Six’s Answers Are Implausible Concerning Abortion Questions

UPDATE:On the day of the scheduled vote, Republican Senator Charles Grassley exercised his option to delay the vote on the Steve Six nomination for one week. Please keep calling and messaging your Senator in opposition to this nomination! A vote is now expected next Thursday or Friday. -Operation Rescue Staff

Washington, DC — Former Kansas Attorney General Steve Six will face a confirmation vote in the U.S. Judiciary committee Thursday on his appointment to the Federal Appeals Court. Operation Rescue opposes this nomination.

“Before this vote is cast, serious questions remain about Steve Six’s impartiality and ability fully comprehend complex cases that fall under his responsibility,” said Operation Rescue President Troy Newman.

At issue are 21 pages of answers to written questions submitted by Six to the Judiciary Committee on Monday. In particular, Sen. Charles Grassley questioned Six extensively about his actions in the criminal case against Planned Parenthood that have caused years of delay in the prosecution of the state’s largest abortion provider on 107 criminal charges.

Steve Six was appointed to the office of Attorney General by former Gov. Kathleen Sebelius to replace Paul Morrison, who was forced to resign due to a sordid and highly publicized sex and abortion corruption scandal. Morrison’s former illicit lover accused Morrison of asking her to spy Johnson County District Attorney Phill Kline in an effort to discover the status of Kline’s abortion clinic investigation against Planned Parenthood with the purpose of impeding it. Morrison had filed mandamus actions with the Kansas Supreme Court in attempts to block Kline’s prosecution.

Six took office in January, 2008, amid a flurry of media attention concerning the Morrison indiscretions and the abortion clinic cases that were in progress. Six took over the Morrison agenda and continued to throw up road blocks to Kline’s prosecution of Planned Parenthood.

Yet, in Six’s answers to Sen. Grassley’s questions concerning the Planned Parenthood case, Six claims to have had not even a cursory understanding of the history of the case and no memory of any conversations about the most contentious and scandal-ridden cases ever involving a Kansas Attorney General.

“Six’s lack of knowledge of the Planned Parenthood case is simply not plausible,” said Newman. “If what he says is true, he’s dumb as a stump, as we say in Kansas. It’s hard to believe he could be that unaware.”

Six tells the Judiciary committee that he never re-examined decisions made by his predecessor, Morrison, even though those decisions were likely clouded by hatred of a political rival and an agenda that included protecting Planned Parenthood from prosecution and forever burying the evidence against it. In fact, Six indicated that he continued to advance Morrison’s positions.

Six wrote, “Assistant Attorneys General drafted the briefs and they were filed with my approval. In the mandamus action filed by Planned Parenthood against Kline, my office sought the return of the file taken by Kline from the Attorney General’s Office. It is my understanding that this is the same position taken by Morrison. In the mandamus action against Judge Anderson my office sought Court supervision of the medical records. It is my understanding that Morrison sought to have the records returned to Planned Parenthood.”

Kline was using heavily redacted abortion records as the foundation for his charges. District Court Judge Richard Anderson was the custodian of those records and had testified in open court in January, 2008, the same month that Six took office, that he believed that someone had “cooked the books” and manufactured evidence to cover up crimes, important findings that Six claims he knew nothing about.

Kline issued a second subpoena in to Anderson to appear with the evidence at another hearing in April, 2008.

However, an Associated Press article dated May 18, 2008, reported the following:

According to unsealed Supreme Court records, Anderson told the attorney general’s office of the subpoena on April 2. Then, he filed a notice with the Supreme Court on April 3, at 4:35 p.m.

Five minutes later, Deputy Attorney General Michael Leitch, on Six’s behalf, filed a request for a “protective order,” mentioning the medical records…The next day, the court issued a single-page order telling Anderson to retain “exclusive possession” of his records and not to appear “until further order of this court.”

The following week, Planned Parenthood’s attorneys requested that the Planned Parenthood criminal prosecution be put on hold until the Supreme Court could rule on the mandamus actions now pursued by Six without question to or re-evaluation of Morrison’s obviously tainted judgment.

In effect, Six’s gag order on Anderson and the evidence delayed the prosecution for over two years until the case was finally released by the Supreme Court in October, 2010. The prosecution continues to move forward at a glacial pace.

“Six seems to have developed sudden amnesia concerning any conversations that took place concerning the Planned Parenthood prosecution, which is troubling at best,” said Newman. “Six admits to making legal decisions about mandamus actions and the seeking of gag orders while maintaining he was unaware of the critical details of the case and without re-examining the decisions of the man who was forced to resign over a scandal that involved the case. That shows an irresponsibility and lack of judgment on Six’s part that should disqualify him from serving on the Federal Appeals Court.”

Take Action Now!

Please contact the Senate Judiciary Committee Members and ask them to oppose the confirmation of Steve Six to the Federal Appeals Court.