Wednesday, February 23, 2011

Phill Kline's Hearing Reveals Planned Parenthood Ignored at Least 164 Cases of Child Rape

Vendetta of Pro-abortion cabal hearing against former Attorney General of Kansas, Phill Kline, is beginning to backfire. Kline drops a surprising charge against Planned Parenthood. This is a follow-up of my earlier post of February 9.
Planned Parenthood in Kansas, Tiller, Ignored 164 Cases of Child Rape

by Steven Ertelt
Topeka, KS
LifeNews.com
2/22/11 7:16 PM
All Rights Reserved

Former Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline dropped a bombshell during a hearing today in a case involving pro-abortion pushback against the charges he filed against a Planned Parenthood abortion business.

The man who was the top pro-life attorney in the state of Kansas is in the middle of hearings on nine counts of alleged ethical violations before the Kansas Attorney Disciplinary Board. The trial is estimated to go on for two weeks and is the latest phase in a protracted, multi-year effort to distract from the 107 counts of wrongdoing, including 23 felonies, against a Johnson County, Kansas Planned Parenthood abortion center.

The politically-motivated charges claim Kline acted improperly during his investigations of abortion clinics, even though recently released documents show that investigators for the Disciplinary Administrator cleared Kline of any wrong-doing in 2008. Read Story at Lifenews.Com
This persecution of Phill Kline even emanates from the highest court of Kansas, the Kansas Supreme Court, of which one pro-abortion justice, Carole Beier, an appointee of former pro-abortion Governor Sebelius, called for the ethics investigations against Kline.
A big supporter of Governor Sebelius, Planned Parenthood has friends on the high court. In fact, even before Kline filed his charges, Justice Carole Beier, a Sebelius appointee and former lawyer with the pro-abortion National Women’s Law Center, called for an ethics investigation of Kline.

Indeed, the Kansas high court is so inclined to wield its power on behalf of the abortion industry that it even silenced a fellow judge who agreed with Kline’s findings, barring his testimony.

Again, the case against Planned Parenthood is ongoing, with three lower court judges now having found probable cause for it to move forward. Read article: Persecution Against Phill Kline by Jill Stanek.
As I have written in past posts on this web site, the abortion forces in Kansas will not tolerate any interference in their macabre business of killing pre-born defenseless human beings. Their purpose is to intimidate any future prosecutors to ignore illegal actions against Planned Parenthood, or any other abortion business. This is the culture of death in action.

4 comments:

Al said...

I've been following this story. IMHO, the corruption starting from Sibelius on down ranks right up there at the top of the list for the all time corrupt administrations. & I am including Tamminy Hall, Dailey the elder etc in that list. the Mafia wishes it had to ability to corrupt like Planned Parenthood actually did.

Of course, the media is ignoring this, like the recent arrest of pro-abort terrorist Theodore Shulman, Gosnell ETC. But then the truth is the last thing the MSM wants out there when it comes to the abortion industry.

Rick Mann said...

Al, I'm going to follow this story right up to its conclusion. This is one of the most miscarriage of justice cases I've seen in Kansas for a long time and I am 79.

The Abortion industry is killing this country, morally and physically. We MUST effect a majoy change come next election.

Alexa said...

I stumbled on this blog and find it interesting you're an NRA member!

I wonder why you feel it is perfectly fine to own and potentially use guns to kill others, and yet you are against abortion even in cases of rape? This seems hypocritical to me. What gives you personally the right to choose whether or not to kill a stranger with a gun (you have this right as soon as you purchase a gun), but women don't have the right to choose whether or not to kill a life that is leeching off of their body for nourishment?

Rick Mann said...

Alexa, thanks for stopping by and leaving a comment. The questions you raise deserve a response.

To begin with, I am a Christian, and believe in the Ten Commandments. Are you familiar with the Sixth Commandment? If you have learned them from the King James Version, you will probably remember it as, “Thou shalt not kill.” However, this is incorrect. The original meaning reads, “You shall do no murder.” Self-Defense is not murder; it is killing in defense of your life or the lives of others.

In Numbers 32:23, Joshua warned those who would not fight for their country that their sin would find them out. The expressed meaning of this verse is that it is dishonorable and a sin not to fight in defense of one’s country when called upon to do so. According to the Apostle Paul’s instructions in 1Timothy 5:8, if you do not provide for your own household you are worse than an infidel (or unbeliever) and have denied the faith. When read in context, this verse speaks of taking care of your family financially. Clearly, this verse extends to include the physical care and protection of your family. It would do no good to be diligent in paying the bills yet refuse to offer defense against someone who would enter your home with the intent to kill your family.

You say, “but women don't have the right to choose whether or not to kill a life that is leeching off of their body for nourishment?” Now, there are two ways we can look at this–Devine creation, or evolution. The Bible states: "The Lord called me before my birth. From within the womb he called me by my name...He said to me, `You are my servant'..." (Isaiah 49:1,3 TLB); "For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb" (Psalm 139:13). Psalm 127:3, “Sons are a heritage from the LORD, children a reward from him” [NIV]. Aborting a fetus would be murder. So, is God’s gift leeching off of the mother’s nourishment? Or is she being a good steward nourishing her baby to birth, and loving him as she rears him.

The other way, is from an evolutionary point of view. Evolution teaches the “survival of the fittest.” The mother is the fittest, so it is justifiable to kill the fetus, which will become a human being if allowed to be born. Another way to look at it, is why does the mother get pregnant in the first place if she does not want a baby? Lack of protection? Lust? You answer.

I do hope this clarifies the problem. Again, thanks for stopping by and commenting. Have a good day.

–Rick