News Intelligence Analysis
From the New York Times
April 22, 2006
Editorial
Sex Reporting Nixed by Federal
Court
AKA: "Kiss and Tell No More"
A federal judge in Kansas has dealt another blow to the crusade
by the state's attorney general, Phill Kline, to restrict abortions
under the phony banner of combating child abuse.
In February, the Kansas Supreme Court blocked Mr. Kline from invading the medical privacy of 90 women and girls who were treated at two abortion clinics. This week, a federal trial judge in Wichita killed Mr. Kline's daft idea to require doctors, school counselors and psychotherapists, among others, to report all sexual activity by people under 16, from kissing to sexual intercourse.
In 2003, Mr. Kline issued an advisory opinion that changed the interpretation of Kansas' law requiring the reporting of child abuse. It made mandatory the reporting of every instance of suspected consensual sex among teenagers of similar ages, including any pregnancy, sexually transmitted disease or request for contraception.
Doctors, nurses, therapists and sex educators sued, and the federal judge, Thomas Marten, held that Mr. Kline's opinion violated the actual language of the underlying state statute, which gives those treating adolescents discretion to decide whether illegal sexual activity amounts to actual child abuse. Kansas law prohibits intercourse, oral sex and lewd touching by anyone under 16.
Setting a potentially important constitutional precedent, Judge Marten also found that adolescents enjoy a limited right of informational privacy in their communications with health care workers.
Judge Marten said Mr. Kline's blunderbuss reporting requirement would jeopardize the physical and mental health of adolescents by deterring them from seeking testing and treatment for sexually transmitted diseases, birth control and counseling. It would also hurt efforts to combat real child abuse by overwhelming social service officials.
It seems too much to hope that this will end the matter, since Mr. Kline is likely to appeal, and anti-abortion groups are eager to expand the use of child-abuse reporting laws. But for the moment, the thoughtful new ruling gives supporters of medical privacy and reproductive freedom a victory.
Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company
Send a letter to the editor about this article See these Directories:
Law and Legal Issues
Civil Rights Under Attack
Directory on the Rise of Christian Dominionism
This article is copyrighted material, the use
of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright
owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to
advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights,
economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc.
We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted
material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material
on this site is distributed without profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information
for research and educational purposes. For more information go
to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes
of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission
from the copyright owner.
Back to The Yurica Report Home Page
Copyright © 2006Yurica Report. All rights reserved.