Wichita, KS – As we reported on Friday, shortly after the jury returned “not guilty” verdicts in the Tiller criminal trial, the Kansas State Board of Healing Arts made public an 11 charge petition against Tiller alleging that he violated the Healing arts Act by his financial association with abortionist Ann Kristin Neuhaus. Cheryl Sullenger of Operation Rescue had filed a complaint against Tiller and Neuhaus alleging that their symbiotic relationship violated the law.
“This is the first step in revoking Tiller’s license,” said Operation Rescue President Troy Newman. “While we know that there are challenges to getting any action against Tiller to stick, we are hopeful that the Board will conduct a fair and impartial examination of the facts. Please pray that Tiller will soon lose his medical license and close his late-term abortion mill.”
The KSBHA recently has undergone an overhaul of administrative staff. Former Ex. Director Larry Buening, who had a long-time friendship with Tiller, and Chief Counsel Mark Stafford resigned in disgrace after failing to properly discipline physicians and amid other allegations of incompetence.
The KSBHA requires a lower burden of proof than a criminal trial, which requires a determination of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The Board has indicated that their petition will progress on its own merits, without the trial outcome being a determinative factor in their decision. No hearing date has been set.
For those who feel that the KSBHA should have acted sooner, if they had done so, “Dr.” Tiller could have invoked Kansas Const. Art. I § 10. “No person shall be a witness against himself” (similar to the 5th Amendment) as a reason for him to refuse to provide testimony and medical records (which he is compelled by law to keep). Now that the criminal phase is over, with most charges (permanently?) dropped and the last 11 acquitted, he cannot take advantage of this protection. He may be compelled, under contempt, to testify against himself and to provide books and records that may be used against his license, as license suspension or revocation is not for punishment of the licensee but for the protection of the public.