Wichita, KS – An editorial submitted by Operation Rescue Senior Policy Advisor Cheryl Sullenger was published in today’s Wichita Eagle correcting errors in reporting of motions filed on Monday in the Tiller criminal case, and clarifying other issues.

While we appreciated the Eagle publishing the editorial, it was heavily edited for content.

The unedited version of the commentary that was originally submitted is posted below. To read the published version, please click here.

Tiller Charges Not About Kline

By Cheryl Sullenger, Senior Policy Advisor, Operation Rescue

In the wake of documents filed by Tiller’s attorneys on Monday the Wichita Eagle led with the headline “Kline was obsessed, say Tiller lawyers.” In fact, the heading above the headline erroneously read “Suit Against Abortion Provider.”

The truth of the matter is that the case at issue is not a lawsuit. It is a criminal case involving 19 counts of violating the State ban on post-viability abortions. Those charges were filed by former Attorney General Paul Morrison. Charges previously filed by Phill Kline were dismissed and never reinstated.

It is no secret that Morrison and Kline were fierce political rivals. Because of that Morrison refused to even consider the merits of the Kline charges against Tiller. Instead, he conducted his own investigation based on abortion records obtained by Kline during his tenure as Attorney General.

The fact that those records were legally obtained by Kline’s office with the permission and oversight of the Kansas Supreme Court does not “taint” the evidence in the records. Those abortion records are what they are, and the content of them has nothing to do with Kline and everything to do with Tiller.

Morrison made a big production of stating at a press conference on June 28, 2007, that the criminal charges he filed against Tiller was the result of his own “independent” investigation of the abortion records. He discovered that Tiller had used abortionist Ann K. Neuhaus as the second concurring physician required by law before post-viability abortions can be done in Kansas. The problem, according to Morrison, was that Tiller had legal and financial affiliations with Neuhaus that were prohibited by law.

The filing of these criminal charges had nothing to do with Kline.

When Steve Six succeeded Morrison as Attorney General, he had the option to drop the case, but he did not. Instead, Six’s office is actively prosecuting the case.

Now comes Tiller’s mouthpieces, claiming that Kline was “obsessed’ by Tiller, therefore the criminal case should be tossed out.

Even if those allegations were true, so what? That has nothing to do with the criminal case at hand. Nothing.

Yet the Wichita Eagle published a front page 806-word article focusing only on Kline’s alleged “obsession.” But who is really obsessed here?

It is more likely that Tiller’s lawyers are obsessed with their hatred of Kline and desire to defend Tiller at any cost that they are willing to attempt to taint the jury pool with titillating stories of old grudges against Kline and at the same time divert attention from the criminal conduct of their client.

It is also more likely that the Wichita Eagle, which as always had an ax to grind against Kline, is still “obsessed” with further destroying his reputation, even though doing so serves no purpose.

Perhaps that is why they are trying to confuse the public with blatantly false reporting that portrays the criminal prosecution of Tiller as a “lawsuit” and details propaganda published by Tiller’s attorneys that Kline “tainted” the Tiller case, when in fact he had nothing to do with it.

Yes, it appears that there is plenty of obsession to go around, but not so much of the truth.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, September 17th, 2008 at 11:53 am and is filed under Tiller Watch. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.