Friday, February 03, 2006

I hate fishing expeditions....

The State Attorney General of Kansas is attempting to gain access to abortion records from two clinics, in the attempt to determine if there were suspected child rapes or violations of state regulations on abortion. From what I have read, there have been no complaints from any parents or patients of that clinic in regards to the clinic's practices.

I don't know what Kansas law states in regards to prohibiting abortion but the State Attorney General is clearly anti-abortion and has been targeting these clinics for quite some time. His office claims that none of the names of the patients will be released but somehow I don't buy it. In fact, among my concerns, is that the information about the adult patients is eventually released to some third-party anti-abortion group who will then target these women.

Now it's one thing if a parent calls upon the State Attorney General and files a complaint that her daughter was allowed to have an abortion in some manner that violated state law then I believe the state should be allowed to have access to the clinic's information, but ONLY that particular patient's information, nothing else. If it is determined the clinic has a history of violating the law, then I believe the records of other patients may be accessed on a limited basis.

But I do not believe the Kansas State Atty General has the right to go on a fishing expedition simply because he is anti-abortion.

First abortion clinics, what's next? Who is to say that eventually the Atty General could request a family practice release its records of underage patients.

Now this isn't an issue of whether or not one is in favor of abortion rights or not. So please let's not turn it into that. I do believe however that this is an issue of government abuse of power and how much information they have a right to...


  1. Anonymous2/04/2006

    Okay! I went and looked this story up. We are on some sort of roll this week. I have to disagree with you again. I have no problem with the state investigating possible violations of state law. If this were a heart clinic I would feel the same way. Abortion clinics always seem to want to operate in total secrecy with out ever being scrutinized.--ST

  2. The thing is there is no evidence of wrongdoing. I think the difference between this situation and the heart clinic is that there's no anti-heart movement LOL. I mean can you imagine the government not liking certain doctors so they force them to hand over their patient files to see if there's been any wrongdoing? I think not!

    The thing is that we can't have the government go into a business fishing for violations unless there is some reasonable cause.

    I couldn't find anything that showed reasonable cause on these clinics. If you find anything let me know!

  3. Anonymous2/06/2006

    First of all there was a heart clinic in Ocala a few years ago that was investigated and shut down because of malpractice. Unfortunately, I have not had any time for research, but just let me ask: What makes you say there is no evidence of wrong doing. Certainly, it would have not made it this far in the court system if there was no justification for investigation. The attorney general may be pro-life, but it is rare to find a court that is. Not only that, but the Kansas Supreme Court did not totally strike this down they have only temporarily stopped it. That seems to indicate some validity.__ST

  4. The reason that heart clinic must have been investigated was because they had some reason to believe there was malpractice. They didn't just pick the clinic out of the blue. With abortion clinics it's different, they are easy targets for obvious reasons.You can't just assume that an abortion clinic is doing something illegal just because you (general you, not "you" as in YOU LOL) don't agree with their philosophy.

    With me it's innocent till proven guilty. We have to assume that the clinic has done nothing wrong until there is evidence that they have. Based on what the kansas AG wants to do, what's to stop any AG in any state from targeting any business when there is no evidence?

    Unfortunately I think it is possible for this case to have made it this far with little or no evidence because of the nature of the business in question. The AG is clearly anti-abortion and as we all know, abortion clinics are the evil of society and instead of just abiding by the law and performing a service which is legal in this country, they must be doing something wrong right?

    Ok that's me playing devils advocate :)