After getting pounded this week for its decision to drop funding for breast exams at Planned Parenthood clinics, the Susan G. Komen for the Cure foundation reversed course today and announced that Planned Parenthood could still get funding. The foundation apologized “to the American public for recent decisions that cast doubt upon our commitment to our mission of saving women’s lives.” It said it will amend its funding criteria to make clear that politically motivated investigations would not disqualify an organization from receiving funds. Earlier this week, the foundation cited an investigation by an anti-abortion lawmaker in Congress for its decision to cut off funding to Planned Parenthood.
At least some Kansans are prospering under the Brownback administration. The Kansas Attorney General’s Office paid outside law firms, including Wichita-based Foulston Siefkin, $476,000 to defend anti-abortion laws enacted last year, Associated Press reported. And that’s just the start. The attorney bills will continue to rack up as the legal challenges work their way through the courts. In a budget year in which funding was cut for schools, the arts, the disabled and other important programs and services, it is particularly frustrating that the state is spending this amount of money defending laws it knew were weak or flawed. For example, the federal government warned Kansas that it couldn’t block funding to Planned Parenthood, but lawmakers and Gov. Sam Brownback approved the law anyway, which was then blocked by the courts. Now some anti-abortion lawmakers are planning even more constitutionally suspect laws for this coming session, such as preventing private companies from getting tax deductions for abortion-related expenditures. That will make the attorneys happy.
It’s disappointing that Kansas legislators’ rush to send three anti-abortion bills to the desk of pro-life Gov. Sam Brownback has led to nearly $393,000 in legal bills for the state, including from Wichita-based Foulston Siefkin. It’s reasonable that Attorney General Derek Schmidt needed outside legal help to defend the new laws, variously aimed at denying federal family planning funds to Planned Parenthood, imposing new regulations on abortion clinics and prohibiting insurance companies’ comprehensive plans from covering abortions. But it’s also reasonable to expect lawmakers and the governor to try harder to vet legislation before they pass it, in an effort to avoid costly lawsuits.
Now that a U.S. district judge has dismissed most of the legal charges against Planned Parenthood’s clinic in Overland Park, the focus is shifting to who is to blame for the failed case. In addition to the Kansas Department of Health and Environment destroying its copies of abortion records, reportedly as part of routine document destruction, the Attorney General’s Office destroyed its copies of the records in 2009. Current Attorney General Derek Schmidt plans to investigate the shredding to determine if any laws were broken, but some already are pointing fingers at former Gov. Kathleen Sebelius (in photo), who is now the U.S. secretary of health and human services. “Since these illegal activities allegedly transpired under Gov. Kathleen Sebelius’ administration — possibly even at the behest of her handpicked attorney general, Steve Six — Secretary Sebelius has some serious questions to answer,” Rep. Mike Pompeo, R-Wichita, said in a statement. A spokesman for Sebelius said that she “has no knowledge of the matter.” Meanwhile, Planned Parenthood attorney Pedro Irigonegaray blamed the records fiasco on former Johnson County District Attorney Phill Kline. “Competent lawyers know the importance of obtaining authenticated copies (of records),” Irigonegaray said in court.
Rep. Steve Brunk (in photo), R-Bel Aire, is calling for the Attorney General’s Office to investigate the state health department’s shredding of abortion records, Associated Press reported. Former Johnson County District Attorney Phill Kline filed charges in 2007 claiming that Planned Parenthood’s Overland Park clinic altered some of its patient records from 2003. But it turns out the state destroyed its copies of those records in 2005 as part of “routine document destruction.” “This smells like some very selective shredding,” Brunk said. “There needs to be an investigation, and it should come out of the Attorney General’s Office.” But Rep. Lance Kinzer, R-Olathe, doesn’t want to rush to judgment. “I just want to make sure I’ve got more information before accusing anybody of anything,” he said.
It’s still unclear what GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain’s position is on abortion. In an interview with Fox Business, Cain said that it “is not the government’s role or anybody else’s role to make that decision (about abortion).” And after saying he was against abortion under any circumstances, he told CNN’s Piers Morgan: “It ultimately gets down to a choice that that family or that mother has to make. Not me as president. Not some politician. Not a bureaucrat. It gets down to that family, and whatever they decide, they decide.” That sounds like a pro-choice stance. But Cain then released a statement saying that he misunderstood the questions. “As to my political-policy view on abortion, I am 100 percent pro-life,” he said. “End of story.” Is it?
Johnson County prosecutors won more time today in their effort to authenticate abortion records dating from 2003 and used in 2007 by then-District Attorney Phill Kline to file a 107-count complaint against Planned Parenthood’s Overland Park clinic. But with last week’s news that state health officials shredded their copies of the records in 2005 as part of “routine document destruction,” it’s getting harder to see how this ancient case can be made — or why it should be, given that a professional ethics panel recently found that Kline misled a grand jury (which ultimately refused to indict Planned Parenthood itself) and “engaged in a pattern of misconduct” as district attorney and, earlier, as Kansas attorney general.
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, who took flak for her pro-choice positions as was Kansas governor, didn’t hold back when speaking at a recent NARAL Pro-Choice America fundraising luncheon in Chicago, warning that Republicans “want to roll back the last 50 years in progress women have made in comprehensive health care in America.” She touted the health reform law’s measures to increase access to birth control. “Forty percent of unplanned pregnancies end in those women seeking abortions,” she said. “Wouldn’t you think that people who want to reduce the number of abortions would champion the cause of widely available, widely affordable contraceptive services? Not so much.”
A professional ethics panel had little choice but to recommend that former Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline have his state law license suspended indefinitely. Kline repeatedly misled other officials or allowed subordinates to mislead others, violating “rules that prohibit false and dishonest conduct,” the panel concluded. Kline responded in a statement that he “will continue to speak and stand for the truth and for those who cannot speak for themselves.” And he claimed that his only “mistake” was his “willingness to investigate politically powerful people.” That may play well with some pro-life groups, but what got Kline in trouble was that he let his anti-abortion fervor cloud his legal judgment and justify professional misconduct.
“Ever since the elections last fall, the few surviving Democrats in Kansas hardly qualify as speed bumps for conservative legislation,” the New York Times reported, in an article characterizing the court challenges around the country to the year’s GOP-passed legislation relating to abortion and immigration as “the first real efforts to slow the crush of conservative legislation.” Secretary of State Kris Kobach told the Times that as the 2010 GOP wins led to swift passage of long-sought conservative legislation, “liberal groups have been quicker than usual to rush to the courthouse doors.” Conservatives seem to view the court fights over each new law as inevitable. And “I think at some level they don’t care about the judicial response,” said University of Texas law professor Sanford Levinson. “If it’s upheld, that’s great for them. If it’s struck, it adds to the critique of the so-called imperial judiciary.”
Predictably, a New York Times editorial sided with the American Civil Liberties Union on whether Kansas can prohibit abortion coverage in comprehensive insurance plans — as the state did in the new law pushed by Rep. Pete DeGraaf, R-Mulvane. The editorial said the ACLU lawsuit “has opened a new front in the legal war over women’s reproductive rights” and “argues persuasively that the law is unconstitutional because it essentially levies a tax on a constitutionally protected procedure.” Just as predictably, a National Review blogger chided the Times and blamed “Obamacare.” Michael New wrote: “The fact that states are facing federal mandates to expand Medicaid eligibility and the fact that government funds will be subsidizing insurance plans through the various exchanges give pro-lifers another avenue to restrict abortion.”
The legal right to abortion doesn’t get much respect in Kansas anymore. But as the state and its attorneys defend new overreaching anti-abortion legislation against the inevitable lawsuits, they at least should be less disdainful of federal judges and open government, our editorial today argues. U.S. District Judge Thomas Marten had to order the state Tuesday in federal court in Wichita to resume the flow of federal family planning funds to Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri. Meanwhile, the state is fighting disclosure of how it crafted temporary new rules and regulations specific to abortion providers. The Brownback administration shouldn’t tout the rule of law, transparency and limited government in some matters and then, when it comes to abortion, flout a federal judge and operate as a heavy-handed and secretive regulatory authority.
It’s no surprise that Kansas is being sued over its new law barring private insurance companies from including abortion coverage in their comprehensive insurance plans sold to private companies and individuals. The prohibition doesn’t make legal or free-market sense. “This law is part of a nationwide trend to take away insurance coverage for a legal medical procedure that is an important part of basic health care for women,” said Brigitte Amiri, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union Reproductive Freedom Project, which filed the lawsuit Tuesday. If they want coverage, women in Kansas have to pay extra to purchase a supplemental policy, assuming one is even available. But who plans ahead for a crisis pregnancy or for being raped — contrary to the offensive suggestion by state Rep. Pete DeGraaf, R-Mulvane, that doing so would be akin to carrying a spare tire in your car?
The state of Kansas continues to waste scarce state tax dollars on abortion politics. It asked a federal appeals court last week to overturn a district judge’s order blocking it from defunding Planned Parenthood. This even though the law clearly violates both federal Medicaid rules and Planned Parenthood’s constitutional rights. What’s more, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services warned last week that it might cut off all of Kansas’ family planning funding if the state doesn’t meet the terms of its federal grant. Not smart.
It was no surprise that U.S. District Judge J. Thomas Marten issued an injunction Monday blocking the state from defunding Planned Parenthood clinics. Kansas’ law violates a federal statute that allows Medicaid beneficiaries to choose their health care providers. States can’t deny funding to a qualifying provider just because some lawmakers don’t like it. Even on an anti-abortion basis, the Kansas law didn’t make sense. Federal law already prohibits Medicaid funding of abortion except in extraordinary circumstances. Defunding the family planning services at Planned Parenthood clinics in Wichita and Hays likely would result in more abortions, not fewer.
By giving abortion providers little time to comply with new regulations, “Gov. Sam Brownback’s administration created significant legal problems for Kansas,” wrote John Hanna of the Associated Press. Two Kansas City-area clinics that were denied licenses have sued, arguing that the state violated their constitutional right to due legal process by giving them less than two weeks to comply with strict new rules. Though abortion opponents often note how South Carolina’s clinic regulations have survived a court challenge, Hanna pointed out that South Carolina allowed existing clinics to be licensed as long as the clinics had a plan to come into compliance within two years.
For a bureaucracy, the Kansas Department of Health and Environment sure moves fast — at least when the issue is abortion. KDHE quickly drafted and implemented new regulations that, absent a federal judge’s intervention last week, would have put two of the state’s three abortion clinics out of business. And KDHE already has transferred family planning funding from Planned Parenthood’s health clinic in Wichita to the Sedgwick County Health Department, even though Planned Parenthood filed a lawsuit to block the move and a federal judge ruled that a similar law in Indiana violated federal law. “It raises questions about whether the state is acting in good faith,” said Peter Brownlie, president of Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri. The answer seems clear: It’s not.
It wasn’t surprising that a federal judge decided today to temporarily block the implementation of the state’s new law regulating abortion clinics. The new regulations were rushed into place and so overly burdensome — likely by design — that only one of the state’s three abortion clinics was able to get the new license. Even if clinics wanted to renovate, there wasn’t time, as they were given the 36 pages of new rules less than two weeks before the new law was to go into effect. That’s not a fair process.
Another example of how new regulations on abortion clinics were rushed: The Kansas Department of Health and Environment published a notice Thursday that it would hold a public hearing about the regulations in September. The new rules went into effect today, though clinics are suing to block them. Is the public supposed to believe that KDHE will take its comments seriously when the regulations already will have been in effect for two months by the time of the hearing?
Abortion providers in Kansas have reason to question the motive behind and fairness of a new law imposing additional health and safety standards and a special licensing process on the abortion clinics. The providers didn’t receive the latest version of the clinic regulations until this week, and inspections already have started. They are concerned that they won’t be given enough time to make any changes needed to meet the new standards. Though anti-abortion legislators say the new law is aimed at protecting the health and safety of women, it looks like a backdoor way to try to close clinics.
It was noteworthy that Kansas GOP Sens. Pat Roberts and Jerry Moran released nearly identical statements Wednesday evening saying that they would not support the nomination of former Kansas Attorney General Steve Six (in photo) to the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Neither said why he wouldn’t support the well-qualified Six, who, in addition to pulling the Attorney General’s Office out of the ditch during his short tenure, has been a district judge, an attorney in private practice and a law clerk to the appellate judge he’s trying to succeed. That lack of explanation is likely because there isn’t a good reason, and that their opposition is mostly driven by partisanship and abortion politics.
In a column for RenewAmerica, former Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline (in photo) joined the anti-abortion media’s crusade against President Obama’s nomination of Steve Six to the federal bench. Kline argued that Six, who was appointed Kansas attorney general by then-Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, “used the power of his office to thwart, delay and interfere with” a criminal case Kline had filed against Planned Parenthood when he was Johnson County’s district attorney. That case has yet to go to trial. “Six’s use of his office to protect the interests of a large corporate benefactor of a governor who appointed Six to office would scream corruption but for the injection of abortion politics,” wrote Kline, who now teaches at Liberty University School of Law in Lynchburg, Va. Kline is scheduled to return to Kansas July 19 for more ethics hearings on whether he misled a Johnson County grand jury investigating Planned Parenthood.
Survey findings on abortion released last week seemed contradictory but weren’t surprising. The survey found that 56 percent of Americans support abortion rights even though 52 percent think abortion is morally wrong. That likely reflects how most Americans recognize that abortion is a complicated issue and don’t want to impose their moral beliefs on others. Kari Ann Rinker, state coordinator for the National Organization for Women, noted how Kansas lawmakers seem to be out of step with the public. The new abortion-related laws that lawmakers approved this past session included limiting late-term abortion based on the disputed concept of fetal pain, eliminating the mental-health exception for late-term abortions, barring private insurance companies from including abortion in general insurance policies for private companies, and blocking federal funding to Planned Parenthood.
The Kansas National Organization for Women demanded Wednesday that state Rep. Pete DeGraaf, R-Mulvane, apologize for saying that women could plan ahead for needing an abortion because of a rape, likening it to having a spare tire in his car. But not only is he refusing to apologize, saying it is time to “move on,” he is still claiming that his comments were taken out of context — though he won’t explain how. When KWCH, Channel 12, contacted him last week, DeGraaf said that people wouldn’t need to buy a special insurance plan that covered abortion if they weren’t predisposed to killing their children.
When state lawmakers amended a bill with a provision prohibiting insurance companies from including abortion coverage in their general insurance plans, it “caused a chill in the Statehouse,” according to Martin Hawver of Hawver’s Capitol Report. Not only did the move violate legislative rules, because the provision hadn’t previously cleared either chamber, but it raised the possibility of lobbyists adding anti-abortion provisions to unrelated bills to help get them passed. “Could an anti-abortion provision somehow get hung onto a tax bill or a driving-while-intoxicated bill or a school-finance bill, and get legislators who are focused on abortion prohibition to pass it?” Hawver asked, adding that “we’ll find out next year whether it was an aberration or a new way of doing business under the dome.”
After getting pounded this week for its decision to drop funding for breast exams at Planned Parenthood clinics, the Susan G. Komen for the Cure foundation reversed course today and announced that Planned Parenthood could still get funding. The foundation apologized “to the American public for recent decisions that cast doubt upon our commitment to our mission of saving women’s lives.” It said it will amend its funding criteria to make clear that politically motivated investigations would not disqualify an organization from receiving funds. Earlier this week, the foundation cited an investigation by an anti-abortion lawmaker in Congress for its decision to cut off funding to Planned Parenthood.
