The Kansas Department of Health shredded abortion records which could be used to prove that Planned Parenthood broke the law.
The records in question deal with reports that Planned Parenthood must file under state law for each abortion it performs. One copy is kept by Planned Parenthood in the patient files, and another is sent to the Kansas Department of Health and Environment.
Prosecutors wanted to prove the records obtained by Kline were the same as those filed with the state and different from alleged copies provided later by Planned Parenthood.
In its latest filing, made public Friday, the prosecution asked for additional time to find witnesses to establish the authenticity of records obtained by Kline as attorney general.
Reached Friday, Kline said KDHE knew in 2005 that the destroyed records were a key part of a criminal investigation.
"It is greatly disturbing and potentially obstruction for them to have destroyed them," said Kline, adding that he thinks the case can still be made.
Another stone to mountain of evidence showing Amanda Marcotte's inability to do basic research. At RH Reality Check she makes the following absurd claim:
For instance, in Tennessee, they're just straight taking contraception funding and giving it to anti-contraception propaganda centers called "crisis pregnancy centers".Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Shelby County Commission voted to have Christ Community Health Services provide the county's family planning program over Planned Parenthood. CCHS is obviously not a CPC unless CPCs started providing primary and dental care and no one let me know. CCHS is also obviously not "anti-contraception" since they scored higher than Planned Parenthood on their ability to provide family planning services. Maybe Amanda thinks they're anti-contraception because they will refer out emergency contraception requests instead of providing them.
Here's Herman Cain's response to the controversy over his comments over abortion.
At Public Discourse, Michael Paulsen discusses laws banning sex-selection abortions.
Four states—Illinois, Pennsylvania, Oklahoma, and most recently Arizona—have enacted laws prohibiting sex-selection abortion. Those laws have yet to be tested in the courts. At least seven other states have considered bills that would ban the practice......
Are such bans constitutional, under the Supreme Court's decisions creating a right to abortion? The question such laws present is a dramatic one, challenging the underpinnings of Roe v. Wade in the most fundamental and direct of ways: Does the U.S. Constitution create a right to abortion, even when the woman's reason for abortion is that she does not like the sex of her unborn child?
Sadly, the answer, under the Supreme Court's absurd, through-the-looking-glass constitutional law of abortion, is yes......
Even after viability, a woman may abort for any "health" reason, an exception that ends up swallowing the rule: The Court's abortion decisions define "health" justifications for abortion to include any "emotional," "psychological," or "familial" reason for wanting an abortion.
A pregnant woman's (or a couple's) preference for a boy rather than a girl would seem to fit comfortably within the gaping loophole for "emotional" or "familial" reasons for abortion.....
The fact that laws banning sex-selection may fly in the face of the Roe and Casey decisions is no reason not to enact them. On the contrary, it is a powerful reason to enact them: The justices, and abortion supporters generally, ought to be forced to confront the uncomfortable reality of the Court's abortion jurisprudence.