« The Full Monty | Main | Let Your Fingers Do The Walking »

March 05, 2005

Abortion Industry Covering For Rapists, Pederasts

Abortion advocates are outraged that Kansas attorney general Phill Kline recently sought the medical records of 90 women who had abortions in that state. But the case is a complex one and the facts are being lost amid a welter of hysteria and biased reporting. Abortion activists cite privacy concerns. From atop their tony penthouse apartments, the sophisticated folks at The New York Times lambast Kline in this withering editorial:

In a shocking abuse of office, the attorney general of Kansas is conducting a stealth campaign to violate the privacy of about 90 **women ** [Emphasis added] who obtained late-term abortions, offering the flimsy claim that he's looking for evidence of crime.

Protected by a sweeping gag order from a local judge, Attorney General Phill Kline has been demanding the women's records from two clinics that have been unable to even warn clients that their intimate histories are being sought. When the inquiry finally came to light through a court brief, Mr. Kline maintained that he needed all the women's records - including their identities, sexual histories, clinical profiles and birth control methods - to prosecute statutory rape and other suspected sexual crimes.

Kansans deserve a full explanation of this gross intrusion into medical confidences that are supposed to be carefully protected by law. But Mr. Kline, a fervid anti-abortion campaigner throughout his career as a Republican politician, would not answer reporters' questions about his investigation. "Clinics should not act to protect the secrecy of the predator," he insisted in a statement, offering a blanket smear in lieu of a proper explanation.

We're confused... what does a predator have to do with "late term abortions"? Seems to me there is a disconnect between the NY Times' characterization of the investigation and the facts. But given the Times' sad history, that should not surprise us.

Let's leave the rarified air of NYC and travel to those backward Red States (perhaps what the Times' staff should have done) to find out what's really going on. From the Witchita Eagle, a slightly different picture emerges:

Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline on Thursday defended his secret inquiry into the records of late-term abortion patients, saying it is necessary to prosecute suspected child abusers.

Anti-abortion groups across the state chimed in with emotional support for Kline that went as far as accusing two clinics -- which on Tuesday had asked the Kansas Supreme Court to intercede -- of aiding child molesters.

Information in the court records indicates that the abortion providers fighting Kline and Judge Richard Anderson are Wichita's Women's Health Care Services and Overland Park's Comprehensive Health of Planned Parenthood of Kansas & Mid-Missouri.

Kline addressed one of the two reasons that have been cited in court records for his investigation -- the sexual activity of girls.

"Rape is a serious crime, and when a 10-, 11-, or 12-year-old is pregnant, they have been raped under Kansas law," Kline said Thursday. In Kansas, no one under the age of 16 can legally consent to sex.

"There are two things child predators want, access to children and secrecy, and as attorney general I am bound and determined to not give them either."

I guess in New York City, they find it far more shocking that an Attorney General sworn to uphold the law might read titillating medical records than that scores of men who prey on young girls under the age of 16 might get away with it. I'm just thinking back to my last OB-GYN appointment, when I regaled my doctor with juicy details from my intimate sex life, which he dutifully recorded in my medical file. It reads like a Harlequin novel... the Kama Sutra's got nothing on me. I believe there may even be a few diagrams in there of some new positions I suggested to him... certainly wouldn't want the AG reading that sort of thing.

Lord knows, we don't want to protect 10 and 12 year-old girls from sexual predators, do we? Break 'em in young, I always say. I know I personally would refuse to have MY medical record reviewed, even if it meant a sexual predator would be locked up and would never hurt another young girl: I mean, there's a more important principle involved here: MY PRIVACY. Damn straight.

An anti-abortion counselor comments:

"We see very, very young girls going into Tiller’s abortion mill on a regular basis and have reported this,” said Cheryl Sullenger, a sidewalk counselor who offers help to women considering abortions outside Tiller’s infamous abortion clinic. “Some appear to be as young as 10 or 11 years old. Whether you support abortion or not, everyone should be shocked that these clinics are not only protecting child sexual predators, but are also enabling them to continue to abuse by keeping their dirty little secrets.”

So the NY Times paints an investigation into the statutory rape of minors as some sort of anti-abortion jihad aimed at late-term abortions, as though somehow it should not matter to the Attorney General that statutory rape is illegal. None of his business, really, that girls are being victimized and undergoing risky surgery. That they are having illegal late-term abortions. Apparently he should just turn a blind eye, because the "privacy" of adult women is a more important consideration than the rape of innocent young girls. Or upholding the law.

Of course, ordinary citizens don't have "privacy" once the police have reasonable cause to suspect a crime has been committed, do we? That privilege is reserved for abortion doctors.

The police can obtain search warrants and seize our records, they can search our personal effects and examine our documents. They can enter our homes and go through our most intimate possessions. And we can do nothing to stop them.

I don't believe I heard the NY Times go into high dudgeon when the Feds seized Rush Limbaugh's medical records over what was essentially a victimless crime, yet here we are looking at rape of young girls, and feminists and the NY Times want to sweep it under the rug in the name of privacy.

What makes abortion a special case?

The abortion industry has elevated "a woman's right to privacy" to such bizarre status that it trumps all over considerations. In the name of the nebulous "right to choose", both Planned Parenthood and abortion clinics are covering for pedophiles:

Planned Parenthood and the National Abortion Federation have both been exposed for their willingness to cover up cases of statutory rape. Several years ago, Mark Crutcher with Life Dynamics, Inc., had a woman call abortion clinics throughout the United States to see if the clinics would cover up statutory rape. The woman pretended to be a 13-year-old, impregnated by her 21-year-old boyfriend. In the majority of cases, the abortion counselor agreed to hide the rape. In other cases, the counselor coached the girl on ways to avoid detection and how to circumvent parental consent or notification laws. Crutcher taped many of these conversations and the Traditional Values Coalition has posted these on our web site.

Planned Parenthood's sex-ed site, Teenwire, casually discusses the pros and cons of dating older guys, only at the end of the article mentioning that ... oh by the way, you might want to check the laws in your state. The article originally also linked to a site run by pedophiles:

The words "Age of Consent" in the Teenwire piece link to a Web site which is very clearly run by pedophiles.

Although the link opens up a window that first shows a disclaimer saying Teenwire does not "necessarily" endorse the site, it offers no warning of Age of Consent's actual nature. That nature may easily be discovered by anyone clicking on the words highlighted beneath the banner atop each of the site's pages: "Cool Teen Sites." The "Cool Teen Sites" that the Teenwire reader will find through Age of Consent include a page of shots of teenage girls stripping or kissing one another for webcams.

But that's the least of it.

Age of Consent's main page has a prominent link to its "Editorials"—dozens upon dozens of articles offering justification for having sex with children and viewing child pornography.

One of these editorials is titled simply, "Possession of Child Porn Should be Legal." It begins (deletion mine):

F--- the Children
Plain. Simple. Blunt.
The possession of child pornography should be legal.

Again, this article is accessible directly through Planned Parenthood's Teenwire. All the child—as young as six, by Teenwire's own rules—has to do is click on the link to Age of Consent, and then click on "Editorials."

Note: When Planned Parenthood discovered Dawn Patrol's expose, they removed the link to Age of Consent.

Let get this straight: the Kansas Attorney General is investigating two crimes.

1. The statutory rape of young girls by older men, leading to (often) dangerous and illegal late-term abortions. There is a name for this: several in fact. Rape. Child abuse. Pedophilia. Let's call it what it is. And let's stop covering for the men who commit these crimes.

If any other crime were committed, the state would have the right to seek evidence to prosecute the offenders. How else is the state supposed to find out who these men are? Seizing the medical records and finding the names of these girls is the only way. THE ONLY WAY.

2. Late-term abortions are illegal. Another salutory fact is that Dr. Tilly, one of only two doctors targeted by AG Kline also just happens to be one of the few doctors willing to perform partial-birth abortions. Both late-term and partial-birth abortions are repugnant to the majority of Americans, and late-term abortions are illegal.

The Attorney General is sworn to uphold and enforce the law. He is not seeking to overturn Roe v. Wade, or to turn back the clock, as the NY Times unfairly and dishonestly suggests. He is not trying to keep anyone from having an abortion.

He is merely seeking to enforce existing abortion law.

Yet the New York Times' somewhat novel contention is that the Attorney General of the State of Kansas has no business investigating a double crime: illegal late-term abortions performed on young girls who have been statutorily raped. The Times believes abortion is so sacred that it allows evidence of crime - any crime, apparently - to be covered up with impunity.

Anyone whose name ends up involved in this investigation (having had a late-term abortion) was involved in the commission of a crime under the laws of the state of Kansas. It's that simple. They have no "right to privacy" if a judge orders their records turned over.

Anyone whose name ends up involved in this investigation (having had an abortion under the age of 16) was the victim of a crime. As such, the state (not the victim) is the plaintiff in the criminal action and has the right to pursue a remedy to protect the citizens of Kansas from further harm.

And the NY Times and the LA Times should be ashamed of themselves for their dishonest and biased reporting on this issue.

Update: re-reading this and finding several typos, it is more apparent than ever why I need a vacation. If anyone sees anything else, please email me or alert me in the comments section. I hate mistakes.

Posted by Cassandra at March 5, 2005 07:40 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:


Is that what happened to the bottle of Kahlua?
I wondered.

Posted by: Cricket at March 5, 2005 10:52 AM

Actually a fair amount had disappeared, neat, over ice by the time he got home from work, Cricket. I ran a big, hot bath and poured myself a big drink and disappeared under the bubbles for about an hour.

As I said, it was a very long week.

Posted by: Cassandra at March 5, 2005 11:05 AM

Lord knows, we don't want to protect 10 and 12 year-old girls from sexual predators, do we?

Well, Cass, in Saudi Arabia "girls" of 10-12 can have a very special name: wife. The age of menarche is the time to get them married off before they have the chance to bring shame onto the family by getting pregnant without benefit of marriage.

In the spirit of the recent ruling the the Supremes, the editorial is simply internationalist in it's logic. The thinking person would venture into the world, learn of societal norms elsewhere, then bring the wisdom of worldwide experience to the backward hicks in the red states.

Posted by: MathMom at March 5, 2005 11:34 AM

The thing about this is, I can see both sides.

I see the privacy concerns.

But if these people don't like the statutory rape laws and don't want them enforced, CHANGE THE LAW. If it is to remain on the books, then the AG has the right and duty to enforce it. That's what he is paid to do. And the Times (in faraway NY) should have a nice hot cup of STFU. Their flexible urban viewpoint doesn't play in Kansas.

Or, frankly, with most Americans.

My opinions on this matter probably wouldn't sit too well with many conservatives, but I'm with the AG on this one. The Times is wrong.

Posted by: Cassandra at March 5, 2005 11:49 AM

I loved the "Age of Consent" website, by the way.

Way to go, Planned Parenthood.

Posted by: Cassandra at March 5, 2005 11:50 AM

If I am not mistaken in most states, if a person goes to the emergency room with a gunshot wound the hospital is required to notify the police without any regard to the privacy of the victim.

Why? Because it is likely a crime has been committed. But what about the 2nd Amemdment? Well, that just isn't as PC as the right to an abortion.

I say this even though I am not in favor of the government having access to anyones medical record, but you have to hand it to the AG, a crime by Kansas state law has been committed and he is doing his job.

Posted by: Pile On® at March 5, 2005 11:55 AM

Pile, it gets better than that.

Nurses, teachers and even volunteers like are, by law, mandated reporters. What that means is that if we suspect that a child has been physically or sexually abused or there is domestic abuse even if we find out about this on a confidential crisis call, we are obligated to call the authorities IMMEDIATELY and report it.

There is NO concern that we are violating the confidence of the person who called us for help. You can't imagine the agony that this places the volunteer (who is often not a professional) in. People blurt out all sorts of nonsense on the phone - how in the helk are we supposed to know if there is real abuse or if they are just pissed at their husband?

But by law we're obligated to turn their names and contact info over to the police.

But apparently in the case of abortion and rape, there is some sort if exception to this general rule? Give me a break.

Posted by: Cassandra at March 5, 2005 12:02 PM

There is serious cognitive dissonance between this insistence on the "right to privacy" which permits pedophiles to prey on and impregnate young girls, and on the other hand the feminist rage about rape as a crime of violence against womyn by the Male Oppressors. At what age is a woman permitted to bring her rapist to justice?

What about the village raising the child? Does that not include protection of the child? They are advocating against the child's having to bring a baby to term, but not against the impregnation in the first place. In alternative medicine we always try to find the root cause, and from my years of training I suspect the cause of these girls' pregnancies is semen, administered by a male. Shouldn't "it's all about the children" begin to play on the jukebox here? Wouldn't feminist hatred of all things producing testosterone push for the removal of this vermin from society?

My final question before the next trip to the Med Center - is it a precondition of employment at the New York Times that large quantities of brain matter must be surgically excised before one can hope to gain employment as a writer for that paper?

Posted by: MathMom at March 5, 2005 12:12 PM

I kinda feel for the op/ed staff at the times. It must be difficult to hold a position in which you have to fabricate and distort the facts to defend it.

It is so much easier to be a libertarian conservative classical liberal, where all that is good and righteous supports ones position. :)

Posted by: Pile On® at March 5, 2005 12:18 PM

The abortion industry has elevated "a woman's right to privacy" to such bizarre status that it trumps all over considerations.

Being pro-abortion means never having to adopt a nuanced position.

Posted by: George at March 5, 2005 01:05 PM

Another thought -- the pro-abortion Left is big on presumed motives. If this attorney general had a "pro-choice" track record and all other circumstances remained the same, I suspect this editorial would never have been written.

Posted by: George at March 5, 2005 01:53 PM

Couldn't agree more, George.

Posted by: Cassandra at March 5, 2005 01:59 PM

You know, the mandated reporters don't even have to require a medical opinion or a safety exam of the child before exercising the option for removal of the child from the home.

I have a very dear friend who is a mandated reporter for the state of which shall remain nameless. In one case she suspected sexual abuse, as the little girl wanted to tell someone about her 'owie.' My friend has ten children of her own, so she asked this little girl if she wanted her to see the bruise to show it off. (knowing how kids are about things like that)The little girl said
"No, my mommy's boyfriend gave it to me when mommy wasn't home and told me not to tell."

She asked her where it was, and then called the mother in and told her what her little girl had said. The mother was adamant that her boyfriend had done nothing, but did consent to a safe exam.
Well, sexual abuse was confirmed.

Common sense was used, but it haunted my friend for days, because the next step was removal from the house until the boyfriend was charged and no longer a threat. This little girl was only five.

She was placed in foster care. We moved away shortly thereafter and I don't know what happened next.

Sadly, there is a lack of common sense in administering the needed services and seeing to it that the perps are punished.

The fact that these creeps are still at large concerns me and so I would tell the Kansas AG to go right ahead with his investigation.

I am for millstones around the neck.

Posted by: Cricket at March 5, 2005 02:14 PM

This kind of thing gets really ugly. In housing in Monterey we had a bad situation where one neighbor (a nurse) was convinced a child in the neighborhood was exhibiting overtly sexual behavior that could only happen if she was being abused. She was 11.

I'm sorry but many 11 year old girls are sexually aware and exhibit seductive behavior, and she was my next-door neighbor and frankly I thought she just wanted attention. And I didn't see her behavior as all that overtly sexual either - not nearly enough to warrant a report to the police that could ruin her father's career. There needed to be far more evidence that some vague "feeling".

In today's world, where TV, movies, and magazines are chock full of sex, it is hardly unusual for a girl to be sexually aware. At 11, I was sexually mature, wore a bra (and I needed to) and had started noticing boys and reached menarche. So all the hormones were definitely working.

Of course I wasn't dating or wearing makeup or anything and I wasn't emotionally mature, but I looked about 14 and boys were noticing me when I walked down the street. And I thought I was much older than I was.

I am very suspicious of this whole mandated reporter thing. I realize why it exists, but I've seen it abused and I don't like it one bit. I've seen wives lie to hurt their husbands, knowing it will be reported. And I've seen careers and lives ruined. It's not right.

Posted by: Cassandra at March 5, 2005 02:32 PM

Next time you might again encounter such a situation, I'll be more than happy to ship you some of my rusty butter knife collection.
Sometimes I scare myself a little with the depth of anger I have and feel toward such vile scum. I hate to admit that if I ever walked in on an abuse case like that, I could probably WAY too easily go Lorena Bobbitt on the perv, perp %*$%&$%*$%&$%*$@#@$(#%*#&$)#$(&*%*(&!

Unfortunately there's enough completely NON discerning women [AND men] out there that don't make it a priority to factor kids in as a priority when it comes to deciding who they get involved with. The abuse cases involving steps or live-ins is ridiculously, disgustingly common place.

Posted by: CKCat at March 5, 2005 02:39 PM

That's one reason I hated Family Law practice so much Cat. I can't tell you how much of that I saw.

Posted by: Cassandra at March 5, 2005 02:45 PM

Gee, Cass--I guess I didn't realize the branch of law you were involved with. That had to eat you up. I imagine your pint sized self could have opened up a SERIOUS Texas sized can of whup ass on any of those perv-scums! GRRRRRRR!

In cases like that I can't wrap my mind around WHERE to even begin looking for any reason to be objective or "fair". It's one of those things that I simply see no other possibility outside of ZERO TOLERANCE. Male OR female perp-perv.

I'm not particularly proud of knowing I could actually inflict some *deadly* harm on another person. But again, given the offense, I can't come up with any reason I would not be justified in doing so.

A few weeks ago my neighbor was telling me she got her degree in Family Law. She only briefly practiced. I don't know what her plans are now. I think she wanted to eventually get back in though.

I may have bored you w/ this story before but at my most recent (3 yrs ago) local radio station gig I was *News director* [as it were]. I was joking around with the guy that had been-- before duties were switched---- about a certain music bed/news intro I wanted for every time the Internet Task Force for Crimes Against Children would make another bust of some perv thinking he was coming to town to meet a child when in fact he met up with some brute of an undercover cop. I wanted a little custom "Queen" intro for every time there was an arrest One that that said: "Another Perv bites the dust!". HA!

Ahhhh...the weather's MUCH too nice to not be outside. My faded purple ribbons on my garland are coming down. Yup, Christmas stuff. hehehe IT still looks better than DRAB dirt and grey.

Posted by: CKCat at March 5, 2005 03:35 PM

Well, if we are talking about the children, then let us use the laws in existence and exercise some sense of rightness.

I will take you up on that rusty butter knife.
I know there are 11 yo girls out there who are very aware of themselves and have not been touched.

Trying stuff out like that is one thing, but when someone says they were hurt in a tender area and told not to tell, warning bells should go off.

We have been protective of our children's safety and well being because we see them as a trust from God. We also know we can't wrap them up and protect them from every little thing, but if we are doing our job right as parents, they will never need to experience the ugly things that can happen if we guide them properly. A most sacred
and terrible trust.

Posted by: Cricket at March 5, 2005 03:57 PM

I think your friend had ample cause to report, Cricket.

I don't think my neighbor did though. An 11 year old girl who simpers and eyes men is not abnormal, in my opinion. She's merely becoming aware of her power as a woman. And she needs an older woman to pull her aside and counsel her before she gets herself in some serious trouble.

Posted by: Cassandra at March 5, 2005 04:07 PM

And, I might add, while talking to her, a woman might be able to find out whether anything untoward was going on.

Rushing to report to the police without doing the common sense thing, as your friend did, is cowardly and wrong.

Posted by: Cassandra at March 5, 2005 04:09 PM

On the flip side of all this I feel bad for the adults who are FALSELY accused of abuse, sexual or otherwise, by a calculated, manipulative child or one who's coherced/manipulated by another adult to do so (like a jaded ex). So many "boy [or girl] that cries wolf situations that's authenticity has to be determined.

OK..domestic divas. What is that great little glue [Elmers brand] that fixes EVERYTHING and hardly any residue to be seen. NOT superglue...something else. I forgot the name and threw the old tube out some time ago. I just decapitated Sally of the Peanuts Hallmark nativity scene! *sniff*. I got those figurines dirt cheap, never used at a Salvation Army store a couple years ago and just put them up in the big front window this past Christmas.
I'm so bummed...Somebody Call a WHAAAAAAmbulance!!

Posted by: CKCat at March 5, 2005 04:17 PM

Is this a great country or what?
You can't execute someone under the age of 18, convicted of a capital crime, because they "can't know the consequences of their actions", yet the privacy of 11-14 year old girls, getting pregnant our of wedlock, possibly by older male sexual predators (ya think?) is SCRUPULOUSLY defended.
Of course, they absolutely know the consequences of their actions, as young women entering puberty.
Local and state governments have started to form the habit of land 'takings' to benefit privated developers, yet access to records from semi-public institutions (who no doubt get Medicare and Medicaid money) for the purpose of duly appointed/elected government officials prosecuting possible felonies, is sacrosanct.

Is the Constitution a suicide pact, or not?

Posted by: Don Brouhaha at March 5, 2005 04:57 PM

Oh Cass, I agree with you 100% on that. I think that is where power hungry people can get things in a tangle, is when they don't listen. Or they don't attempt to understand, as they have something to prove and government exists to perpetuate itself. Remember St. Hillary's meme:
"It takes a village to raise an idiot."

My friend doesn't have a degree in counseling. But she had extensive experience in parenting, which guided a great many of the cases that she handled. She told me once that in the ten years she has been a mandated reporter, that that was the first time she had ever had a sexually abused child. She has had to help children by getting them out of neglectful and harmful situations,
but on average, maybe two a year.

She also went on to tell me that 95% of what she heard was unsubstantiated or false claims, but the state blithely refuses to inform parents of their rights, because the child's well being trumps all.

Another good friend in Washington state who has a degree in counseling and also a social worker used to drop in on me when we were at Lewis. I never knew why she did it, but she told me later that
she did it just to remind herself there were normal families who made blanket forts in the living room, who sent out for pizza, turned the lights off and told ghost stories. Using the knee jerk method of ascertaining neglect or abuse, she could have taken one look at my living room and decided that it was unsuitable and the children were malnourished because of the blanket mess and the pizza box.

But also being a parent herself of two boys, she knew better and used to tell people I was too patient with my kids, since I am not a spanker.
Not because I consider it abuse, but because it can be over used. A social worker advocating spanking? YOU BET.

Posted by: Cricket at March 6, 2005 10:52 AM

You give each child what he/she needs.

My youngest boy didn't need spanking - it would have been overkill. My older boy did - nothing else got through to him - he was hard-headed, like his mother was when she was younger.

A good parent assess the child's needs and gives each child what he needs, in the appropriate measure. I only spanked my youngest maybe once, maybe twice the whole time he was growing up, and that for a very severe transgression. I can't remember. And I think it was something they had both done and the punishment needed to be equal and I hated to do it, but didn't want him to skate away scot-free, which he tended to do due to his personality. And it was good for him, in this one instance, to take a harsh punishment - it didn't kill him.

Posted by: Cassandra at March 6, 2005 11:07 AM

Yep. I think I spanked one kid for doing something dangerous. My LD son is mentally five years old.
He would not only not understand, he would be terribly hurt. In many ways he is like a Down's child. He is the one who needs hugs, reassurance and lots of love. (well, they all do)

However, correcting the behavior by mentoring them, as in the case of the progressive 11 yo is far better than spanking or child services, etc.

Posted by: Cricket at March 6, 2005 02:02 PM

The only reason for spanking a child (that I can think of) is that it is a more effective means of getting their attention than another mode of discipline.

I was actually dead against spanking until the day my almost 3 year old ran out into the street in front of an oncoming car. I yelled to him to stop and ran after him and he giggled and kept running.

At that moment, I realized that unless my child obeyed me IMMEDIATELY, without question, his life was in danger. He only lived that day because the driver of the car was paying attention. He got his first spanking that day, reluctantly and with an explanation and a big hug afterwards. It wasn't a bad spanking because he was only three. But believe me, he got the point. It was my responsibility to keep them safe, and I would have done far worse things to ensure they lived to adulthood. Children are far more sturdy than we give them credit for - if you love them, they can survive a spanking or two - the world is going to dish out some harsh treatment. If they can't even take a little spanking from a loving parent when they deserve it, how on earth will they ever be strong enough to make it in a world full of people who DON'T love them?

Both my sons hopped when I said something. There was no argument, no back talk. None. I didn't tolerate it.

I never forgot that day. My youngest boy did not require spanking to obey me instantly, so he did not get spanked. My oldest did, periodically, to reinforce who was in charge, so periodically he got whalloped. He is a better person for it, if you ask me, as I was when my Dad let me have it. And if you ask me, I should have been spanked more often as a child because I was a punk.

Posted by: Cassandra at March 6, 2005 03:09 PM

I think that all person's medical records that don't have to do with impotense or ass cancer should be public record. Put a link on the internet. Whatcha hidin' behind those so called privacy concerns, people?

Posted by: KJ at March 6, 2005 04:24 PM

KJ, we're not talking about putting their records on the Internet.

Have you ever read an OB-Gyn record?

I have. My own, and for that matter one of my friend's. It's not that exciting. The average person wouldn't even understand most of what's in it.

Maybe you can explain to me how the AG is supposed to get the evidence that these crimes have been committed? That late-term abortions (which are illegal) have been committed.

Without seeing the medical records.

Oh. I get it. The AG has no business enforcing the law. He should just ignore the whole thing.

Posted by: Cassandra at March 6, 2005 05:52 PM

Cass, exactly. I spanked my youngest for trying to climb up our entertainment center which could have fallen on him. He never did it again, as we both cried.

However, there are times when he reminds me that he had to be my youngest child because he is into everything! He just brought down his sister's birthday cake announcing to us all that we were hungry. Heh. She just turned 7. She is into the Disney Princesses and Barbie videos.

Compared to Bratz and other stuff, I will take Barbie videos any day. Well written and downright wholesome.

Posted by: Cricket at March 6, 2005 08:33 PM

Have I ever read an OB-Gyn record? Why yes. When I did PI defense, I requested every medical record I could find on a person. I won't tell you some of the very interesting things I learned from Ob-Gyn records about PI plaintiffs.

And I am here to tell you that when you get an ER records that reads: "Patient complains of pain in penis. Says he was having vigorous intercourse with partner when he 'missed the bullseye.' Diag: broken penis." ... you find any way possible to get that record in front of the jury.

Aside: although we won the case on a pre-trial motion, I had a good argument to get the "broken penis" before the jury. The plaintiff's case was for UM coverage, but since he wasn't named in the policy, to win he had to have a "common law marriage" to the insured lady against whose policy he sought coverage. At that time, Georgia recognized CLM which required a showing that the couple entered into a marriage "in fact" and held themselves out as married. If there was any inconsistent conduct, the marriage was a jury issue.

The records were inconsistent (eg., he filed taxes as single, but in some things he checked married, only when it benefited him of course). Anyway, his "partner" that lead to this little ER trip was not the alleged "wife." So I thought the record would be admissible to show conduct inconsistent with the alleged "marriage contract."

How would you rule Judge Cass?

Posted by: KJ at March 7, 2005 03:40 PM

Let me get this straight (I'm confused).

You were representing... the woman with the insurance, on whose policy the man wasn't named?

And he wants to claim a CLM existed so he can get coverage, although he filed taxes as single and was screwing around and broke his wanker while so doing?

Well I sort of agree - unless there's some other evidence that he's representing himself to the community as her husband, he can't run around acting single and dipping his proboscis in other women's honeypots and filing single (not married, filing separately) and then, when he busts his nose, all of a sudden try to claim he's suddenly married.

And Jeez KJ, I always thought I was fairly open about such things (I don't embarrass easily), but I must be more closemouthed than I thought. In over 30 years of visits, I don't think I've ever discussed any detail of my sex life with a doctor. Why would I? And when you're military, you see a plethora of different doctors, so I've probably been exposed to more different examining styles than most patients.

In my opinion, it's none of their damned business and I get pretty shirty if they bring it up - maybe because it involves someone other than myself. I just can't imagine blurting out that sort of thing.

I actually had a doctor ask me a few years back (apparently it is now a standard question - someone's bright idea) if my husband had ever forced me to have sex with him.

I am about as non-confrontational a person as you can imagine, but he got an extremely frosty answer from me. I informed him in no uncertain terms that I resented that question, that I was not a child and he was not a social worker but a physician and I was quite capable of dialing a telephone in the unlikely event that I was ever sexually assaulted by my spouse, and I would appreciate it if he never insulted my intelligence by asking me such a cretinous question ever again.

Then I got up and walked out of the office without having the exam - I was so angry I didn't want that man to lay a finger on me.

Posted by: Cassandra at March 7, 2005 04:13 PM

I think you mean "... in you."

Your facts are sort of correct. I was representing John Doe, an unknown driver, but I was really representing the motor vehicle policy insurance company. He was trying to recover under the girlfriend's UM policy. Since he wasn't a named insured, he would only be covered is he was the named insured's spouse.

I think he had one piece of paper where he pretended to be married. Everything else was unmarried (taxes, license, govt filings, medical records, etc).

As for your Ob-Gyn records, I understand how you feel. What a stupid question.

BTW, I was kidding about the whole internet posting of med records above. I should have put one of them there smiley things after my comment.

Posted by: KJ at March 7, 2005 04:50 PM

Well that's good - I was a bit surprised at your comment, but figured maybe you were still cranky from travelling :)

Once in a while the Unit comes home cranky and tired (when he doesn't come home like a little kid with a bag full of presents, which is more common).

Posted by: Cassandra at March 7, 2005 04:57 PM

I shouldn't have jumped at the bait, but I was at least four and a half sheets to the wind.

Posted by: Cassandra at March 7, 2005 05:04 PM


I have read that about you several times now. I am a little concerned about your drinking, hon. Should I be sending you 12 step brochures?

Posted by: KJ at March 7, 2005 06:00 PM

I don't think it is a good idea to go to your ob-gyn four and a half sheets to the wind.

But I could be wrong.

Posted by: Pile On® at March 7, 2005 06:10 PM

Especially if you are 39 weeks pregnant.

Posted by: KJ at March 7, 2005 06:11 PM

KJ, I will show you mine if you will show me yours
(medical records) snark snark snark.

I knew what ya meant. So, you liked SLC? It is a pretty city, and for a few days there I was really wanting to go up to the mountains and play in snow.

Cass invited me to her place to play.

I used to sit in on my roommate's Russian Lit class while she took skiing lessons up near Snowbird. I do miss the U.

Posted by: Cricket at March 7, 2005 06:17 PM

You schmucks. I wasn't 4 1/2 sheets to the wind when I was pregnant. I didn't drink when I was pregnant.

As a matter of fact, I really didn't drink much when I was first married. I was on the other hand, feeling no pain this weekend - the Unit took me out to dinner at one of my favorite restaurants and I was tired and it doesn't take much anyway for me. I don't eat very much generally so if I have even two drinks and I'm tired, that's it.

And I had three.


Posted by: Cassandra at March 7, 2005 06:21 PM

Post a comment

Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)