Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Kansas Supreme Court’

For the fifth year in a row, the governor’s desk will be hit with a mandate for KDHE (the health department) to obey the abortion reporting law.   HB 2115 passed in the Senate 24-15 and in the House by a vote of 83-36.

Given the fact that similar measures to fix KDHE reporting were vetoed by Gov. Sebelius, every year from 2006 through 2009, HB 2115 may also be vetoed by Gov. Parkinson.

Pro-choice senators who registered their annual complaint about “misuse of legislative process,” couldn’t care less about the nearly 3000 babies wrongfully and criminally terminated through the “misuse of the abortion reporting process.”

In 1998, Kansas passed a law protecting viable unborn children from being aborted in the second half of pregnancy.  The only legal exceptions are for pregnancies that endanger the mother’s life  and those that 2 physicians agree would damage the mother substantially and irreversibly.

  • Any abortion done as an exception to the law was to have been recorded with a maternal medical reason to KDHE.
  • For over 12 years, KDHE processed 2,945 viable abortions (see chart), without any semblance of a medical reason.
  • At an average cost of $5000 each–  these fraudulently documented abortions yielded $15 million!

During special House & Senate joint hearings (more…)

Read Full Post »

When Kansas attorneys misbehave, disserve their client or  otherwise betray their responsibilities as officers of the court, complaints are supposed to be dealt with by the “Disciplinary” Administrator, Stan Hazlett.

UPDATE March 23: Rucker files new motion accusing Hazlett of  pure political posturing.

Hazlett is supposed to be the absolute model of restraint and neutrality on cases that are proceeding.  However, Hazlett has been demonstrating a pro-abortion bias in recent inappropriate comments made about an ongoing ethics case against Eric Rucker, who was chief deputy under former A.G. Phill Kline.  But who do we complain to about Hazlett?

When Rucker filed a formal motion asking for recusal of a panel member on his case with an apparent conflict of interest, Hazlett should have stayed silent.

It was up to the panel member to dispel any appearance of impropriety by recusing herself.  Secondarily, it is up to the chair of the board for the discipline of attorneys to make a ruling on the need for recusal.

Instead, Hazlett issued an opinion, excoriating Rucker’s request as “misleading, disingenuous and without merit.”   Hazlett mocked the documentary evidence as revealing “Kline’s obsession with Tiller and his clinic!”

Mr. Hazlett’s rhetoric is way out of line, particularly (more…)

Read Full Post »

Jan.22 2009, Marching for Life in Topeka

Lifenews.com summarized the national pro-life stories that dominated in 2009, and we offer highlights from Kansas pro-life legislative and political news this past year:

January

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts