Topeka, KS — Just four days after former Kansas prosecutor Phill Kline filed a motion asking for the recusal of two biased State Supreme Court Justices who were slated to decide the outcome of a politically motivated ethics complaint against him, five out of seven of the Justices recused themselves from hearing the case.
The unprecedented move opens the door for Kline to have a new panel of judges look at an ethics complaint filed by an attorney for a late-term abortionist who was trying to prevent Kline from obtaining abortion records that we now know contained evidence that abortion clinics were breaking the law. Until now, only those with a political vendetta against Kline and his controversial abortion clinic investigations have heard the case. Recusing were Justices Carol Beier, Lawton Nuss, who were included in Kline’s motion, and Lee Johnson, Marla Luckert and Eric Rosen.
Abortion investigations obstructed
This case has a long and complex history. It began in 2003 when, as Attorney General, Kline had reason to believe that child sex abuse was not being reported by abortion clinics as required by law. Kline opened an investigation and obtained a subpoena from Judge Richard Anderson for abortion records. Anderson found there was probable cause for Kline to obtain the records.
Kline was the lone Republican to hold a statewide office at a time when Kansas politics was dominated by former Democratic Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, who now serves as Secretary of Health and Human Services in the Obama Administration. Sebelius is and was a radical supporter of unrestricted abortion. Through her appointments, she created a political climate that protected abortion clinics at all costs.
Kline had good reason to be concerned that the abuse of young girls was not being reported by abortion clinics, but his efforts to investigate those suspected crimes were met with fierce legal opposition and public demonization by abortion clinic attorneys, the Kansas media, and especially Supreme Court Justice Carol Beier.
Beier’s “third wave feminism”
It was Beier’s “scathing” comments in her legal opinions criticizing Kline’s efforts to investigate abortion clinics that was particularly troubling and gave fuel to the pro-abortion news reporters to misrepresent the facts, confuse the public, and insulate the abortion clinics from aggressive prosecutions.
In Kline’s brief asking for the recusal of Beier and another justice, Kline exposes Beier’s adherence to a radical philosophy of “third wave feminism” that embraces unrestricted abortion on demand for any reason. Beier hated Kline for attempting to investigate abortion clinics, but time and again she was forced to rule in his favor. To mitigate the rulings, Beier continuously took Kline to task in her opinions with statements that were unsupported by law and contained falsehoods and deception. These comments were gleefully reported by the likes of the Kansas City Star, which received a “Maggie Award” from Planned Parenthood in 2006 for editorials supporting abortion.
Kline’s counsel discovered Justice Beier’s ties to the third wave movement when he came across 2008 writings by Justice Beier in a legal journal published in Maryland. In it Beier supported using the media as a “tool” to shape public perception in order to bring about legal reform supporting “third wave feminism.”
Deceptions and Dishonesty
Kline claims that Beier’s unprofessional opinion-writing was an improper use of her judicial opinion authority. He supports those claims with the fact that every judge that reviewed Kline’s evidence found probable cause to believe that Kansas abortion clinics have committed multiple crimes.
Kline’s attorney, Tom Condit, issued the following statement concerning the recusals:
This confirms Beier was deceptive and that her previous opinions were mere press releases for her third-wave feminism. This is more fully explained in our motion to recuse Justice Beier. The other justices joined in these deceptions – they also appointed the prosecutor and the panel which relied on those deceptions. These layers of deception by this Court and its appointees render this case irretrievably flawed.
The stated reason why five Justices of the Kansas Supreme Court are recusing from Phill Kline’s disciplinary appeal hides more facts than it reveals.
This week Mr. Kline filed a recusal motion, demonstrating that the Court’s opinion in a 2008 case, written by Justice Carol Beier, was flagrantly dishonest in its presentation of facts.
The recusing Justices, after reading Mr. Kline’s motion, suddenly discovered that they had previously complained about Mr. Kline’s behavior, and thus should not hear the appeal. This fact was known to them when the appeal was filed last fall —over six months ago.
The stated reasons are a smokescreen to divert public attention from the outrageous behavior detailed in the motion. Because public awareness of the facts presented in the motion would have a devastating effect on the Court’s reputation, the Justices quickly patched together an alternate rationale.