Child Sex Abuse Reporting Case Underway in Kansas

KS Supreme Court ruling on Tiller’s medical records is also expected Friday

Wichita, KS — Inside the ornately decorated gray stone Federal Courthouse in Wichita, Kansas, a drama with national implications is currently playing out. At stake is nothing less than the ability of law enforcement officials to investigate and prosecute sexual crimes perpetrated against children aged 15 and under.

At issue is an opinion issued by Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline in 2004 that indicated that since it is illegal in the State of Kansas for a child under 16 to engage in sexual conduct, such cases, classified as statutory rape, must be reported to social services authorities.

This opinion apparently did not sit well with certain mandatory reporters, such as abortionists and social workers. A suit was brought by 14 “health professionals” — including three abortionists and two abortion mill nurses — who challenged the Kansas law that mandates health care professionals to report incidents of “significant sexual conduct” in children under 16.

The case is called Aid for Women v. Nola Foulston. For three days, the plaintiffs presented their case that consisted of carefully rehearsed, and in some instances obviously memorized, testimony from abortionists, a self-avowed feminist social worker, an other witnesses that included conclusions that sexual intercourse in children as young as 10 years old was “not necessarily injurious.”

Operation Rescue observers were in court to hear the proceedings and describe the testimony as sometimes arrogant, shocking, and even openly contemptuous toward defense attorneys representing Attorney General Kline.

The first three days of the trial were characterized by brash, often contradictory testimony, and disputes over the definitions of certain common words.

For example, on the first day of testimony Dr. Robert Blum testified that, in general adolescents between the ages of 13 and 15 are mature enough to make decisions regarding sexual conduct. However, a few minutes later, he testified that he was horrified at the prospect of children in that same age group marrying since they lacked the emotional maturity to engage in married relationships.

Blum also inexplicably testified that married adolescents were at much higher risk of contracting sexually transmitted diseases, AIDS, and having abortions than unmarried sexually active teens.

“Physicians over-report abuse,” Blum said.

Vocabulary continued to be a source of conflict during the trial.

Dr. Nancy Kellogg, a child abuse and neglect specialist seemed to understand every question posed by the attorneys for the Center for Reproductive Law and Policy, a radical pro-abortion New York law firm that brought the suit. However, when questioned by the defense, she did not understand the meaning of the word “harmful” and could not definitively answer questions about whether sexual intercourse was harmful for a child under 16. Kellogg also stated that only health care professionals should determine what conduct should be reported in spite of what the law says.

Margaret Estrin, an ObGyn from Overland Park, Kansas, seemed to have trouble with the definition of “sexual abuse” as did other witnesses. She testified that she only reported sexual “abuse” that qualified as such under her own definition, not the state’s.

Most witnesses indicated that as long as the sexual activity is consensual, there is no injury, no matter the age.

Abortionist Herbert Hodes of Overland Park, KS, asked a defense attorney to define “protect,” when asked if he believed the state had an interest in protecting children. Hodes, a slight, elderly man that appeared tired and angry was particularly uncooperative with the defense and at times showed contempt for the defense attorneys’ questions. His testimony ended when questioning about Hodes’ willingness to follow Kansas law was stopped by his attorney who ordered him not to respond on the grounds that it might incriminate him.

The trial has raised several serious questions. Should the Attorney General be allowed to investigate and prosecute the laws of the state of Kansas? Plaintiffs clearly did not want to follow the reporting law if they did not agree with it, making it impossible for law enforcement to investigate underage sex abuse.

“This is an issue that should be dealt with in the legislature. If the plaintiffs do not like the law they should try to change it there,” said Operation Rescue President Troy Newman. “This case is all about judicial activism with the ultimate goal of lowering the age of consent. They know they are impotent to convince Kansas moms and dads that their 10, 11, or 12 year old daughters should be having sexual intercourse, so they made an end run to the liberal courts.”

The judge in this case, J. Thomas Marten was appointed to the Federal bench in 1996 by President Bill Clinton. Marten was overruled by the 10th District Court last Friday when they struck down an injunction he had issued in this case in 2004 barring the Attorney General from enforcing his interpretation of the child abuse reporting laws.

“Are health care professionals above the law?” asked Newman. “Based on their testimony, they certainly think they should be. But if children are to be protected, health care workers must report what the law says they must report, then allow law enforcement to do their jobs. Right now we have no doubt that young girls, who by virtue of their age cannot make mature decisions about consent, are being sexually victimized and that the perpetrators are being protected by the abortion mills and liberal-thinking social workers that believe sex with 10 year olds is perfectly normal.”

The trial resumes Friday morning with Attorney General Phill Kline expected to take the stand.

Operation Rescue has also learned that the Kansas Supreme Court will be handing down a ruling in a related case involving late-term abortionist George R. Tiller. Kline had subpoenaed medical records from Tiller in his investigation into unreported child sex abuse and suspected illegal late-term abortions. Tiller filed legal motions to prevent him from producing the subpoenaed documents. The case has been under consideration by the Kansas Supreme Court since September.

Comments

  1. Attorney General Kline should be commended for his efforts. Please everyone, pray for him and “the cause”.
    I know I’ll be praying about these proceedings and others like them. Thanks to Operation Rescue for their tireless efforts to save these poor innocent babies’ lives!

  2. I am thoroughly disgusted! How can anyone say that having sex with a 10 year old child is not injuriuos to them?! For far too long abortionists have been covering up crimes against children and I pray that someone in Kansas has a conscience.

  3. Patty Morris says:

    10 yr. old thru the teen years and older men and what is ‘harmful’ to most persons reminded me of an article at
    http://66.230.220.100/*kourtsforkids.org/httpdocs/index2.php?option=content&do_pdf=1&id=409 Cyberstalking The Innocent By SAEED AHMED, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, August 4, 2005. Excerpt follows:

    “Typically, cases where a person crosses state lines are handled by the FBI. And the Georgia task force can ask that a state case — an especially heinous offense, for instance — be moved to the federal level, where sentences are steeper.

    Georgia law requires a person convicted of a sex crime to register as a sex offender regardless of whether it’s his first offense. A federal conviction can result in a sentence of up to life in prison if the minor is under 12.

    The effects of the crime linger with the children as well.

    “Once they’re broken and robbed of their innocence, the only way they can move forward is to accept a new ‘them’ and that takes months, sometimes years of therapy,” said the father of a 16-year-old girl who returned to her Atlanta home last month after a year at the Inner Harbour psychiatric treatment facility in Douglasville.”

    If the liberal Atlanta Journal-Constitution can get that much, why can’t the pro-aborts?

  4. I wonder if the social workers and health care providers would say that a Catholic priest could have sex with a consenting ten to fifteen year old?

  5. I’m offended by the comment about the “Catholic priest” and a child. Please do not bring a particular religion into this; many faiths have had problems like this. The Catholic Church has just been an easy target.
    My real question here is how these people would feel if it were their 10-15 year-old and an older man? Would they object then? If not, I really fear for their children!

  6. “The Catholic Church has just been an easy target.”

    Or most prolific?

    Had they not covered up these sins they might not be such an “easy target”.

    “If not, I really fear for their children!”

    So do I.

    That’s why we seek to rid our clergy and church of such abominations rather than transfer them to another parish.

    Sadly, society has been more and more accepting of these things-
    The Last Taboo Psychologists hail the benefits of pederasty. By Gene Edward Veith. Published in the APA Psychological Bulletin [1998]
    http://members.iquest.net/~macihms/Education/lastaboo.html

    As has the church.

Speak Your Mind

*