Weekend extra: Phill Kline wins KS Supreme Court decision
You wouldn’t know in the immediate aftermath of the KS Supreme Court’s decision yesterday that it ruled in Johnson Co. District Attorney Phill Kline’s favor on all merits of a lawsuit launched against him by Planned Parenthood and the KS Attorney General’s office. Here is a sampling of MSM/liberal blog headlines…
But, here is what really happened, from KansasLiberty.com…
The irony is PP filed its lawsuit to stop KS law enforcement agencies from sharing information, and the Supremes not only found this proper but ordered Kline to share more. The case is moving forward. Here’s another update at KansasLiberty.com:
Pro-life U.S. Sen. Sam Brownback supported Steve Howe in the primary over Kline. KS pro-lifers should hold Brownback personally accountable to ensure Howe sees the merit in pursuing the case against PP after he takes office.
Finally, here’s more from the KS MSM media watchdog group, KC News Watch:
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Ok, so now I definitely want to go read that majority opinion!
The KS Supreme Court called Kline’s “attitude and behavior inexcusable” and referred him to the disciplinary prosecutors. Sanctions for his unethical behavior include disbarment.
A full and accurate account of the case, and a link to the 40 page opinion is in today’s on-line Kansas City Star.
Kline’s 15 minutes of fame is over.
Bystander, but he won the opinion. If his actions were grounds for disbarement, the ruling would most certainly have been in PP’s favor. After all, if the records are staying w/ Kline, he must have obtained them legally.
The KS Supreme Court should be impeached. PP has filed 70 ethics complaints against Kline over the past few years and Kline keeps batting them away. The Supremes are clearly in bed with the abortion industry. Most are Sebelius appointments, you know, the governor who hosted a party for George Tiller in hermansion.
The Supremes stopped a key witness (a judge) from testifying against PP with no reasoning, etc., etc., etc.
Evil is being called good and vice versa here. KS has laws against late-term/minor girl abortions. 3 judges have ruled there is credible evidence PP violated these laws. And they’re eviscerating KLINE for prosecuting?!
Chief Judge McFarland’s concurring opinion got it right:
“It appears to me that the majority invokes our extraordinary inherent power to sanction simply to provide a platform from which it can denigrate Kline for actions that it cannot find to have been in violation of any law and to heap scorn upon him for his attitude and behavior that does not rise to the level of contempt. This is the very antithesis of “restraint and discretion” and is not an appropriate exercise of our inherent power.”
The sanctions that are non sanctions. He has to turn over photocopies of records? He has to pay a fine but they won’t impose the fine? He could be disbarred for future claims. Not now? Every lawyer in that state has a risk of disbarment in his future. I see Planned Parenthood did not get what they asked for,
Planned Parenthood takes a witch hunt after every investigator and really doen’t get very far.
Planned Parenthood has a problem with arrogance. Because in their mind they believe abortion is enshrined in law as the singlemost greatest fundamental right that the framers of our constitution intended, that anyone who dares to impinge upon that right ought to be discredited in the most severe terms possible.
http://operationrescue.org/pdfs/ksscdocs/SCProtectiveOrder.pdf
I dont know why this didn’t show up as a link…sorry :(
but… can anyone in here explain why Judge Mc Farland did this? Is it legal? Again, why?
Thanks
oh good, it did! :)
Kline’s vendetta against PP ends in January. Does anyone really expect a new prosecutor to continue a criminal case after the state Supreme Court has explicitly found that the former prosecutor was acting out of a personal and political vendetta, and was unethical in the bringing of the case?
Most prosecutors respect the law, bring charges based on fact, not political ideology and do not wish to be disbarred. Say goodbye, Phill.
Vendetta…ensuring corporate citizens follow the law… I guess it’s all in the eye of the beholder, huh?
So Planned Parenthood’s vendetta will be greeted by another prosecutor. Every year there are more cases and more avenues to track and expose the criminal abortion rackett. If state budgets staart scaling back. the abortion legal fees will be too much.
What are the sanctions?
Hippie! That you?
Are you the prolife genius that proved the failed economics of abortion? Or was that milehi?
Listening to the abortionist press conference, They are sad they lost and would rather have won instead of Kilne just be given shots by a couple of Judges.
Are you the prolife genius that proved the failed economics of abortion?
Geez, Carder, is that a hint of sarcasm I hear, there?
Okay, only kidding.
It’s an interesting question, but when it’s one woman deciding, do you think she’s really going to be concerned with economics, in what I’m assuming is a general way there, as for the whole population?
Doug,
Carder is talking Big Picture. Abortion does affect economics. There are 50 million less workers aren’t there?
Carder,
I know what you are talking about but don’t know where to find it.
Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?
Carder is talking Big Picture. Abortion does affect economics. There are 50 million less workers aren’t there?
Agreed, Carla, and when it’s one woman deciding, do you think she’s really going to be concerned with economics?
Nope.
Carla,
I thought someone re-posted the statistics on abortion’s effect on the economy over 35 years within the last few weeks. Maybe I’m just remembering the question being asked, not the answer. I wish I could remember who. Does it ring a bell with anyone?
I found this article from NLRC but I don’t know if this is the one that was posted previously.
Responding to Economic Arguments for Abortion
What Do 40 Million Lost Lives Mean?
By Laura Antkowiak, NRL Research Assistant
http://www.nrlc.org/news/2001/NRL01/laura.html
Very good, Janet! Thank you.
Not that it will influence our friend Doug…:)
Carla, there would be no point in having 50 million more workers if there aren’t any jobs (which there aren’t).
Abortion effects when women have children, not necessarily how many they have.
Rae,
Several of those 50 million lost lives could be bosses, you know?
. . . . . . . . . .
Hal,
Sometimes the women who abort are blessed with another child later. Sometimes they are not. I suppose it is up to each woman if she wants to take the chance of never being able to get pregnant again when she aborts. I doubt God looks kindly on women who abort and do not repent.
Carla: Very good, Janet! Thank you. Not that it will influence our friend Doug…:)
Yes, thank you Janet. Interesting topic.
Carla, let’s go through it:
In its controversial 1998 feature on the cost of a child, U.S. News & World Report declared unequivocally: “A child, financially speaking, looks more like a high-priced consumer item with no warranty. It’s the decision to remain childless that offers the real investment opportunity.”
This short-sighted commentary is symbolic of and relies on a particularly pernicious myth: that children are essentially unproductive cost centers, which implies that abortion economically “benefits” society because by choosing abortion parents have decided on a better “investment opportunity.”
Well, children don’t in general produce wealth, and there are a lot of costs. I see one problem with the analysis already – there is more than one thing to focus on. There is what’s best for the individual, for the couple, etc., and then there is what’s best for the economy of the country as a whole. By no means are they always going to be the same thing.
The biggest problem we face is the huge amount of debt we have, on a governmental, corporate, and individual basis. It stands to reason that people without kids or with less kids will have more money and less debt, on average, than they would have had were there kids or more kids in the family. I’d say that to the extent that having kids means more debt for a person or couple, that’s one bad thing, economically. But it’s a freely-made choice, and most people understand that having kids means some economic sacrifice – it’s one they make willingly.
…..
Even if pro-abortionists today do not put the argument quite so harshly as they did back in the 1970s, they still count on people tacitly accepting the assumption that children are an economic drain. Rarely do we hear that abortion has a cost to America beyond the “procedure’s” price tag, or that a child may actually produce social and economic benefits.
That’s way oversimplified. Parents buy stuff for their kids. How is that really “an economic drain” on other than the individual or family scale? U.S. News & World Report was going with the idea of people having more money to invest, a thing which is in near-tragic short supply now. Person-by-person, we don’t save enough and we spend too much, and just having “more people” isn’t the solution to that. On the other hand, the research assistant who wrote the article seems to be focusing on raw demand and the more-people-means-more-demand idea, a thing which certainly does apply, but again – it’s not lack of demand that is our problem, there’s already been so much demand that we’ve largely given up saving and have gone well into debt.
…..
In fact, as this article will show, the ethical argument (that all human beings are created equal) and the economic impact (harshly negative) speak with one voice. Abortion is bad both morally and economically. This article does not intend to forward an argument against abortion that relies solely on economics. Such an argument would miss the true message of the pro-life movement, that abortion is wrong no matter what the economic consequences are. Certainly we would never place a monetary value on an individual human life. But the hope is that this discussion will help pro-life advocates rebut popular economic arguments for abortion that do have a surface appeal for people who are not necessarily pro- or anti-life.
The pro-abortion economic argument tells us that children are expensive enough to justify abortion.
Really pretty much a straw man, there. Pro-Choicers are for leaving the decision to the woman or couple involved. They don’t have to forego kids “for the economy’s sake” nor do they “owe” kids to the economy.
…..
Pro-abortionists claim that the cost of raising children burdens their parents, and it also burdens the public with additional welfare spending when poor mothers bear children. Further, they say abortion is necessary to check population growth and costs associated with this growth.
Again, this is a made-up argument. Pro-Choicers don’t say that “we have to have abortions because of population growth.” Yes, the cost of kids can be a burden to parents, but Pro-Choicers leave it up to those parents. And some poor women having kids does mean more outlay for support payments, but it’s still not Pro-Choicers saying those women “have” to have abortions.
…..
The simple response to the abortion advocates’ case is that most children inevitably grow into adults. They work and pay taxes, or otherwise spend, save, invest, and innovate. Economists attest that even before these children reach adulthood, their very be-longing to a large and growing population spurs economic growth. The following four points give an overview of why abortion does not help, and in fact may be hurting, the U.S. economy.
Fewer babies mean fewer consumers, less demand for goods and services, and fewer jobs. In the eighth edition of his famous introductory economics book, Paul Samuelson notes that a growing population leads to higher levels of spending and may therefore lower unemployment.
Yes, but it can be a temporary thing. All that “spending” is what’s got us into a pretty darn bad place right now, a place where huge numbers of jobs are being lost. Rather than just blindly “increase the population” – which also brings more people who don’t work, who take from the system without contributing to it, etc., as well as those who contribute – if the concern is the number of consumers then the obvious thing is to encourage the emigration of highly-educated, trained, and motivated foreigners.
…..
Author Lawrence F. Roberge points out that having fewer children means having fewer consumers of child-specific items, from diapers to toys to school books. Fewer children create fewer job openings for teachers, doctors, manufacturers, retailers, and others from whom greater productivity is needed to support more children. Entire industries are geared toward children and families, so one can only begin to imagine the goods and the employees that would be affected by a lower number of births. Notice the recent concern about a holiday retail season that did not live up to expectations: two-thirds of all economic activity in the United States is consumer spending.
So what? If Joe Blow didn’t have kids, he could buy that new car he’s been thinking about…. There are plenty of examples both ways. It’s not like people with no kids or few kids “haven’t been spending.” And again – it’s not “lack of spending” that’s our problem, it’s too much spending.
…..
Abortion slows labor force growth. In its long-term forecast, the Social Security Administration (SSA) predicts that the growth rate of the U.S. economy, as measured by the total of goods and services produced in the United States, will slow. States the SSA, “This . . . slowdown is mostly due to slower projected growth in labor force and employment.” Abortion’s impact on the labor force is already discernible (see graph). In 1998, more than seven million additional workers would be in the U.S. labor force.
Here too, emigration of big earners and buyers and tax-payers is vastly more of a benefit there. The “big slowdown” is already here and has been going on for a long time. How can American manufacturers compete with others who pay 50 cents or $1 per hour? They can’t. It’s not due to a slowing of population growth, it’s due to the imbalances which exist on a worldwide basis and which are always in the process of change and realignment.
Sad to say, SS has devolved into little more than a Ponzi-scheme, due (once again) to too much spending, this time on the part of politicians. Our economy has become predicated not just on debt, but on ever-increasing amounts of debt, and simply having “more people” just prolongs the house of cards a little while, if anything. Even there, emigration of high-payers would be much preferable if we’re just looking for more people to pay in.
…..
The late economist Julian Simon wrote that in developed countries, children bring a positive return on the money invested in them about 35 years after their birth. Even before then, a relatively young labor force has many advantages, such as increased mobility, adaptability, and productivity. Younger workers also can be readily trained to meet the latest technological and occupational needs. We are missing 40 million young people who could fill summer and part-time labor needs, and who could be starting careers in the latest technology.
Same deal – educated, trained, motivated 35 year olds can emigrate.
…..
This past summer, a Federal Reserve report described the labor market as “very tight,” to the point where worker shortages constrained economic activity in some fields. Recently Congress responded to the shortage of skilled information technology workers by authorizing tens of thousands of new visas for foreign workers.
Well, it’s not “very tight” anymore, eh? ; )
…..
Abortion undermines technological innovation. Most significantly, abortion denies us the talents and the creativity of 40 million and counting unique human beings. Simon states that “in the long run, the most important economic effect of population size and growth is the contribution of additional people to our stock of useful knowledge.”
We see this argument a lot, and it’s like saying thank goodness for all the serial-killers and nasty buggers we haven’t had due to legal abortion.
……
A larger work force provides more forums for the exchange of ideas between more minds, and allows for greater specialization. A larger and denser population furnishes bigger markets for product testing, marketing, and sales; facilitates easier communication and distribution; and offers more opportunities for research and development, a situation known as economies of scale. This results in more new products, greater diversity of products, and more opportunities for the individual who may discover something particularly important, such as the cure for cancer.
Emigration – much better.
…..
Economist Samuelson reports that “scientific and engineering progress has been quantitatively the single most important factor for growth in the advanced countries.” The “population explosion” that population control advocates claimed would overwhelm the Earth with famine and disease has instead coincided with a technological explosion in computers, medicine, flight, space exploration, the Internet, energy efficiency, and human genetics.
Same.
…..
Innovation does not only encompass such high profile inventions but includes advances by the average employee: an auto worker finding faster ways to produce brakes on an assembly line, a customer service representative streamlining claims handling, or an educator discovering a more effective method of teaching children to read. Economist John D. Mueller summarizes, “legal abortion undermines a primary source of America’s high standard of living relative to the rest of the world: innovation.”
Still the same. Baby baby still the same….
….
Abortion drives the Social Se-curity crisis. Abortion has left fewer young people to care for the post-World War II Baby Boom generation as it prepares for retirement (see figure). The Social Security Administration admits, “The main reason for Social Security’s long-range financing problem is demographics.” Given the reduction in the work force supporting Social Security, brought on largely because of abortion, our predicament is this: unless we raise taxes, cut benefits, or overhaul the entire system, Medicare will be bankrupt in the 2020s and Social Security in the 2030s.
Again, if the house of cards lasts another couple years, what’s so great about that? Certainly nothing enough that we deny women the legal choice they have. Women don’t “owe” anybody else as far as having kids.
…..
In 1998 alone, the victims of Roe v. Wade would have contributed approximately $1.7 billion to Medicare and $7.4 billion to Social Security. These contributions could provide the average monthly benefit to over 785,000 retired workers for the entire year.
This neglects the fact that not all the extra people would be paying in, and that some would be drawing from the system without ever having paid in, so the net effect is much less, if it’s even positive in the first place.
Even taken at face value, the figures given there are a drop in the bucket versus the tens of trillions of Dollars in unfunded liability that exist.
…..
Note that these numbers are calculated for workers aged 16-24, who are less likely to be employed and who work fewer hours and earn less money than they would in a matter of time. The economic effects of abortion will be magnified in the coming years as those children and millions more killed by abortion would have completed their education, found full-time employment, become established in their careers, and started their own families.
Emigration.
…..
Abortion does not save tax dollars. Planned Parenthood frequently claims that every dollar spent on abortions for poor women saves four dollars in public money that would provide food, medical care, and cash assistance to a mother and her child. Abortion advocates who share this position do not give the child time to pay back that money through taxes on her future income.
They don’t all “pay it back,” far from it, in fact. It stands to reason that as a group the people that would have resulted from no legal abortion would contribute less on average than does the population as a whole, with an even greater disparity between them and those who came from wanted pregnancies.
…..
Economist Jacqueline Kasun finds that even an indigent child, over her lifetime, returns in taxes 3.7 times what was spent on her and her mother in cash welfare and food, housing, and medical assistance. Consider the following figures. In 1994, the public paid an average of $11,460 in assistance to a mother and child. The average amount of time that a person receives welfare is two years. A baby born in the United States in 1996 will participate in the labor force for 47 years, earning about $1 million and paying about $400,000 in taxes. Even if the child were to receive welfare for a longer period of time, spend three times as much time in prison as the average American, and be unemployed for three times longer, that child’s tax payments would still bring a substantial return on the dollars spent supporting her through welfare.
And of course not everybody pays in, at all. The above is a generalization of a positive occurrence, and they’re not all that way. Even aside from that – if this is the concern then let in the PhD’s, the doctors, the engineers, the technicians, from overseas, etc.
…..
The bottom line. The economic argument designed by pro- abortionists collapses when we examine children’s place in the economy as consumers, workers, innovators, and taxpayers. Most parents, however, and the millions of infertile couples who would love to become parents, will attest that they do not need to wait until a child reaches working age to consider her a worthwhile investment.
Straw man yet again. Pro-Choicers aren’t telling people “not to adopt.” And the argument isn’t what the reaserach assistant says it is, anyway.
Ha, Doug,
I’m glad you addressed that one to Carla! :)
:P
That person will pay $400,000 in taxes on the 1 million dollars they make over their working years? In the US? Really? How does that work Carla?
Why are you asking me?
Haven’t even read the article nor Doug’s comments.
Doug’s comment looks like it’s to you, so I thought you might know more. The article just has that quote. No idea how Kasun would have arrived at that 40% figure and the author of the article doesn’t cite the reference. Maybe you know more? Or perhaps Janet does? This Jacqueline Kasun seems to be a popular pro-life reference.
Yes… I suppose it is a question for Janet now that I read past to her comment at 4:27.
Sorry Carla!
I had seen a report once about how abortion has affected our economy. Janet provided one and Doug did what Doug does. And addressed it to moi.
No time today to read it all. :) So, do my homework and I will copy your answers.
Maybe Janet has them
Back in July, I said: “In North America, we’ve lived way “beyond our means” for a long time. Now, the Piper has to be paid, and no matter what happens, it’s not going to be pleasant for most people, i.e. they will have a declining standard of living.”
There’s financial pain now, and there’s going to be more, but this is not all “gloom and doom.” This represents a great opportunity. Pay off your debts and save your money. Those who had money during the Great Depression were in the right place at the right time, even laying the foundations for future fortunes in some cases.
My Grandpa’s description of rural Indiana in the 1930’s: Whole farms for sale for $700 or $800 – land, house, barns, outbuildings, livestock, equipment. But nobody had any money….
asitis,
The complete study is available for purchase so I don’t have any more information than you do and to be honest, I don’t have time to get into it further… I will say that I looked at that tax figure and $400,000 would seem high over a lifetime when the lifetime income is $1,000,000 (Kasun apparently arrives at the income figure by estimating about $21,200/year x 47 years working). (I assume that was your question to me.) I’m no accountant, but maybe the extra taxes come from sales tax, FICA, and state income taxes where required that the average person will pay over their lifetime. That’s just a guess.
The overall point is that this is lost revenue.
Carla was correct – I posted the link since it was requested a few weeks ago and then again two days ago. Gotta love Google. That was the extent of it. I’m sure Doug would LOVE to continue the conversation if you are interested. Right, Doug? :) Nothing personal to you, asitis. :)
P.S. Maybe you should go by your “first name”, Virginia. “asistis” sounds like a disease. :(
asitis,
By the way, I haven’t read Doug’s response. Sorry, Doug, I’ve been kid of busy!
My main points:
they say abortion is necessary to check population growth and costs associated with this growth.
That’s not true. Pro-Choicers are not saying “you should have an abortion because….” It’s up to the woman or couple involved, and they can have zero kids or twenty – it’s their deal. They don’t “owe” the economy any kids and neither do they have to forego having kids because of the economy.
If we begin with the consideration of population growth, then it argues for at least not increasing the rate of change beyond what it already is, which is what banning abortion would do.
…..
There is a difference between macro economics and personal finances. Putting the “population growth” debate aside for a moment, not having kids or having less kids can make a huge difference to a person or couple.
http://www.pregnancy-info.net/raising_child_cost.html
“According to the 2005 report from the Department of Agriculture, the cost of raising a child to the age of 17 will be approximately $500,000.”
Now no doubt some families won’t spend that much on each kid. Yet if it’s only $300,000 or $200,000 or $150,000, it’s still huge money to many families.
…..
If the concern is for more taxpayers, contributors to Social Security, etc., then by far the best thing to do is allow the emigration of people from overseas who are already educated, trained and highly-motivated. This doesn’t involve trying to use legal force against women who don’t want to remain pregnant, and the expected support for the system is much, much higher versus a “roll of the dice” with the pregnant woman, who is often in a situation that gives a lesser chance of success for her kids, should she have any.
This is not saying that the children of poor people, single mothers, etc., cannot become well-to-do, rich, etc. Some can and do, but there are real and demonstrable effects related to the suituations of many women who want to end pregnancies. It’s the same principle as kids not doing as well in school, in general, when they are the children of single parents, versus having two parents at home.
…..
The “population” argument also postulates that the problem is not enough demand from people, that we need more people to spend more. However, the problem is actually that we’ve been spending too much already.
The average American has too high a debt load and far too little in savings. So what does the gov’t do to try and help the economy? Send out “stimulus” checks, the idea being “go out and spend some more.” Does that sound short-sighted to anybody?
I will respond to your last paragraph. :)
My husband and I made debt our lifestyle until this year. It’s called greed. We are now digging out and making much progress toward our goal of being debt free in 2 years. We paid off debt with our stimulus check.
Good for you, Carder.
Deflation seems to now be the order of the day, and the prospect of paying off debts with more expensive Dollars in the future should give one and all pause.
Do you mean me, Carla? :)