home

Judge: Not All Sex is Reportable Abuse

by TChris

Phill Kline, the Attorney General of Kansas, has an unhealthy obsession with teenage sex. Apart from his unsuccessful attempt to learn the identity of every minor in Kansas who obtains an abortion (discussed here and here), Kline issued an opinion that purported to require all health care providers to alert the government when they learn that a minor had engaged in sexual activity or wants contraception. Kline's theory was that Kansas law equates sex with abuse when one or both of the participants is under the age of 16 -- an interpretation that would trigger mandatory reporting of "abuse" whenever a health care provider learned that a minor was in a sexual relationship, regardless of the age of the other participant or the child's willingness to participate.

Recognizing the lunacy of that position, federal District Judge J. Thomas Marten told Kline that he doesn't understand Kansas' mandatory reporting law. The law requires reporting of abuse that causes injury, and sex -- despite what Kline thinks -- isn't inherently injurious.

In yesterday's decision, Judge Marten said Mr. Kline's opinion improperly conflated illegal sexual activity -- intercourse, oral sex and lewd touching by anyone under 16 are prohibited in Kansas -- with abuse.

Judge Marten told Kline that his "overexpansive interpretation of the reporting statute not only fails to serve the public interest, it actually serves to undermine it." Kline's interpretation of the law would dissuade kids from confiding in their health care providers, for fear that honest disclosure would cause the government to learn that they're having sex with their boyfriends or girlfriends -- information that isn't any of Kline's business.

Another lawyer for the group, Bonnie Scott Jones, said in a statement, "States cannot be allowed to simply pull up a chair in every doctor's office in the state and listen in on teenagers seeking health services."

Not surprisingly, Kline issued a "three-paragraph statement that he sent by e-mail to reporters [that] largely ignored the substance of the judge's ruling." Maybe it's time for Kansas to elect an Attorney General who doesn't ignore the substance of the law.

< Duke Indictment and Status of the Two Charged | Scott McClellan Resigns, Rove Duties Reduced >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Re: Judge: Not All Sex is Reportable Abuse (none / 0) (#1)
    by chew2 on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 09:09:35 AM EST
    Kline's interpretation of the law would dissuade kids from confiding in their health care providers, for fear that honest disclosure would cause the government to learn that they're having sex with their boyfriends or girlfriends -- information that isn't any of Kline's business.
    A little bit like revealing a rape accusers name might discourage her from honestly reporting the rape, because she feared the public embarassment and character assasination?

    Re: Judge: Not All Sex is Reportable Abuse (none / 0) (#2)
    by aw on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 09:17:14 AM EST
    These people have dirty, dirty, dirty minds. They make my skin crawl. Imagine how they would make teenage girls feel--probably suicidal from shame.

    Re: Judge: Not All Sex is Reportable Abuse (none / 0) (#3)
    by squeaky on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 09:40:54 AM EST
    aw-
    Imagine how they would make teenage girls feel--probably suicidal from shame.
    and then there is this from digby: The latest rage- 'purity balls'. No reporting necessary, sick and twisted nonetheless.

    Re: Judge: Not All Sex is Reportable Abuse (none / 0) (#4)
    by Dadler on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 09:57:09 AM EST
    Squeak, I got yer purity balls right here. Nice link. C-R-E-E-P-Y. What is going on in Kansas? I'm beginning to believe the Wizard of Oz was set there for a prophetic reason. Too many little impotent dudes behind that curtain tho.

    Re: Judge: Not All Sex is Reportable Abuse (none / 0) (#5)
    by Punchy on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 09:59:08 AM EST
    Living in KS with this clown is a daily nightmare. No one knows what he'll do on any given day. For a state where, up until very recently, the age for marriage was TWELVE, this guy fits in perfectly. What an idiot.

    Re: Judge: Not All Sex is Reportable Abuse (none / 0) (#6)
    by jondee on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 10:09:39 AM EST
    Apparently the WOT and a good ole Bloody Kansas, John Brown, scorched earth approach to moral conundrums makes em feel plenty potent. Frank Baum lived in Nebraska and it seems like he picked up something on the air. On, the bright side, believe it or not, in the first half of the last century Kansas was one of the heart centers of left wing populism in the U.S. Maybe it'll turn around again at some point.

    Re: Judge: Not All Sex is Reportable Abuse (none / 0) (#7)
    by Al on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 10:12:03 AM EST
    Father-daughter purity balls. How ... incestuous.

    Re: Judge: Not All Sex is Reportable Abuse (none / 0) (#8)
    by cowboyx on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 10:33:39 AM EST
    So, under his logic, parental consent isn't enough for a 15 year old to get birth control pills, now the state govt. must be involved. Oh, and the words "father, daughter, purity, and ball" should never be used together. Ye Gods!

    Re: Judge: Not All Sex is Reportable Abuse (none / 0) (#9)
    by kdog on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 11:18:20 AM EST
    I thought this guy was big on the bible. In the bible, people start marrying ( and copulating) well before 16. Weirdo.

    Re: Judge: Not All Sex is Reportable Abuse (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 11:19:44 AM EST
    Purity Balls - The Cleanest Balls in Town. Ew. Doesn't Kline have a point here? There are countless cases every year where a 16 year old male is charged with statutory rape for having sex with his 15 or 16 year old boyfriend under the premise that minors cannot issue consent. Not that I agree with requiring doctors to turn in little Suzy because she wants to get on the Pill (not all people on the Pill are having sex) but using the common definition of "statutory rape", is there an argument?

    Re: Judge: Not All Sex is Reportable Abuse (none / 0) (#11)
    by jondee on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 11:20:27 AM EST
    Randall Terry and Fred Phelp's man on the hill.

    Re: Judge: Not All Sex is Reportable Abuse (none / 0) (#12)
    by squeaky on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 11:21:46 AM EST
    kdog-
    In the bible, people start marrying ( and copulating) well before 16.
    They can also bear children after 80 years old.

    Re: Judge: Not All Sex is Reportable Abuse (none / 0) (#13)
    by HK on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 11:40:34 AM EST
    Chase, what you are talking about is enforcing this law by interpreting it via the literal method. I think we all accept that children should not be considered capable of giving their consent to an act they do not understand. For there to be a law about this, there has to be an age under which it is stated a 'child' cannot give their consent to sexual intercourse. This law was not designed so that 16 year old boys would be prosecuted for having sex with 15 year old girls. In most instances, this is an act consented to by both parties as equals. In fact, with commonly accepted premises that girls mature faster than boys, it is quite possible that the 'minor' is the one taking advantage in such instances. This law was designed so that men could not take advantage of children. Teens mature at different rates and it is impossible to legislate so the law is applied fairly in all cases. Insisting that healthcare professionals report cases of possible teenage sex will exacerbate the problems there already are with this law. I checked out the link about Purity Balls, Squeaky. Deeply disturbing. How those little girls can still dance with the weight of their chastity belts, I don't know.

    Re: Judge: Not All Sex is Reportable Abuse (none / 0) (#14)
    by Joe Bob on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 11:50:05 AM EST
    Chase, to follow up on HK's comment: many states also have so-called 'Romeo & Juliet' laws. These laws provide an exception to statutory rape laws where both parties are relatively close in age and one or both are under the age of consent. E.g.: In a state with an age of consent of 16 and the above-mentioned law if Jack, age 17, hooks up with Jill, age 15, no laws are broken.

    Re: Judge: Not All Sex is Reportable Abuse (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 12:06:38 PM EST
    HK: The purpose of the law is duly noted. Unfortunately, when you say this:
    This law was not designed so that 16 year old boys would be prosecuted for having sex with 15 year old girls. In most instances, this is an act consented to by both parties as equals.
    you make a critical mistake. That is, neither party can consent to the act by virtue of their ages. Much in the same way an intoxicated female cannot legally give her consent for sex, neither can a minor. I agree that the law should be read through a more 'realistic' lens. However, in light of past successful prosecutions with similar circumstances as the hypothetical you propose above, I really feel Kline isn't coming completely from left field here.

    Re: Judge: Not All Sex is Reportable Abuse (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 12:07:57 PM EST
    Joe Bob: I'm not familiar with the so-called "Romeo and Juliet" law you bring up, but they make a world of sense to me. Any idea if Kansas is one of those states?

    Re: Judge: Not All Sex is Reportable Abuse (none / 0) (#17)
    by HK on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 12:32:43 PM EST
    Chase, I imagine that like many laws, this one differs from state to state. In the UK, where I live, there is no age of consent for boys. (Unless this has changed very recently and I'm not aware.) That's what I was basing my example on. The 'Romeo and Juliet' law sounds sensible. There is a similar understanding in the UK in that provided the girl is not under 13, in consenting couples of similar age there is unlikely to be a prosecution. This is a good report on the subject. And if anyone is interested, this is a table of ages of consent across the world.

    Re: Judge: Not All Sex is Reportable Abuse (none / 0) (#18)
    by aw on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 02:09:00 PM EST
    Chase, you can talk about statutory rape all you want, but their "solution" is worse than the problem.

    Re: Judge: Not All Sex is Reportable Abuse (none / 0) (#19)
    by Joe Bob on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 03:19:38 PM EST
    Chase, I did a little bit of Google searching (try 'Romeo Juliet laws' and see for yourself) and I'll be darned if I can find a straightforward answer. My impression is that Kansas's laws on this subject are unique among the 50 states. As best I can determine, Kansas law says it's statutory rape to engage in sexual relations with any minor age 14-16, period. That said, I think the law prescribes different penalties depending on the ages of the parties involved. If there is greater than 4 years difference in age it is treated as a very serious crime akin to sexual assault. Personally, the idea of subjecting two 15-year-olds to criminal justice system for consensual sex acts strikes me as a tad bit ridiculous. You can make it illegal, but that doesn't necessarily make it wrong (as ill-advised as it might be), or any less likely to happen.

    Re: Judge: Not All Sex is Reportable Abuse (none / 0) (#20)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 05:42:49 PM EST
    Radical Conservatism is a disease. For a textbook case of it beyond Nazi Germany, pick up any encyclopedia and reference "Spanish Inquisition" and "Medieval Torture" for starters... Someone let us know when they make chastity belts mandatory for all un-married women...

    Re: Judge: Not All Sex is Reportable Abuse (none / 0) (#21)
    by kdog on Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 03:16:51 PM EST
    If the Wizard of Oz took place today, Dorothy would have stayed in Oz. Not to pick on Kansas, no state is perfect, my governor had an aide get busted for smoking rock.

    Re: Judge: Not All Sex is Reportable Abuse (none / 0) (#22)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Sep 04, 2006 at 10:44:49 AM EST
    I think that it is ridiculous to call having sex with a minor statutory rape. I've noticed that in every other country of the world it is perfectly normal for someone that is 15 to date or even marry someone that is 5 or maybe even 10 years older. Society has put into our heads that it is wrong and wierd to date someone that is more than 5 yrs older than you if you are a minor. I understand that this law is to protect minors from being taken advantage of, but maybe if we had harsher punishment for those who do take advantage of minors, this wouldn't be so much of a problem.