October 22, 2007
Phill Kline: still at it, unfortunately
I’ve generally left the posting on Phill Kline up to Evil Bender, given that he’s the native Kansan. But now we both live here, and in addition to being passionate about reproductive freedom in general, I’m now dependent on the very system Kline is attacking (Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri, for annual women’s health exams as well as birth control), so I figure EB won’t mind if I tread on his toes a bit.
Anyway, you’d think that after being voted out of the office of state attorney general last November, and then having his three years of work trying to persecute and prosecute women who’d had abortions and the people who’d provided the abortions end in a declaration by the current attorney general that there was “no evidence of criminal wrongdoing,” Phill Kline might stop trying, or might try another tack, or might try elsewhere, or something.
The prosecutor’s latest salvo against the abortion industry began Oct. 17, when he filed a 107-count criminal complaint against Brownlie’s Comprehensive Health of Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri, located in Overland Park, Kan. Twenty-three of the counts are felony charges.
The clinic has denied any wrongdoing and has called the complaints “baseless.”
*Sigh.* Here we go again.
Something that both frustrates and concerns me is the title of the piece on ABC News: “Could One Man Influence Abortion Law?” A supporter calls him “incredibly principled;” a political science professor at the University of Kansas (I assume; note to the folks at ABC News: there isn’t a ‘Kansas University,’ just the University of Kansas (abbreviated KU) and Kansas State University) calls Kline “very ambitious” and states that “Kline’s personal beliefs are his No. 1 priority.” Whether his moral stance is driving his political career or vice-versa, it seems pretty clear that one of Kline’s ultimate goals is to punish women for being sexual beings — perhaps even independent sexual beings (teh horror!).
Which brings me to a phrase the pro-life crowd likes to toss from time to time at those of us in favor of reproductive freedom: “it’s not a choice, it’s a child!” — in other words, accusing us of dehumanizing the embryo or fetus in the name of politics. But then out of the other side of their mouths they say that if women are going to engage in pre- or extramarital sex (or even marital sex, for that matter), then they’re going to have to be willing to face the consequences. And I do a double-take and think, wait, so now it’s neither a choice nor a child but a consequence? What kind of sense does that make?
There I go again, expecting logos from those who generally rely on pathos and ethos…