Planned Parenthood of Kansas Must Turn Over Records
posted at 3:56 pm on February 23, 2008 by see-dubya
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
A Planned Parenthood clinic in Overland Park, Kansas, is under suspicion of violating several Kansas laws. 107 charges were filed by a Kansas DA (formerly Kansas’ Attorney General) Phill Kline, who sounds like a really cool guy. The Overland Park clinic and Phill Kline go way back–they’ve been tangling since at least 2005, when Kline was Attorney General of Kansas.
Today it looks Kline is about to get another bite at them:
A grand jury issued a subpoena to the Comprehensive Health in Overland Park clinic last month demanding the records of 16 patients. The clinic has been battling Johnson County District Attorney Phill Kline, an anti-abortion crusader, over whether the subpoena should be enforced.
After a hearing over the dispute Friday in Johnson County District Court, an attorney for the clinic, Pedro Irigonegaray, said it would turn over records for 16 patients that pertain to two restrictions on abortions under Kansas law. He said it would resolve the dispute.
One restriction mandates that the clinic notify a parent or guardian when a minor seeks an abortion. Another imposes a 24-hour waiting period before an abortion and requires the clinic to provide information to a patient about the procedure and other medical issues.
I’m glad someone is looking into Kansas’ abortion industry. It seems especially slipshod. On the other hand, maybe it’s quite typical–and we just know more about the situation in Kansas because of the efforts of people like Phill Kline.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « 1 2 [3]
Let’s try this then:
Modern liberalism should mean the extension of human rights to people.
Saltysam on February 24, 2008 at 1:01 AM
People have told me I’m old, but wow.
I’m suggesting taking it out of the court and into the legislature. Is that what Taney did in Dred Scott? I’m not sure our views are analogous.
dedalus on February 24, 2008 at 1:03 AM
Nope. They wanted to take rights from the King and give it to the landowners. Pretty big deal for its day, and they set up a remarkable system of checks & balances.
dedalus on February 24, 2008 at 1:08 AM
“People have told me I’m old, but wow”
dedalus on February 24, 2008 at 1:03 AM
LOL
It was a dig at you. Nothing malicious though. This is always such an emotional subject.
But, generally speaking, I’ve always said the abortion issue is not going away. And , in many ways, it is analogous to the Taney decisions of property rights, slavery and states rights etc., which I believe he totally screwed up.
The Fed has jurisdiction over abortion because it is non-criminal American life , which they are bound by the Constitution to defend.
Saltysam on February 24, 2008 at 1:11 AM
The CONSITuTiON: Says that where STATES HAVE jurisdiction over any blank spaces in the constitution. Abortion IS NOT IN THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
mred on February 24, 2008 at 1:14 AM
dedalus on February 24, 2008 at 1:08 AM
Oh, I misread.
You said classic-al liberalism. You want to go back to the 1500 through 1700 England/Great Britain stuff. (Which, btw, still doesn’t support your argument that it’s not an extension of rights to people). Perhaps we’re just arguing for the sake of something to do.
I simply meant classic liberalism. You know, early 20th century stuff.
Saltysam on February 24, 2008 at 1:16 AM
Citation please. From the Constitution of the USA.
mred on February 24, 2008 at 1:18 AM
Red:
Please, for the sake of my double vision, would you write that over again. I can’t make heads or tails of what your saying.
Saltysam on February 24, 2008 at 1:19 AM
I agree that Taney was a numbskull who probably did as much as anyone to cause the Civil War.
I don’t happen to think that a “being” exists at conception. I think it is a blueprint and raw material. You make good points though on a topic that is difficult. I’ll have to check for additional posts tomorrow though since I need to get up early to take my son snow tubing.
dedalus on February 24, 2008 at 1:20 AM
Oops.
Your latest question is clear. I meant the post before it.
Give me a minute, and I’ll answer your latest post.
Saltysam on February 24, 2008 at 1:21 AM
dedalus on February 24, 2008 at 1:20 AM
Have a great time. And when you can prove that a person in the womb is not a being, then you have a legal argument. Otherwise, there is absolutely no evidence to date that life in the womb is not a being.
I’ll argue all day with you, and I won’t mention God once, totally unnecessary. Science, the DOI and USC have all the tools neccesary to outlaw abortion.
Saltysam on February 24, 2008 at 1:25 AM
Not familiar with Classic (as opposed to Classical) Liberalism. I’ll have to read up. I was referring to the Enlightenment thinkers that Jefferson was reading when he wrote the Declaration, but mostly the way their ideas were interpreted and implemented by the American founders.
dedalus on February 24, 2008 at 1:26 AM
Yep. That is why I said a few posts back that I’d favor a Federalist approach, which limits the Federal goverment and looks to the states.
dedalus on February 24, 2008 at 1:28 AM
Red:
The first paragraph of the US Constitution clearly states that:
Saltysam on February 24, 2008 at 1:29 AM
Let me know your thoughts on a zygote that is a few days old. Is it a being? If it then twins and turns into two embryos where did the second being come from? Are twins the same being?
dedalus on February 24, 2008 at 1:31 AM
mred:
In addition:
The 14th ammendment clearly states:
…nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Saltysam on February 24, 2008 at 1:34 AM
When’s the last time you saw a set of blueprints leap from the table and build a structure? Likewise, when’s the last time you saw raw material form itself into something useful? I’m guessing never because they’re not “beings.” We are living beings from conception to death.
bojack on February 24, 2008 at 1:39 AM
dedalus on February 24, 2008 at 1:31 AM
IMHO, science is misunderstood.
We say the sun is hot, right?
We also accept it as a scientific fact, right?
The reason we accept it as scientific fact is because noone has been able to provide the evidence that it is not…hot.
Same with a person. Only the irrational would claim that a person unborn is not a person. There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE to prove otherwise.
And I don’t mean to be smug or arrogant, but simply rhetorical… the answer to your questions is: Who cares? It’s irrelevant to the point that you can;t prove it is not a person.
Y
Saltysam on February 24, 2008 at 1:42 AM
Hee hee hee. I love good, common sense, cut through the BS prose.
Saltysam on February 24, 2008 at 1:51 AM
Science doesn’t meddle with statements that begin with, “I don’t happen to think” or “I think it is”.
Words like “blueprints” and “raw material” sound technical enough, but upon further review, they were inserted into a statement of faith.
Please stick to the science. I promised I would argue this without using religious dogma.
Saltysam on February 24, 2008 at 3:14 AM
This movement from blueprint to existence certainly happens in software systems without any futher intervention from outside forces.
dedalus on February 24, 2008 at 7:14 AM
Right, but speaking informally on a blog people do use those terms.
I was using the term “being” which isn’t a scientific term. Science can tell us what an embryo is, but not whether it is a “being”. Philosophers do use the term in ways that don’t include a fertilized egg.
Empirically, a fertilized egg doesn’t have vital organs. Since it has neither brain nor consciousness it lacks components of what some consider a person. An acorn isn’t an oak, though with time it may become one.
dedalus on February 24, 2008 at 7:27 AM
It is subject to the definition of the term “person”, which scientist don’t define. The question of a zygote would need to be addressed under a definition of “person”. Is it one person? Two people? More than two? Scientifically how do zygotes that are one person differ from those that are multiple people?
dedalus on February 24, 2008 at 7:33 AM
I haven’t read all the posts on this thread, but the last page compels me to ask the question. If someone can be charged with murder for killing the unborn by harming and/or killing the mother….At what point does the unborn become viable in order to make that charge? To me the answer is simple……At conception.
jerrytbg on February 24, 2008 at 9:29 AM
Dude, please, Tool is classic thrash try reading their biography…
doriangrey on February 24, 2008 at 9:37 AM
WTF? I’m a software developer and I can assure you, this does not happen.
Onager on February 24, 2008 at 12:18 PM
“Empirically, a fertilized egg doesn’t have vital organs. Since it has neither brain nor consciousness it lacks components of what some consider a person. An acorn isn’t an oak, though with time it may become one.
dedalus on February 24, 2008 at 7:27 AM”
But by the time a woman knows she is pregnant the baby has a heart beat, it has brain waves, it has fingerprints…. is it a being now? at 28 days conception? (Actually 14 days since they determine conception as being the first day of the last period, two weeks before an egg is even set to be fertilized!)
Blight on February 24, 2008 at 12:52 PM
Science can tell us what an octogenerian is, but it cannot tell us whether it is a “being”.
What’s your point?
Saltysam on February 24, 2008 at 1:52 PM
Don’t make it so hard.
A zygote is at least one person.
Saltysam on February 24, 2008 at 1:55 PM
Black’s Law Dictionary 7th Edition Abridged:
Person:
1. A human being
2. An entity (such as a corporation) that is recognized by law as having the rights and duties of a human being.
3. The living body of a human being
p. 932
Saltysam on February 24, 2008 at 2:00 PM
An acorn is not an oak, though with time it may become one.
This is proof that a zygote is not a person?
Can we agree that you meant an acorn is not a tree? Scientifically speaking, “oak” is a genus, correct?
So when we speak of genus, we would refer to acorns as of the genus “Querus” and not the genus “Picea” (spruce).
The correct analogy is: An acorn is not a tree, and given time, it may become one.
or
An acorn is not a spruce, and given time, it will not become one.
Referencing a plant for your analogy, is weak. If I were to rebut on that alone, I would rhetorically ask, “Why not use a mammal analogy?” You would be hard pressed to come up with it.
Saltysam on February 24, 2008 at 2:33 PM
I admire your efforts, but I don’t think you can reason with people who insist on comparing humans to blueprints, software, and acorns. If they believe that fetus’ are nothing more than worthless piles of goo that at some point instantly morph into human beings, nothing you say will convince them otherwise. Ultimately it’s our life experiences that shape our views. It was my experiences that made me switch sides on the abortion issue. Hopefully more and more people will begin to see abortion clinics for what they are…human slaughter houses.
bojack on February 24, 2008 at 3:12 PM
bojack on February 24, 2008 at 3:12 PM
Thanks for your support, but I disagree. You can reason with people. I find “dadelus”, who has been discussing this with me, amiable and civil.
I’ve thought on this subject (the abortion thing) long and hard.
Something that irks me, is that the scientific/legal arguments against abortion are rock solid (always have been). But for the last few decades, the political paradigm shapers (the MSM, magazines, universities, public schools, special interests etc…), hide behind the boogeyman image they’ve created of the pious, using terms like right-wing christian, religious zealot etc. you know the show. They pound us with this boogeyman, and say “this is one side of the issue” and then prop up the oh-so-tiresome image of the secular, rational and moderate and say “this is the other side of the issue”.
Their are millions upon millions of people out there, that are troubled by the abortion issue. They have been programmed to believe that anti-abortion is zealotry, and “pro choice” is moderate (just examining the term “pro-choice” alone illustrates the desperate attempt to avoid the secular arguments against abortion). These people feel comfortable being “moderate” just for the sake of personally identifying themselves as rational, reasonable people (propaganda induced self delusion IMHO).
And in my experience, I’m led to believe that many people out there, are burning inside to be led in the direction of protecting life, because instinctively, they sense “somethin’ just ain’t right” with this. But, because of their almost “pavlov’s dog” reaction to moral discussions, they appreciate, or rather gravitate, toward a secular argument. The funny thing is, its not the secular argument that is the impetus for their initial curiousity, its that they sense that “somethin’ ain’t right about it”.
So , at the end of the day, when they finally understand that they’ve been hoodwinked by the sophistry of the secular left, and realize there is a solid, American, Constitutional, scientific argument for standing up for the most innocent among us, in the final analysis they peer toward the infinite sky, throw themselves at the mercy of love…and say:
It’s just not right.
Saltysam on February 24, 2008 at 3:53 PM
I’d probably agree that some fundamental level of brain activity constitutes a distinct being.
dedalus on February 24, 2008 at 4:20 PM
It certainly happens at run time when a program calls “new” to instantiate a class. Pass an object for the mother and an object for the father to the constructor and a new object based on a person class can develop as long as there is electricity, a CPU and enough memory. It probably won’t pass the Turing Test but it can develop without additional user or developer input.
dedalus on February 24, 2008 at 4:53 PM
Science can tell us whether the octogenarian has a brain and is capable of cognition. Philosophers, instead of scientists, would discuss being.
dedalus on February 24, 2008 at 5:18 PM
It either is a person or it is potentially one or more people. You are saying it is a person but don’t even know how many social security numbers to assign it.
dedalus on February 24, 2008 at 5:24 PM
Since when does the lack of a brain (or lack of consciousness if you could prove it) prove that a living body is not a person?
“Some” can consider, but until they can prove that a zygote is not a person, we are left with only one monumental fact of science:
There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE to date that a zygote is not a person.
We could try to call it something else, let’s say “X”.
Then we could define it as, let’s say, a glob of cells without a brain, heart and lungs, containing human DNA.
But then, scientifically, one would correctly STILL be able to say, “an “X” is the earliest stage of a person’s life.”
Saltysam on February 24, 2008 at 5:24 PM
Person or people. You’ve evidence that it’s something else other than human life?
Show it to me and I’ll give it best to learn and understand it.
Saltysam on February 24, 2008 at 5:35 PM
Yours is better and correct.
I’ll give you a bird: an egg is not a chicken. If you need a mammal I’m going with Platypus.
dedalus on February 24, 2008 at 5:35 PM
I’ll give you a bird: an egg is not a chicken. If you need a mammal I’m going with Platypus.
dedalus on February 24, 2008 at 5:35 PM
Well, we usually consider the status of a fertilized egg analogous.
I mean we usually don’t consider the human female egg a person, right?
Then, we would say “X” (the fertilized egg) is the earliest stage of a chicken’s life.
Saltysam on February 24, 2008 at 5:54 PM
Same with the platypus.
Saltysam on February 24, 2008 at 6:22 PM
And the point is that an acorn is an oak. An acorn is the earliest stage in an oaks life. A tree is the mature stage of an oaks life.
If your going to use plants…
Saltysam on February 24, 2008 at 6:41 PM
It’s amazing when you use hard science to challenge supposed “secular” views, suddenly science is irrelevant.
We must turn attention away from empirical logic and rely on faith to determine that a zygote is not a person.
Interesting isn’t it?
And what does it mean to be secular, reasonable and moderate again?
Saltysam on February 24, 2008 at 7:11 PM
Yes, you are right though if you’ve eaten the egg perhaps there never was a chicken. If you’ve eaten eggs from a small farm chances are you’ve eaten a fertilized chicken egg, containing a pin-sized embryo. People who eat these eggs don’t have the experience or the nutrition of eating a chicken.
dedalus on February 24, 2008 at 7:24 PM
dedalus on February 24, 2008 at 7:24 PM
No more than a cannibal would receive the same nutrition from a zygote than he would from an adult.
The critical difference is mass.
Saltysam on February 24, 2008 at 7:30 PM
Yes, you are right though if you’ve eaten the egg perhaps there never was a chicken.
Perhaps.
Perhaps there never was an egg. Oh, sorry, I told you I would not go religious on you. :-) Go ahead, you can keep doing to though. I’m truly not offended.
Saltysam on February 24, 2008 at 7:43 PM
It’s more than mass or just scaling up a zygote as though it were a microsopic adult with arms, legs, ciculatory system and self-awareness. Not sure how cannibals manage their diet, but some vegetarians will eat eggs since they don’t contain meat.
dedalus on February 24, 2008 at 8:07 PM
An egg is not a zygote.
Saltysam on February 24, 2008 at 8:11 PM
Who said microscopic adult?
It is not a microscopic adult. It is a microscopic person.
And since when is the definition of person an “adult with arms, legs, circulatory system and self-awareness?”
I’ve already shown you the definition of “person” according to Black’s law dictionary.
Saltysam on February 24, 2008 at 8:21 PM
A fertilized chicken egg that is a day old is akin to a zygote. I’m not familiar enough with chicken embryology to know if they use the same term pre-embryo.
dedalus on February 24, 2008 at 8:25 PM
A vegetarian can tell themselves anything they want, but many self respecting vegetarians would not eat an egg if they knew that it contained a microscopic chicken.
And, since when is “meat” the definition of a person?
Saltysam on February 24, 2008 at 8:32 PM
I’m not familiar enough with chicken embryology to know if they use the same term pre-embryo.
dedalus on February 24, 2008 at 8:25 PM
Lol. Neither am I.
I’m no biologist either, but isn’t the egg part of the eggy stuff nutrition for the “X” inside the eggshell at that point?
Saltysam on February 24, 2008 at 8:34 PM
Yes, since it gestates externally an umbilical chord isn’t practical. The chick needs to munch on the yolk.
dedalus on February 24, 2008 at 8:41 PM
Amazing.
Saltysam on February 24, 2008 at 8:47 PM
You’ve had ample time, but have not provided the evidence that a zygote is not a person.
A rational person would now understand that the Fed has the complete legal jurisdiction to protect the unborn through mandate of the US Constitution.
And I am a die hard federalist.
Saltysam on February 24, 2008 at 9:15 PM
Actually, that’s putting it lightly.
The Fed is obligated by the USC to fulfill its primary role by protecting the rights of man to the unborn.
Saltysam on February 24, 2008 at 9:24 PM
I’ve read this sort of, “I don’t believe that a ‘being’ exists at conception” argument before, and it always makes me ask why it matters what someone personally “believes”, unless that belief is based on some facts. If we accept that human life should be protected, then that protection ha to start at some point. The only facts I see in evidence as to when that point begins are scientific ones. We know that the beginning of a human life is not birth, but conception. If we want to pick some point between birth and conception and say, “Sure, the life began at conception, but it didn’t become ‘human’ life until…”
And now I’ve left that whole thought hanging, because there is just no way to fill in the blank. If you’re not a human at conception, when are you? Can anybody say?
Given that, I see no basis for a law protecting human life to start anywhere else but at conception. Start anywhere else, and you can’t be sure that you’re not allowing human life to be snuffed out.
theregoestheneighborhood on February 24, 2008 at 9:28 PM
theregoestheneighborhood on February 24, 2008 at 9:28 PM
Obviously, if you read our argument through this post, you know I’m with you.
The scientific facts are on the side of those that want to protect human life at conception.
Little known secret amongst all the noise.
Saltysam on February 24, 2008 at 9:35 PM
theregoestheneighborhood on February 24, 2008 at 9:28 PM
What do they call you for short? LOL
Saltysam on February 24, 2008 at 9:44 PM
Theregoestheneighborhood. :->
I picked the name when I joined at the last open registration period, because I noticed a lot of old-timer posters who had basically that reaction to all the newcomers.
Shoulda gone with something much shorter, but the name cracked me up because there didn’t seem to be a lot of love at the time for socially conservative Christians.
theregoestheneighborhood on February 24, 2008 at 10:15 PM
I generally favor Federalism, but I agree with you that ultimately a 50-state solution to who is human and who isn’t would likely be a mess. However, the idea that the states are labratories could apply here, and maybe a mess is OK before congress acts.
Re: Your Black’s Law Dictionary definition, I don’t think that definition covers a zygote. Additionally, the book is a reference book, not a legal decision. There is a 1973 Supreme Court decision that is the law of the land. It allows abortion for any reason until “viability”. Like the decision or not it has more legal standing than a reference book.
I don’t think viability should be the line. I do think it is a question of when an embryo is a person. I’d put it at brain activity. If “brain dead” ends your life I think it is reasonable to say that brain activity begins it.
dedalus on February 24, 2008 at 10:44 PM
Please overturn RvW and devolve it to the states. Then women who want abortions will just have to travel more to get one. You will invigorate the economy by promoting interstate travel as well as make it more likely that unwanted babies will be born to unfit mothers.
Viscount_Bolingbroke on February 24, 2008 at 11:34 PM
Brain activity, or measurable brain activity? Do we check for brain activity before allowing the abortion? In utero?
Note: I know someone, somewhere, is thinking, “Well, it would weed out the liberals.” But that’s a cheap shot.
But then, the question of “when life begins” is a totally separate question from “when do you give up and accept that a life has ended.” So I don’t know that answering one even begins to address the other.
theregoestheneighborhood on February 24, 2008 at 11:55 PM
It’s not my Black’s Law Dictionary definition; it’s Black’s Law Dictionary’s definition. Yes, a reference. A reference to over 500 years of common law. Considering that the many of the legal latin terms go back to the Roman republic, you can make the case that it spans the entire history of Western civilization.
If I’ve been saying anything at all, it’s that the decision is nothing but fluff.
7 people invented the idea of viability with no basis in science, nor Constitutional law.
40 million people dead, 7 justices.
They made it all up out of whole cloth.
Black’s Law Dictionary definitions are not made up out of whole cloth.
Neither is Webster’s New Universal Unabridged Dictionary;
Person: 1. A human being whether man, woman , or child 2.A human being, as distinguished from an animal or a thing 11.(Law) A human being, or group of human beings recognized by law as having certain rights and duties.
Of course I don’t like it, and I stand on what I said before:
There is absolutely NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that a zygote is not a person. None. Zero. Zilch.
This isn’t fake science. This isn’t 7 people with spectacles hanging off the end of their nose, making subjective inferences about who is viable and who is not. This isn’t 7 people in robes, looking down from their bench, collecting a guaranteed lifetime paycheck from the public trust without any accountability whatsoever.
It is 100% undeniable, bonafide scientific fact.
Therefore:
The Federal Government is Constitutionally obligated, to fulfill its primary role of securing the Blessings of Liberty to our posterity by extending the rights of man to the unborn.
Saltysam on February 25, 2008 at 1:16 AM
Zygote is a scientific term but person isn’t. You are picking a law reference and asking to foot scientific terms to legal wording. Science can tell you that the zygote is a human cell, that it is living matter, and that it contains the combined DNA of mom & dad. It can tell you that it doesn’t have a brain, is not cognizant, and does not have senses. If the zygote doesn’t subsequently implant in the uterus, the woman may never know she conceived.
Based on the DNA in the zygote a scientist could, theoritically, tell you if the cell possessed musical genes. He couldn’t say whether the cell was a “musician”.
dedalus on February 25, 2008 at 10:51 AM
Your son snow-tubing, was your son @ conception…the DNA of him was immediately in place…..so…..where is the human being walking this earth who wasn’t 1st a collection of cells in Utero????
But Science can’t tell you anything about ‘personhood’…..
so, how many minutes…seconds….nano-seconds are needed to make a ‘human life’?…..is it based on time?…or the presence of a brain?
Life does not begin & end by the dictates of Science…..
How long was the LIFE that didn’t implant?……
Science can never understand ‘Time’ in a meaningful way & can never explain anything outside the Mundane.
lobosan5 on February 25, 2008 at 11:30 AM
I agree that science is limited. It is mistaken to look to science to define values or meaning.
To answer your question on the fertilized egg that didn’t implant. It never experienced consciousness or committed an act of free will. It wouldn’t seem to be a moral creature.
dedalus on February 25, 2008 at 12:31 PM
Comment pages: « 1 2 [3]