Life Advocacy Briefing

Six Still Held in Judiciary Committee

KEEP THOSE CALLS GOING to members of the Senate Judiciary Committee (Capitol switchboard, 1-202/224-3121). For the second week, the panel has “held over” the nomination of controversial abortion abettor Steve Six to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. And on Thursday, both of Kansas’s US Senators, Pat Roberts and Jerry Moran (both R), announced their opposition to the Six nomination.

A first-hand witness of Mr. Six’s misconduct, former Kansas Atty. Gen. Phill Kline, has written a commentary refuting what he calls “deceptions” in Mr. Six’s answers to Judiciary Committee Senators. Though it is lengthier and more detailed than items we typically reprint, we believe it is critical that our readers learn from Mr. Kline himself – a true pro-life hero – the truth about Steve Six’s complicity with Planned Parenthood and the Sebelius abortion connection. Readers will find the commentary at the close of this Life Advocacy Briefing.

Planned Parenthood Losing Ground

NORTH CAROLINA LAWMAKERS HAVE A MESSAGE for Pres. Obama and his Medicaid bureaucracy: We ain’t spending tax dollars on Planned Parenthood!

Despite a threat by the federal government to cut off Medicaid funding to the state of Indiana, Kansas and now North Carolina have also enacted budget bills disqualifying Planned Parenthood from funding.

Unlike Indiana and Kansas, whose governors backed the move, North Carolina had to overcome the veto of Gov. Bev Perdue (D). The override passed in both GOP-controlled houses last Wednesday, putting North Carolina out of the business of aiding the abortion behemoth.

Planned Parenthood immediately sought financial backing from private sources, reports Kathleen Gilbert for LifeSiteNews.com, and “condemned the vote as opposing ‘lifesaving cancer screenings and birth control,’” which are, of course, widely available from legitimate medical providers.

Not Quite Done

WE STILL HAVE FOUR MARCH FOR LIFE SPEECHES ready to publish – but no room for them this week. We expect next week to complete our series of transcripts, with speeches by Representatives Thaddeus McCotter, Robert Aderholt, Mike Kelly and Paul Broun.

Debate Transcript Excerpt

Though we did not transcribe the June 13, 2011, GOP Presidential debate in New Hampshire, we did watch with interest and later found a transcript on an Internet site called ReligionClause.blogspot.com, posted by University of Toledo (Ohio) Professor of Law (Emeritus) Howard Friedman. Based on our recollection of the debate section relating to abortion, we believe his transcript to be accurate and reprint that section here.

[Questioner] Vaughn: … Senator Santorum, staying with you for a moment, if I may, you are staunchly pro-life. Governor Romney used to support abortion rights until he changed his position on this a few years ago. This has been thoroughly discussed. But do you believe he genuinely changed his mind, or was that a political calculation? Should this be an issue in this primary campaign?

[Rick] Santorum: I think – I think an issue should be – in looking at any candidate, is looking at the authenticity of that candidate and looking at their – at their record over time and what they fought for. And I think that’s – that a factor that – that should be determined.

You can look at my record. Not only have I been consistently pro-life, but I’ve taken the – you know, I’ve not just taken the pledge, I’ve taken the bullets to go out there and fight for this and lead on those issues. And I think that’s a factor that people should consider when you – when you look, well, what is this President going to do when he comes to office?

A lot of folks run for President as pro-life and then that issue gets shoved to the back burner. I will tell you that the issue of pro-life, the sanctity and dignity of every human life, not just at birth, not just on the issue of abortion but with respect to the entire life, which I mentioned welfare reform and – and the dignity of people at the end of life, those issues will be top priority issues for me to make sure that all life is respected and held with dignity.

[CNN’s John] King: Governor Romney, let me give you – take – take 20 or 30 seconds, if there’s a Republican out there for whom this [is] important, who questions your authenticity on the issue?

[Mitt] Romney: People have had a chance to look at my record and look what I’ve said as – as I’ve been through that last campaign. I believe people understand that I’m firmly pro-life. I will support justices who believe in following the Constitution and not legislating from the bench. And I believe in the sanctity of life from the very beginning until the very end.

King: Is there anybody here who believes that that’s an issue in the campaign, or is it case closed?

(Unknown): Case closed.

King: Case closed it is. All right. Let’s move on to the questions. Tom Foreman is standing by up in Rochester.

[Tom] Foreman: Hi, John. Representative Bachmann, I have a question for you. Governor Pawlenty says he opposes abortion rights except in cases of rape, incest or when the mother’s life is at stake. Do you have any problem with that position? And if so, why?

[Michele] Bachmann: I am 100 percent pro-life. I’ve given birth to five babies, and I’ve taken 23 foster children into my home. I believe in the dignity of life from conception until natural death. I believe in the sanctity of human life.

And I think the most eloquent words ever written were those in our Declaration of Independence, that said it’s a Creator who endowed us with inalienable rights given to us from God, not from government. And the beauty of that is that government cannot take those rights away. Only God can give, and only God can take.

And the first of those rights is Life. And I stand for that right. I stand for the right to Life. The very few cases that deal with those exceptions are the very tiniest of fraction of cases, and yet they get all the attention. Where all of the firepower is and where the real battle is, is on the general – genuine issue of taking an innocent human life. I stand for Life from conception until natural death.

King: All right. Governor Pawlenty, it was your position that was brought into the question. We’ll give you a few seconds.

[Tim] Pawlenty: Well, this is a great example where we can look at our records. The National Review Online, which is a conservative publication, said based on results – not just based on words – I was probably the most pro-life candidate in this race.

As governor of the state of Minnesota, I appointed to the Supreme Court a conservative court for the first time in the modern history of my state. We passed the most pro-life legislation any time in the modern history of the state, which I proposed and signed, including Women’s Right to Know, including Positive Alternatives to Abortion legislation, and many others.

I’m solidly pro-life. The main pro-life organization in Minnesota gives me very, very high marks. And I haven’t just talked about these things; I’ve done it.

The Case Against Steve Six

Commentary by Phill Kline, former Kansas Attorney General and now a Visiting Professor at Liberty Law School, Lynchburg, Virginia, first published June 15, 2011, by LifeNews.com

In January 2008, Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius appointed Stephen Six as Kansas Attorney General to replace Paul Morrison, who was forced to resign in a sex and legal scandal. Six then used the power of his office to thwart, delay and interfere with the only criminal case ever filed against abortion giant Planned Parenthood.

It is for this purpose that Sebelius appointed Six, and it is for a job well done that Pres. Obama has nominated Six to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. Planned Parenthood is a large benefactor of Sebelius and the President.

The criminal case against Planned Parenthood alleges the abortion giant committed 107 criminal acts, including 23 felonies. Planned Parenthood may lose $350 million-plus in annual federal funding if convicted.

On Oct. 17, 2007, as Johnson County District Attorney, I charged Planned Parenthood with crimes after Johnson County Judge James Vanos reviewed my evidence over eight hours and two days and found probable cause to believe Planned Parenthood committed the illegal acts. Vanos became the second judge to find probable cause in the Planned Parenthood prosecution that I investigated while Attorney General and then later filed as District Attorney.

The charges are based on records redacted of patient identities, which were subpoenaed by Shawnee County District Judge Richard Anderson in October of 2004. Typically law enforcement can receive such records with patient names within three working days, yet here Planned Parenthood was able to delay use of the records for three years.

Today, more than six years after the original records were subpoenaed, the criminal charges against Planned Parenthood have yet to reach trial. Much of this delay is due to Six.

Six’s actions include: 1) pursuing two lawsuits aimed at returning the evidence against Planned Parenthood to Planned Parenthood; 2) obtaining secret orders to silence a key witness; and 3) suing the prosecutor (myself) in an effort to remove from my office the evidence against Planned Parenthood.

During his nomination hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Six was asked about these actions. Six’s answers were so vague and evasive, Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa requested that Six provide his answers in writing. He has – and these written responses are even more deceptive.

Six portrays his attacks on the prosecution of Planned Parenthood as merely “seeking guidance” from the Kansas Supreme Court on how to handle “sensitive” records.

The “sensitive” records of which Six speaks are records required to be maintained by statute for the purpose of enforcing Kansas abortion law and redacted medical records which do not contain any patient identities. Both sets of records are necessary for enforcing Kansas restrictions on late-term abortion and for enforcing Kansas law requiring the report of child rape, by medical providers.

It is these records which revealed that during a time when 166 abortions were performed on underage children in Kansas, that Dr. George Tiller and Planned Parenthood only each reported one case of child rape.

Six worked overtime, coordinating with the Sebelius legal efforts, to prevent these enforcement records and redacted medical records from being used against Planned Parenthood. …

Six repeatedly justifies his actions based on patient privacy and the claim that Judge Richard Anderson indicated that the records could result in identifying a patient. Six’s representation of Anderson’s statements is misleading.

Anderson was the judge who issued the subpoena of the records in the first place. In response to a question posed by Planned Parenthood’s attorneys, Anderson only conceded that a patient could identify their own records. Anderson repeatedly stressed, however, that a third party could not identify a patient from the records.

The records are so scrubbed of patient identities that they go further than HIPPA, the federal government’s medical record privacy act. Anderson was so convinced that the records should be used in a criminal prosecution against Planned Parenthood that he vigorously fought Six’s lawsuit to have all the evidence against Planned Parenthood [handed over] to Planned Parenthood. Six fails to mention these observations by Anderson and Anderson’s criticism of Six’s efforts.

Furthermore, the abortion patient obviously knows [she] had an abortion – redacting records to the point that a patient could not identify [her] own records, renders the record meaningless for any purpose.

In January of 2008, a key witness testified at a hearing in the criminal case I filed against Planned Parenthood. That witness, in pleadings and testimony, indicated that Planned Parenthood apparently committed felonies to cover up misdemeanors by manufacturing records in response to a subpoena. The witness even mentioned a handwriting expert who confirmed the documents were not what Planned Parenthood claimed. (In media accounts, Planned Parenthood remarkably claimed that it did not use copy machines in 2003 and 2004 and that it was forced to hand-reproduce all copies.)

In response to this evidence of criminality by Planned Parenthood, Six promptly and secretly petitioned the Kansas Supreme Court to silence that witness. The Supreme Court, without notifying me or anyone involved in that prosecution, granted the request. A majority of the Court had been appointed by Sebelius, for life. Kansas does not require a confirmation process for the appointments.

I later learned of Six’s efforts when I subpoenaed that witness for another hearing. The witness informed me of the secret order, and I was forced to appeal that order back to the very court that issued the order – the Kansas Supreme Court.

In October of 2010, more than two years after the subpoena, the Supreme Court reversed itself and allowed the witness to testify, but the damage was done. The case was delayed for another two years. More than six years after the original subpoena and probable cause finding, the Planned Parenthood case has yet to reach trial. It was Six who orchestrated much of this delay.

Additionally, Six teamed with the Sebelius Administration to prevent my access to the compliance reports in possession of the Sebelius Administration. Six filed motions and briefs in support of Gov. Sebelius’s claim that my office could not use the very reports the legislature intended to be used in criminal proceedings such as the case I filed.

In response to repeated queries by Senators regarding Six’s efforts to coordinate strategies with the Sebelius Administration, Six stated he did not recall any such efforts, that he did not speak with Sebelius about “criminal” cases and that his “criminal division” did not coordinate with Sebelius.

Six fails to mention that his “civil division” coordinated the efforts on behalf of Planned Parenthood. Six’s criminal division was not involved, because Six refused to consider charges against Planned Parenthood.

Six also maintains that the Attorney General does not have any authority to file abortion charges. Six claims that only a District Attorney could file such charges. …

Yet when I as District Attorney filed charges against Planned Parenthood, Six maintained the legal position that only his office could be in possession of the evidence against Planned Parenthood. Accordingly, Six now claimed that the only office – his office as Attorney General – which was unable to file charges against Planned Parenthood, should have the evidence, while the only office which could file charges – my District Attorney’s office – should be forced to give up the evidence.

This apparent inconsistency cannot be explained by law. Rather, Six’s actions can only be rendered consistent if you consider his motivation as preventing any criminal charges against Planned Parenthood from moving forward.

Six’s lack of candor and actions should not be rewarded with an appointment to an appellate court position. … Six’s willingness to sue a judge, sue a prosecutor, obtain secret ex parte orders to silence witnesses in order to protect a major political player – and his deception of the Senate regarding such efforts – clearly disqualify him for consideration to the federal bench.