn't know how many cases there were, he asked for all records that fit into those catagories. The clincs involved stated that there were about 90 cases that fit in the categories. If they already fulfilled their manditory reporting on those cases, should they have to release the records to the AG?
The investigation could have taken place and be closed, successfully or through lack of evidence, before the girl went in for the abortion. It [added: it being the result of the investigation] wouldn't be in the records, they just report it, not do an investigation themselves.
I do not know , but I do not believe the place the clinic has to report to is the AGs office. So if he wants that information, he could check the reporting agency and find out how many have been reported and what the follow-up has been. If he thinks they're not reporting, I'm betting there's an established proccedure for auditing that. Both options that do not require releasing medical records to a government agency.
Saying you'll revise your opinion when they come out with a brand new policy presupposes that they don't have one now, and presumes guilt. Reporting child abuse is an issue that is just so ingrained in all the manditory reporting professionals I know, and the consequences for not doing so are so strong, that I would be very surprised if the clinics are breaking that particular law.
[ February 25, 2005, 04:54 PM: Message edited by: ElJay ]
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
Mandatory reporting usually goes to such places as child protective services, whose job it is then to investigate and determine if the report is valid and should be referred to law enforcement.
Victim's are given the option of pressing charges or not - or in the case of parents/legal guardians of children under a certain age - the same option.
In the case of sexual assault, this can get rather sticky, since the majority of sexual assault occurs at the hands of trusted family members, friends, acquaintances - not strangers.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The AG didn't know how many cases there were, he asked for all records that fit into those catagories. The clincs involved stated that there were about 90 cases that fit in the categories. If they already fulfilled their manditory reporting on those cases, should they have to release the records to the AG?
Yes. The AG is the highest ranking investigatory official in most states. He has subpoena powers. If he feels it's worth looking into, then he can issue subpoenas regardless of who else can investigate such things. There's a due process protection here which is being exercised by the clinics. I don't see a problem with this is principle.
Dagonee
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Thank you, Shan, for providing that information.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote: There's a due process protection here which is being exercised by the clinics. I don't see a problem with this is principle.
Please clarify this statement for me, Dags. You don't see a problem with the due process protection being exercised by the clincs? Or you don't see a problem with the AG issuing the subpoena? I read it like the first, but I think you might mean the second. Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I found the legal information, that may clarify things.
selecting Kansas, and then specifying what information you want - in this case I selected "Definitions of Child Abuse and Neglect" and "Mandatory Reporters")
quote: Kan. Stat. Ann. § 38-1502 (WESTLAW through 2002 Reg. Sess.)
'Child in need of care' means a person less than 18 years of age who:
Is without adequate parental care, control or subsistence and the condition is not due solely to the lack of financial means of the child¿s parents or other custodian; Is without the care or control necessary for the child's physical, mental or emotional health; Has been physically, mentally or emotionally abused or neglected or sexually abused; Has been placed for care or adoption in violation of law; Has been abandoned or does not have a known living parent; Is not attending school as required by State law; Has been residing in the same residence with a sibling or another person under 18 years of age, who has been physically, mentally or emotionally abused or neglected, or sexually abused.
Emphasis mine
Futher elaboration on the meaning of abuse:
quote:'Sexual abuse' means any act committed with a child as described in §§ 21-3501 through 21-3504, regardless of the age of the child.
I'm not going to list the acts, but you can easily look them up - Chapter 21, Article 35 of the Kansas state law.
As for reporting:
quote:WHO MUST REPORT
Persons licensed to practice the healing arts or dentistry; persons licensed to practice optometry; persons engaged in postgraduate training programs approved by the State Board of Healing Arts; licensed professional or practical nurses examining, attending, or treating a child under the age of 18; chief administrative officers of medical care facilities; emergency medical services personnel; Teachers, school administrators, or other employees of a school which the child is attending; persons licensed by the Secretary of Health and Environment to provide child care services or the employees of persons so licensed at the place where the child care services are being provided to the child; Licensed psychologists; licensed masters level psychologists; licensed clinical psychotherapists; licensed marriage and family therapists; licensed social workers; licensed clinical marriage and family therapists; licensed professional counselors; licensed clinical professional counselors; registered alcohol and drug abuse counselors; Firefighters; mediators appointed under the law; law enforcement officers; juvenile intake and assessment workers.
CIRCUMSTANCES
When they have reason to suspect that a child has been injured as a result of physical, mental, or emotional abuse or neglect, or sexual abuse; When they know of the death of a child.
Again, emphasis mine.
That's pretty clear to me - in the event a child is pregnant, then there is evidence that a law has been violated, and any doctor or nuse in an abortion clinic is a mandatory reporter. So, if the clinic is not reporting these incidents, they are in violation.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Please clarify this statement for me, Dags. You don't see a problem with the due process protection being exercised by the clincs? Or you don't see a problem with the AG issuing the subpoena? I read it like the first, but I think you might mean the second.
I don't have a problem with either; the existence of the due process protection is a major reason why. If the AG is just inappropriately fishing, then the subpoena will be quashed.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Belle, I wasn't arguing anything you just posted in the slightest. I was pretty sure that was what the law said. And if the clinics are not fulfilling their reporting duties, I agree they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
I'm disputing you stating as fact that they have no policy in place to report and/or are not in fact reporting. We don't know that.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
And, to follow up on what Shan posted, let's be clear on what the Kansas reporting procedures are. I'm not saying Shan's wrong, let's just have the actual information in front of us, so we understand the issues thoroughly.
From the same website as above.
quote:Statute: Kan. Stat. Ann. § 38-1522(c), (e) (West, WESTLAW through 2002 Reg. Sess.)
Law: Except as provided below, reports made pursuant to this law shall be made to the State Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services. When the Department is not open for business, the reports shall be made to the appropriate law enforcement agency. On the next day that the Department is open for business, the law enforcement agency shall report to the Department any report received and investigation initiated. The reports may be made orally or, on request of the Department, in writing. Reports of child abuse or neglect occurring in an institution operated by the Secretary of Social and Rehabilitation Services or the Commissioner of Juvenile Justice shall be made to the Attorney General. All other reports of child abuse or neglect by persons employed by or of children of persons employed by the State Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services or the Juvenile Justice Authority shall be made to the appropriate law enforcement agency.
quote:Reporting Procedures
Individual Responsibility Statute: § 38-1522 A mandated reporter who has reason to suspect that a child has been injured due to abuse shall make an oral report, followed by a written report if requested.
Agency Responsibility Statute: § 38-1522 Reports shall be made to the department. When the department is not open for business, reports shall be made to a law enforcement agency.
Content of Reports Statute: § 38-1522
Names and addresses of child, child's parents, and other responsible persons Child's age Nature and extent of injuries; any evidence of prior injuries Any other information that might be helpful
And penalities for non-reporting or interfering in reporting:
quote:FAILURE TO REPORT Kan. Stat. Ann. § 38-1522(f), (g) (WESTLAW through 2002 Reg. Sess.)
Willful and knowing failure to make a report required by the reporting laws is a Class B misdemeanor.
Preventing or interfering with, with the intent to prevent, the making of a report required by the reporting laws is a Class B misdemeanor.
In my opinion, that's not nearly enough - it should be more than a misdemeanor.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Thank you, Dagonee. That's what I was hoping you meant. Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I'd love to see records (without names, of course) of the numbers of mandatory reportings of child sexual abuse that Kansas abortion clinics have made over the last year. Then, we'd know whether or not they have a policy in place and are actually following it. Because, as we've seen from the look at the state law, if they are performing abortions on ANY girls under a certain age, they should have to report it.
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
Dag, is it possible that any of the information in the medical records (personal information) could make it into public domain through these proceedings?
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:I'm disputing you stating as fact that they have no policy in place to report and/or are not in fact reporting. We don't know that.
As the big issue appears to be has the clinic been performing abortions after the legal limit, shouldn't the Attorney General have not just the right, but the obligation, to investigate it?
The same for performing underage abortions if there has been no parental consent. I think we may be assuming that in each case there was parental or judicial consent given. That, however, isn't a given. There may be a clinic operating beyond the bounds of the law and using privacy and choice issues to shield their activities.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I should add,that the survey performed that was referenced in that article was not in the least scientific, and certainly isn't "proof" that all abortion clinics are skirting mandatory reporting laws. It was also done by a very biased, pro-life organization, so I'm not suggesting it should be taken as gospel by any means.
However, it does, as I said, give me some reason to suspect that not all clinics do follow the laws to the letter.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Interesting article, Belle. The tape quoted, however, makes it really clear that there is a policy in place.
quote: Planned Parenthood: "Which was not a good thing, OK. The fact that your boyfriend is 22 and the fact you're 14, that makes us mandated, we're mandated reporters. That means we have to report that."
Granted it also makes it clear that if the "girl" hadn't volunteered that information they wouldn't have asked about it during the phone interview. And that that particular employee is implying that the girl shouldn't have told. But it doesn't say if the girl had shown up at the clinic they wouldn't have asked for id, proof of age, and reported it anyway if she was underage.
From the article:
quote: Life Dynamics said in 91 percent of their calls the person they reached at the center agreed to conceal the statutory rape.
If this is the case, why aren't any of those conversations quoted verbaitum? I don't see any agreement to conceal happening in the one quoted, I see the center employee saying that they have to report it.
Anyway, I'm sure not saying it's not happening. Just that we don't know. It seems to me that in discussions like this we frequently start, intentionally or not, presenting things as facts that aren't, and that issues get confused really easily. I did it myself in the missle defense thread yesterday... BtL mentioned the sum of a billion dollars. I thought it was obviously a rough estimate and used it myself. And got called on it, and asked to provide documentation. And then there's things like that chart from this thread... very easy to misread. So I think we need to be really careful, in hot button threads especially, to distinguish between what is fact and what is opinion.
Added: Didn't see your last post while writing this. I'm glad to see you say it's not scientific and from a biased group, I didn't want to because I'm really not trying to be antagonistic here. I'm sorry if I've come across that way. And again, I have no doubt believing that there are some clinic employees who don't want to report and try to avoid it. But I really, really, hope that it's an individual response, not a policy... and I firmly believe those people should be fired and prosecuted.
[ February 25, 2005, 06:05 PM: Message edited by: ElJay ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dag, is it possible that any of the information in the medical records (personal information) could make it into public domain through these proceedings?
Not legally, until there's a prosecution of some kind. Even then, there possible safeguards to protect minors' identities.
Obviously, the more people who know something like this, the more likelihood there will be a leak, though.
Dagonee
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I can say, from experience when my husband was called to testify at both criminal and civil proceedings as a medical caregiver - that names weren't used unless the patient was also a party in the proceedings, in one case where the state was seeking to revoke the license of a doctor who was guilty of malpractice, the patient was not present or part of the suit and her name was kept confidential.
My husband knew it, having treated her, but all the court documents he reviewed had her name and other identifying characteristics removed and she was referred to as "Mrs. M" in the proceedings.
All the other people called, and the "expert" witnesses reviewed documents with the name obscured, so there was considerable effort to protect her privacy. And the reason this is relevant, is it was a case brought against an abortion doctor. Who, thank God, lost his license when the proceeding was over.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
ELJay, thanks for posting that, I had just copied that question down to answer myself.
Just so eveyone is clear on this point.....think of it this way.
How many 10-14 girls are likely to carry to be pregnant? Most of those girls won;t carry to term compared to a similar number of women in the ages of 20-24, for any number of reasons. They are more likely to be the victim of a sex crime than the older women, and less likely to be able (physically of mentally) to deal with the trama that rape causes, even without carrying a child of that to term.
In real numbers, is isn't as stark....the only reason I could think of putting it in that type of chart is to mislead people into thinking that most abortions are given to young women. It is very misleading, although I don't know if that is accidental or on purpose.
If ten 10 year old girls get pregnant, and 8 of them got abortions.....that would make the ratio of abortions 400% vs those carrying to term....even though only(?) 8 abortions happened.
See how misleading stats can be if you don't read the fine print?
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
ElJay, I've read transcripts from this survey, and there are many that are much more expicit than the one quoted. You'll note that one was only mentioned because it was part of the investigation in Connecticut.
However, I don't mean that to defend the survey, or their methods, and it should be pointed out that how they talk on the phone may be different than the way they act in person. Plus, I don't agree with the organization that conducted the survey entirely, and am not an advocate of them.
Yet, I can't shake the feeling that this failure to report is pretty widespread. Looking at Planned Parenthood's website, I found no policy statement on mandatory reporting. I found none of their teen sex education pamphlets that addressed statutory rape. I found references to what types of things aren't safe in a relationship, but none of them mentioned statutory rape at all. In the warning signs for an unhealthy relationship, they do not mention one partner being much older than another.
And yet, there is ample research that young girls are often pressured into sexual relationships by older men.
I don't have links to such studies right now, I'll get them later. I'm off to the grocery store, and won't be back until later.
Suffice it to say, I'm not encouraged by what I've read on Planned Parenthood's website. Now, if I've missed something, I'd appreciate being linked to it by someone.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Belle, keep in mind that those are intended to foster confidence in young people and to let them know people care. Talking about mandatory reporting right away wouldn't be a great way to begin fostering trust in a teen with a problem....half of what they are worried about is being exposed, so they wouldn't care about the "safeguards" in place, all they would hear is that you have to call the police.
That doesn't mean that they don't...I know for a fact that all the ones in this area do report. I have friends who work at one location and that is something that she has mentioned to me. It is tough to do, sometimes they plead to her not to, but she has to do so in order to be compliant with current laws.
[ February 25, 2005, 10:26 PM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I know for a fact that there are quite a few who don't report, some of whom are proud of this fact.
It definitely happens, and it happens enough that a special investigation is not out of line.
Dagonee
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
I'm definately backing Belle up on this. If there are more explicit transcripts, then I'm even angrier.
It really makes me a little sick that their priority appears to be in providing the abortion rather than the safety of the girls.
I wonder if people realize that just because a fourteen year old may agree to have sex with a substantially older person, they are working under psychological pressures that really does make sex a predatory act rather than consensual. I consider the actions, as portrayed in the article Belle linked to, equally or even more predatory than the sexual molestation they suffered that caused the need.
In children this young, it really is highly likely than an abortion is medically necessary. But I'd much rather it be done in the offices of an OB/GYN with the support of therapists and, if possible, loving parents. In such a situation, they need more help than ever to get through such a traumatic experience.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Amka, medically necessary or not, a lot of ob/gyns around here won't do abortions, for fear of being labelled abortion doctors. So the only place to get one is clinics that specialize... there was an article in out local newsweekly about a year ago about a female doctor who had been part of the fight to legalize abortion who basically came out of retirement because even though abortion is legal in MN there are so few doctors willing provide them, either for moral reasons or for fear of their own safety, that it was becoming difficult to impossible to get one. I know some people would consider it a good thing. *shrug* I'm in the safe, legal, and rare camp, personally. But it was an interesting article, I'll try to find the link, I think.
And I'm very well aware that when there's that sort of difference in age even if the younger party thinks it's a consentual relationship it really isn't. Likewise a person shouldn't have a sexual/emotional relationship with anyone they're in a position of power over, such as a current student, a doctor's patient, or someone a minister is counseling. Although the rest of those aren't illegal, they are almost always considered unethical.
If I ran the world, what I would like to see happen when there are suspicions of this sort is an independent panel of doctors, some but not all of whom would be selected by a pro-life group, review the records and look for problems. If there are abortions that should have been reported, check to see if they were, and what happened. That way it audits the reporting process and the department of child services, too. If they were not reported, by all means prosecute. I'm just very uncomfortable with the idea of medical records being turned over to the government, especially with names attached.
[ February 25, 2005, 11:43 PM: Message edited by: ElJay ]
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
That is my point too, ELJay..I am not saying that the law is made to be broken. If the law is being broken then something needs to be done about it.
But there has to be respect for the patients rights as well, and in these instances that often gets overlooked.
Notice I haven't said a thing to defend any person who violated the time period allowed by law? I don't know if that is a good limit, but it is the legal one, so I have no real problem with it.
This whole thing strikes me as being very similar to the "victims right" law concerning pregnant mothers that was passed last year. I know that killing anyone is a horrible thing.....I really do....but to say that a man who kills a pregnant woman can be charged with two murders is not right, not considering the fetus hasn't been born yet.
It has nothing to do with killing pregnant women, and everything to do with a pro-life agenda to award a fetus rights...
All so that that can be a building block for proving "person hood", and pursuing attempts to secure rights for fetuses to make abortion illegal.
It's a pretty smart move, too, probably the best one for pro-lifers in the last 30 years...if not their best one ever.
This might not be a witch hunt, but it could turn into a modern day equilivelent easily.
[ February 26, 2005, 12:53 AM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
As a currently pregnant woman, I already perceive aspects of personhood in the fetus. This one is more active than the others, and will probably not like to be too constricted. But he likes his back rubbed. My husband has watched his movements through my tummy, and we've talked about these characteristics of this child. We have several ultrasound pictures of him, including a very cute face shot with chubby cheeks. The baby is named. My husband is already very attached to him, and is very protective of both of us. Our children are already in love with him.
So what if I were killed now? Do you really think our family would consider it only one death?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:This whole thing strikes me as being very similar to the "victims right" law concerning pregnant mothers that was passed last year. I know that killing anyone is a horrible thing.....I really do....but to say that a man who kills a pregnant woman can be charged with two murders is not right, not considering the fetus hasn't been born yet.
Those laws date back to before Roe v. Wade, Kwea.
Posted by Lost Ashes (Member # 6745) on :
Well said Amka. My wife is two days from her due date. We certainly don't feel there is only one life there.
And we haven't since we first found out she was pregnant.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I am not talking about how individuals feel about it, I am talking about the legal aspect of the most current law passed regarding it.
If they are not born, then there can't be two murders....because until birth, legaly they don't exist as a person.
Dag, there were a lot of those laws before Roe vs. Wade, but they were not inforcable after it. Now there is another law, signed by Bush, that has redefined it for this generation...
And if you think you can convince me that it isn't an attempt to create a legal justification for outlawing abortion despite Roe vs. Wade, you are wrong. It is the first step anong the path of trying to award rights to unborn children..and if that happens, outlawing abortion is logicaly inevatible.
It can't be murder only if an outsider kills it, you know...it is either a person for all, or not a person at all. So by logical deduction, if a child is awarded rights before birth, how could that NOT interfere with a mothers rights to have an abortion?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Dag, there were a lot of those laws before Roe vs. Wade, but they were not inforcable after it. Now there is another law, signed by Bush, that has redefined it for this generation...
Factually, you're just flat out wrong on the status of such laws. Several existed before Roe, and Roe had no effect on their enforcability or constitutionality. This isn't a matter of opinion.
quote:And if you think you can convince me that it isn't an attempt to create a legal justification for outlawing abortion despite Roe vs. Wade, you are wrong. It is the first step anong the path of trying to award rights to unborn children..and if that happens, outlawing abortion is logicaly inevatible.
I wouldn't attempt to convince you otherwise. Anything that highlights the unbelievable hypocrisy of the current sate of abortion jurisprudence is a good thing in my mind. And it forces those opposing the laws to speak much more baldly about what it is they are advocating.
quote:It can't be murder only if an outsider kills it, you know...it is either a person for all, or not a person at all. So by logical deduction, if a child is awarded rights before birth, how could that NOT interfere with a mothers rights to have an abortion?
As much as I agree with the sentiment, the law doesn't have to make pretty moral distinctions. Right now, in California and most other states, it is "murder only if an outsider kills it." Assuming, of course, that the mother didn't want them to and the person doing the killing didn't have a medical license.
Dagonee
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I saw a site that listed those states last night, but it was 3 am and I didn't have the energy to look into it more..sorry about that.
My original point was this (although I lost sight of it in my exhaustion last night..: )
Two main points.
1) I don't like the federal government doing this, as the federal government is who decided Roe vs, Wade. The states can do what they like, although I don't like that either, but to me that doesn't concern me as much.
Also, I don't see anything wrong with creating a more serious class of murder classification for these sorts of crimes. I just don't see how we can charge someone with another murder when we also say that they aren't a person until they are born.
2) Dag, at least you are honest in your support for this law..Bush, while being against abortion, has denied that this new federal law is an attempt to create a legal basis for overturning Roe vs Wade.
I may not be President, but I am not stupid (except at 3 am, at times.. ). If I can see the probable ramifications of this law, how can anyone miss them...or try to deny them?
Kwea
[ February 27, 2005, 02:41 PM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Also, I don't see anything wrong with creating a more serious class of murder classification for these sorts of crimes. I just don't see how we can charge someone with another murder when we also say that they aren't a person until they are born.
Actually, this is quite easy from a legal point of view, because "murder" has been redefined several times, and has no inherent meaning outside the statutes and interpreting cases (there being no more common law of crime). From a legal point of view, the dichotomy isn't very unusual.
From a moral point of view, we have a serious conflict of definitions going on.
it should be noted that the California law was created in such a way as to guarantee the legal right to abortion. The hypocrisy is built right into the law itself.
Edit:
quote:I don't like the federal government doing this, as the federal government is who decided Roe vs, Wade.
Not sure if you realize this, but this law would apply only to federal crimes, which is very limited circumstance. It's not like this is redefining the definition to be used in 99% of crimes.
I know this doesn't change your problem with the bill, but it helps put everything in context.
Dagonee
[ February 27, 2005, 05:33 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:And, to follow up on what Shan posted, let's be clear on what the Kansas reporting procedures are. I'm not saying Shan's wrong, let's just have the actual information in front of us, so we understand the issues thoroughly.
There might be additional relevant information, too. That is, depending on the state, there may be other characteristics of the circumstance which take precedence under law. For example, in Wisconsin, things work a little differently for mandatory reporting if the child is an emancipated minor.
Emancipation (as far as I know) is generally considered a de re nata state -- that is, it is a characteristic which arises out of the situation itself, not as per decree from above. So when a judgment of emancipation is entered by the court, it is as an acknowledgement of a condition that already exists, not the granting of a condition by fiat. The "mature minor" precedent evolved in specific recognition of this. [I note this as an issue most relevant to the question of ethical obligation, although it may impact on legal obligation as well.]
How this factors into mandatory reporting makes the question more murky than it may appear from a cursory assessment. I have never been involved in a case where I suspected abuse (in the colloquial or non-colloquial sense) of a minor who purported to be acting as emancipated or as a mature minor. If I were in that situation, I'd for sure be talking to the head of our Ethics Committee for some advice.
All this is just to say that there might be additional relevant (even superceding) legislation. I am so glad I am not a lawyer. Couldn't keep it all straight for the life of me.
[ February 27, 2005, 07:41 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Oh, and for what it's worth, I take it as a given that:
1) people should follow the law, or -- in the case of morally-inspired civil disobedience -- be prepared to pay the lawful consequences
2) any adult that seriously considers any kind of sexual involvement with someone in high school (or younger) has some pretty big issues
3) everybody really should wait until they are older than 25 to have sex, anyway
4) we should have some kind of birth control in the water, and people should have to apply for the privilege of parenthood
5) (yes, I realize how problematic that would be, and I don't really care sometimes)
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
More on "Kansas Statutes: Article 35.-Sex Offenses; Article 36.-Crimes Affecting Family Relationships And Children" can be found here.
Also of note is that mandatory reporting involves cases where the provider has "reason to suspect that a child has been injured as a result of physical, mental, or emotional abuse or neglect, or sexual abuse; When they know of the death of a child." The legal interpretation of "injury" may be affected by whether or not a teenage is a "mature" or "emancipated" minor, and thus whether or not they are able to give consent.
Again, I'm not arguing for people to have sex with kids or that kids should be having sex with each other. Good heavens! I just think it's probably worth digging a little deeper to understand why those mandatory reporters may not have reported sexual abuse in the cases of pregnant teens. On the other hand, as ElJay notes, some or all of these cases may have been reported to child protective services.
I sure hope the right thing was done in each individual case. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dag, at least you are honest in your support for this law.
I've been thinking about this more. It's not that I support this law so it will create a legal basis to overturn Roe v. Wade - it won't, and Bush knows this, because a Congressional law can't override a SCOTUS constitutional finding.
I support this law for the same reason I support banning abortion - both positions are based on the same exact moral principles. I also like the debate that surrounds this law, because it requires dealing with the issue I think is controlling, namely the legal status of the unborn child.
The question of when personhood begins does not depend on whether or not abortion should be legal. It's an antecedent question.
Dagonee
Posted by foundling (Member # 6348) on :
I can understand why people would say that releasing medical records of minors would be a good thing if it helped stopped abuse of those minors. I can also understand releasing medical records to prove that doctors are violating state laws.
But, more than anything else, the clinics responsiblity is to the medical well being of their patients. I volunteer at a Planned Parenthood out here, and most of the people I deal with are kids. Most of them are looking for contraceptives, but some of them have come in for abortions. Now, dealing with giggling 13 year old girls, who nonchalantly tell you exactly what type of birth control they want and why, and how the others they have tried affect them, is disconcerting. I dont like the fact that these ditzy, childlike little girls are having sex. I find it sad, and it steals a little bit from my faith in humanity. But, I am glad that they are making themselves knowledgeable about how NOT to get pregnant. And every single one of those kids would decide to never come back in, no matter the reason, if they knew their records were in any danger of becoming public knowledge. I cant support anything that would facilitate that happening. Because most of these kids have nowhere else to go.
Now, this AG, Phil Kline, has a history of fighting abortion in Kansas. He tried to reinterpert a law recently requiring clinics to report any sexual activity in children under 16, regardless of whether there were any signs of abuse. link to article
edit: And this artical, in the NYT, is why I talk about his anti-abortion history. NYT
I find his motivations suspect now, because of the record he has concerning abortion, and privacy. I would want to see more info about what exactly was being subpoenad', and what would be done with the information.
[ February 27, 2005, 07:35 PM: Message edited by: foundling ]
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:The question of when personhood begins does not depend on whether or not abortion should be legal. It's an antecedent question.
Absolutely.
Deciding on the former would not necessarily decide the latter, though. So, for example, someone may clearly be a person with a right to life without thereby securing everything he or she needs to exercise that right -- e.g., your right to life does not legally entail my granting you one of my kidneys, even if it is the only thing in the world which will keep you alive.
Of course, there is so much more to the story. Parents and children have different relationships than you and I, and consent to one sort of outcome may imply consent to another. But I think it is much murkier than it may seem. And that's just the law, which (IMHO) is the very soul of clarity when compared to the general ethics of the matter.
I don't have kids. I have gone to great pains throughout my life not to get pregnant. At times this meant abstinance, at other times it meant birth control practices of one sort or another. Upon reflection, this was probably one of the wisest choices of my life. I haven't been (nor am I now) ready to be a parent. I do have the greatest respect for those who are more suited than I and those who do the job well.
[ February 27, 2005, 07:38 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Deciding on the former would not necessarily decide the latter, though. So, for example, someone may clearly be a person with a right to life without thereby securing everything he or she needs to exercise that right -- e.g., your right to life does not legally entail my granting you one of my kidneys, even if it is the only thing in the world which will keep you alive.
I agree. Naturally, I think it's the dispositive factor. But the important thing is to answer this question first, or have a moral reasoning that makes the answer irrelevant, such as your kidney analysis.* I've heard people complain about the movie "Look Who's Talking" as pro-life propaganda because Mikey talks in the womb.
Dagonee *Which I'm not writing my 3-page analysis on .
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
People can be so silly. It is frustrating to see this when the debate is about something much more important than a pop comedy.
You and I agree on many things, Dag. Most particularly on the importance of taking serious things seriously and doing them due justice.
That's so cool. I have a lot of respect for you.
[Hey, just curious -- are you an INTP or INTJ? I bounce between the two, as does dkw. Dave is INTJ. I was rereading Please Understand Me this weekend, and it underscored for me just how irritating my habits and traits can be to someone of a different temperament. Dave and I agreed that we were both lucky eventually to find spouses with whom we meshed. Fervently agreed. Nobody else could stand us.]
[ February 27, 2005, 08:32 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
INTJ, I believe. You?
[ February 27, 2005, 08:29 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Edited as above. Oh, yeah, that's totally why I get you so well.
I'm currently slanted toward INTP, but I'm working on drawing projects to closure and implementing my ideas instead of sticking with abstract theory. Good therapy. I need to cultivate my J aspects.
[ February 27, 2005, 08:33 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
"Perhaps the most fundamental problem, however, is that INTJs really want people to make sense."
quote:Most particularly on the importance of taking serious things seriously and doing them due justice.
If people would do this more, we might solve a lot of problems in this country. Once we agreed on which things are serious, of course.
Dagonee
[ February 27, 2005, 08:38 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Dag, I was aware of that...that eh federal law was more limited in scope.
I do think that the law will become the basis for a SCOTUS challenge to Roe vs Wade though, and that these laws will be used to argue that federal law already reconizes a fetuses rights.
I know that a law can't override a SCOTUS ruling, but I do think that a law can be a basis for a challenge all the way to the SCOTUS...right?
Kwea
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Not really. The law would be possibly be cited in the briefs, but the CA law and its ilk are much more likely to be cited as proof of the compelling state interest in the life of the unborn child. But it wouldn't be the basis for any such challenge - that will be a state law that violates Casey (which is actually controlling now, not Roe), and the suit will be raised by a pro-choice advocacy group.
Dagonee
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote: INTPs are pensive, analytical folks. They may venture so deeply into thought as to seem detached, and often actually are oblivious to the world around them.
Precise about their descriptions, INTPs will often correct others (or be sorely tempted to) if the shade of meaning is a bit off. While annoying to the less concise, this fine discrimination ability gives INTPs so inclined a natural advantage as, for example, grammarians and linguists.
INTPs are relatively easy-going and amenable to most anything until their principles are violated, about which they may become outspoken and inflexible. They prefer to return, however, to a reserved albeit benign ambiance, not wishing to make spectacles of themselves.
A major concern for INTPs is the haunting sense of impending failure. They spend considerable time second-guessing themselves. The open-endedness (from Perceiving) conjoined with the need for competence (NT) is expressed in a sense that one's conclusion may well be met by an equally plausible alternative solution, and that, after all, one may very well have overlooked some critical bit of data. An INTP arguing a point may very well be trying to convince himself as much as his opposition. In this way INTPs are markedly different from INTJs, who are much more confident in their competence and willing to act on their convictions.
Mathematics is a system where many INTPs love to play, similarly languages, computer systems--potentially any complex system. INTPs thrive on systems. Understanding, exploring, mastering, and manipulating systems can overtake the INTP's conscious thought. This fascination for logical wholes and their inner workings is often expressed in a detachment from the environment, a concentration where time is forgotten and extraneous stimuli are held at bay. Accomplishing a task or goal with this knowledge is secondary.
"Annoying" and carrying a "haunting sense of impending failure." Oh, yeah. Sweet bijimmeny, that's me to a "t."
What can ya do?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:What can ya do?
Mahna Mahna!
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Doo doo de doot!
[And just for clarity, let me say that I don't think other people in this thread are not taking this matter seriously. It looks to me to be an incredibly sensible and forthright discussion all around.
Sometimes I do like to make fun of how I tend to spiral off and natter away on some obsessive little tangent and call it "a matter of clarity." (ha, ha) More like obsessive chewing of the cud. Excuse me while I go regurgitate something I've said before and drone on and on and on about it.
I so need other people to keep me on track. INTJs do that nicely, I've found. ]
[ February 27, 2005, 08:52 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote: Now, dealing with giggling 13 year old girls, who nonchalantly tell you exactly what type of birth control they want and why, and how the others they have tried affect them, is disconcerting.
My last boyfriend had a 15 year old daughter. On her 15th birthday, in fact, she implied to me that she was sexually active, in casual conversation.
I considered it my responsibility to make sure her dad knew, and he did. He wasn't happy about it, but her mom had primary custody at the time, and although he had expressed his concerns to her, there wasn't really anything he could do to stop it.
Like CT, I don't think being a parent is for me, and I have gone to some pretty drastic measures in my life to ensure that it doesn't happen. So it was a little surreal when I found myself a little later, at 30, acting as a mother figure to a 15 year old girl describing to me the symptoms of a UTI, which had been causing her much pain and discomfort for at least three days. Her dad knew about the symptoms, but didn't know what they signified or how serious it could be.
It was a Sunday evening, and I got her some OTC medicine to control the symptoms until Monday, and told her dad that she needed to go to the doctor on Monday, period. Due to scheduling issues, I actually ended up taking her to the doctor over lunch the next day, and we had just barely caught it in time. The doctor said she was probably less than 24 hours away from a kidney infection.
In the process we talked about sex and birth control and what can cause UTIs and what you can do to avoid them. Like I said, surreal.
It absolutly broke my heart that this strong, smart, enthusiastic 15 year old girl was sexually active. And there was absolutly nothing I could do about it.
I very much hope that she gets through her teen years without having to make a decision about abortion.
Added: Her boyfriend was less than a year older than her. If she had been having sex with an 18 or so year old, I would have tried my damnedest to get her to stop and break off the relationship. If she had been dating someone over 21, I might have quietly talked to him and suggested if he didn't take his skanky ass elsewhere I'd be talking to the police. And if he didn't, I probably would have done so.
[ February 27, 2005, 09:01 PM: Message edited by: ElJay ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:And just for clarity, let me say that I don't think other people in this thread are not taking this matter seriously. It looks to me to be an incredibly sensible and forthright discussion all around.
I agree.
And ElJay, that's just a sad story. Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
It is, but it's the only sad story I could tell about this girl. She is a brightly-burning flame... yes, I think she should have waited to start having sex, but barring that I think she went about it in the best way possible. She was in an exclusive relationship, they had been together for almost a year before they started, they talked about it beforehand, and she started on the depo-provo (sp?) shot a month prior. She told me about her first experience, and unlike most women I know who became sexually active young it was not painful or scary for her. According to her, it was a first for the boyfriend, too, but they were still using condoms, which I strongly encouraged.
I tried to be supportive of her without being supportive of her activity, and to make sure that if she was going to keep doing it she stayed as safe and as smart as possible about it. And realized the potential consequences, and how they could screw up all the plans she had for the rest of her life. And when things ended for her dad and I, I made sure she knew that she could contact me if she ever felt she needed to, for any reason. All I could do.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I'm so glad she [has had] you in her life, ElJay.
[ February 27, 2005, 09:30 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
You did what you could, ELJay....more than a lot of people would have done. Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
Actually, CT, you're quite correct - I was reflecting on the general rule of thumb for Wa. state mandatory reporting - thanks.
I didn't think it was significantly different from other states, so I just figured Belle's post and comments were adding additional valuable information as it pertained to Kansas.
Certainly didn't think I had all the scoop - and certainly sorry if Belle or anyone else took that information in a way that somehow diminished the discussion.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
]![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
)![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
). If I can see the probable ramifications of this law, how can anyone miss them...or try to deny them?![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)