Federal Judge Creates New Protections for Child Rapists

Mandatory aspects of KS child rape reporting law nullified

Wichita, KS — Federal Court Judge J. Thomas Marten ruled yesterday that the reporting of sexual activity in girls aged 15 and under should be discretionary, and prohibited enforcement of the mandatory aspects of a Kansas child rape reporting law.

The ruling came in the Aid for Women v. Foulston case brought by Kansas abortionists and other pro-abortion social workers and health providers asking for exemption from reporting child sexual abuse in underage girls, in the interest of protecting their “privacy.”

Marten, a Clinton appointee, stated in his 39-page ruling, “In addition, to require reporting in accordance with Attorney General Kline’s opinion would violate a minor’s limited right of informational privacy. Thus, this court permanently enjoins enforcement of Kan. Stat. Ann. § 38-1522 in any manner inconsistent with this decision, which includes the Kline Opinion.”

Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline sparked the suit when he issued an opinion at the request of a state legislator that all sexual activity in girls under 16 is inherently injurious and must be reported to law enforcement personnel for investigation. Kline has emphasized repeatedly that not every incident of sexual conduct will be prosecuted, but all should be investigated to insure that young girls are not being coerced and victimized.

Attorney Simon Heller of the New York-based Center for Reproductive Rights who helped represent the pro-abortionists stated to the Wichita Eagle, “This is the first time a federal court has recognized that the United States Constitution protects the right of young people to keep certain information they give their doctors and psychologists private.”

Operation Rescue President Troy Newman blasted the decision. “This case sets a dangerous precedent that information given by minors can be hidden not only from the authorities, but also from the parents. It creates a climate of secrecy that can only profit the abortionist and benefit the abuser.”

“Judge Marten should have been more concerned about getting child rapists off the streets and protecting young girls from victimization by these predators, rather than the invention of new privacy considerations for children,” said Newman. “He is another liberal activist judge legislating from the bench — and it is our daughters that are put at risk as a result.”

In Kansas, abortionists must report the ages of their patients. While some abortion patients as young as 10 years old have been reported, there have been no reports of suspected child rape by Kansas abortionists, according to the Attorney General’s office.

Kline has stated that he expected an adverse ruling from Judge Marten, but has higher hopes for a favorable ruling on appeal.

Read Judge Marten’s Ruling
Read Background Story

  • I blogged on this, also giving some background on Aid for Women. Is Knarr still running the show? Because I have more on file about that particular quack.

  • Tina

    This is totally nasty and disgusting. There should be more of a concern in protecting these children from these perverts. The judge doesn’t give a damn about the child’s welfare or privacy, it sounds to me like he cares about protecting the rapist’s privacy. What kind of sick, messed up person is he ?

  • Frank

    This ruling is absolutely appalling. It cannot be defended on any level, and there’s no more to say.

  • Billy J

    The first thought to cross my mind was “why would they rule that way?”

    I read a bit more and it became clear. Although this piece would have you believe otherwise, the law only matters if the child is at least 12, and the other person involved is no more than 3 years older. This does not provide privacy for “children” in the more literal sense of the word. It in no way protects people who are molesting girls below 12. If the girl is over that age and chooses to hide it, she will anyway.
    This ruling does, however, allow girls experiencing sexual activity a bit early (as far too many do) to see a doctor without fear. This may also give girls a chance to ask for birth control, without reprisal, and thereby eliminate an unwanted pregnancy and subsequent abortion. It could be argued, then, that this could, in some way at least, help the pro-life cause.

    The other factor here is that whereas males do not have the fear of being reported when seeing a doctor, and the fact that females did, made it discriminatory. Women were not afforded the same liberties under the law. I personally feel that equality matters above nearly everything else in the law.

    The bigger issue here, I feel, is why this is on the main page for the premier anti-abortion website. People such as myself come here to follow stories that are actually related to the pro-life movement. And, no, the spiel at the end does not justify the placement.

    Also, to preempt Robert, killing these people wouldn’t fix anything. Nothing at all.

    Well, there are some points to discuss further, but that is all that my time allows.

    God bless

  • I want to know if this is going to set a precedent in other states where sidewalk counselors are also reporting suspected statutory rape when, say, 12-year-old girls walkinto an abortion mill for an abortion. That’s pretty scary. Does anyone have any insight on this?

  • Tina

    I know from my own experience that in Kansas, you must be 18 ro get an abortion or have your parent or “guardian” sign the form. But, before I went to Kansas, I went to New York state and I was under 18, the abortion clinic there did not even ask for my real name or my age. Very, very scary.

  • Frank


    I have major problems with the Court’s opinion, for several reasons. Let’s start with the Court’s conclusions on page 2:

    “After extensive review of the record, this court holds that the Kansas reporting statute:
    1) does not make all underage sexual activity inherently injurious; and 2) requires that the reporter have
    reason to suspect both injury and that the injury resulted from illegal sexual activity, as defined by Kansas
    law, before reporting is required. In addition, to require reporting in accordance with Attorney General
    Kline’s opinion would violate a minor’s limited right of informational privacy.”

    In response, I posit the following:

    –Underage sexual activity is itself inherently dangerous because the children are just that, children.
    –There’s also the issue of consent, which is addressed in the opinion. If we’re really at a juncture where the law recognizes “consent” to sex by a 13-year-old (!), this country is in a lot of trouble IMHO.
    –Another major problem I have is with the concept of a “minor’s limited right of informational privacy.” For the moment, I’ll leave aside the issue of how such right is not in the Constitution. The larger issue is why such right is afforded to minors here, given that the entire purpose of the statute is to protect them from predators, which can include 15-year-olds.
    –Finally, another critical problem is that this case sets dangerous precedent. Judges should all be concerned about any ruling they give being used to justify harmful behavior down the road. This case will be cited by other proabortion groups in later lawsuits elsewhere. It contributes IMHO to the gradual erosion of standards and common decency. I mean, the Court’s entire concept seems to be that 13 year olds are going to have consensual sex. The Court should be doing everything to stop that behavior, not legitimize it.

    But your post is nonetheless thought-provoking.

  • Clarence

    I mean, the Court’s entire concept seems to be that 13 year olds are going to have consensual sex. The Court should be doing everything to stop that behavior, not legitimize it.

    Including re-writing the law?

    I find it funny and very hypocritical how many posters will cry “judicial legislation”! whenever a court decision comes along that they don’t agree with (classical example is Roe-V-Wade) but will remain silent, or even act congratulatory whenever a law is bent to accomodate their beliefs.

    Praise to Operation Rescue for publishing the PDF of the ruling. Upon reading it, one finds very clearly what the Attorney General was trying to do- interpret out discertionary language in the statue he didn’t like ; the judge rightfully didn’t let him get away with that. If you don’t like the law, change it, don’t play games with plain English.

    As for posters such as Tina, I wonder what perverts she is talking about? Because the part of the law being challenged concerned mandatory reporting of people who had consensual sex and were 3 or less years of age apart.

  • Tina


    I mean adults who rape children, get them pregnant, then take them to an abortionist to conceal their crime.

  • Billy J


    Thank you for you respectful reply. I agree with you that predators may, in fact, include 15 year olds. This does not mean, however, that every situation includes predatory action. Everything can not include the “what if?” scenario.

    I nearly completely agree with your personal opinions in the response. UNderage sexual activity needs to be controlled better, but by the family.
    I do not agree, however, that the government should legislate against a group based on age.
    Since you metioned that a “minor’s limited right of informational privacy” was not in the constitution, the right of privacy IS, and age is neither mentioned nor implied at all.

    I still fail to understand why this is on an anti-abortion website. Is this site moving towards other Christian messages? If so, which site will become the new website dedicated primarily to stopping abortion. I only ask as there are many non-Christians on the pro-life side who would like a site that stays on track.

    Not every article involving a moral issue belongs on a website featuring pictures of aborted babies.

    Thanks again for your thoughts

  • Jill

    The AG who took this case is particularly strongly pro-life. One of the major targets he is going after is abortionists like George Tiller. Even though it seems for the legal suit unrelated to abortion, it isn’t. It is a different way of going at the abortion providers to have to turn over these cases or face prosecution if they do not. The assumption is that Kline would not target birth centers or crisis pregnancy centers, although they would also seem to be fair game. It is a way of finding out more about abortions in the state.

  • pidgin

    Actually Jill, crisis pregnancy centers would not be included as the employees are not mandatory reporters. Any doctor, nurse, counselor, psychologist, or social worker would be included, though.

  • rick ellis

    Excuse me, but crisis pregnancy centers do employ nurses, and whether you are a “volunteer counselor” or not, you do have the responsibility to report reasonable suspicion of sexual activity of minors to CPS. Pastors are also required to do the same. Some states require the average joe citizen to report.

    I don’t know where you get your info Pidgin, but you are in error, and you need to check out the info at Life Dynamics.

  • “Are you still posting explicit visuals on your blog?” asks a coworker, a few weeks ago.

  • bob

    interesting post thx

  • hello,

    this story is super intersting!

    Just now i Bookmarked your page.

    I hope to read a lot from you in the months!