Is anyone aware of the federal trial that opened this past Monday in Kansas? The article was in yesterday's New York Times and was sent to me by a friend who knew, without a doubt, that this article would cause me not to step, but to leap onto my soap box.  Kansas attorney general, Phill Kline, is a conservative Republican whose interpretation of the law makes me think he's living in Oz, and not Kansas.

The trial opened over whether a Kansas law prohibiting virtually all sexual activity by people under the age of 16 means health care professionals and educators must report such behavior to state authorities.  The class-action lawsuit stems from a 2003 opinion by the Kansas attorney general, who has a reputation for fighting abortion and whose pursuit of abortion clinic records is also being challenged in court.

Mr. Kline's interpretation of the law focused mainly on the reporting duty of abortion providers, arguing that any pregnant, unmarried minor had by definition been the victim of rape or abuse.  But it included a broad mandate for reporting whenever, "compelling evidence of sexual interaction is present."

Whew....just when I think it can't get any worse in this country....it does!  Bonnie Scott Jones is the lawyer for the Center for Reproductive Rights in New York and is representing the plaintiffs.  In her opening statement she said that Mr. Kline's "dragnet approach" to amassing information on under-age sex violated minors' privacy rights and the Constitution's equal protection clause, and that it "seriously endangers the health and well-being of adolescents."

Steve Alexander, an assistant attorney general, defending the suit, said the Kansas statute meant that those younger than 16 could not consent to sex, and that those violating the law forfeited any privacy rights.

Okay....excuse me, lemme see if I have this right.....so in other words, an unborn fetus has more rights than a 14, 15 or 16 year old?  Call me foolish, but that's how I interpret this Draconian thinking.  Now don't get me wrong....I do not condone teen age sex.  However, I'm also realistic.  It happens....plain and simple.  I would like to hope that those engaging in it are at least responsible enough to use protection.  But we know that doesn't always happen either.  But a law telling those under 16 they have no right to consent to sex is absurd.  Oh sure, those hormones and testosterone are raging and opps.......wait a second......it's against the law!  Oh yeah, that's really going to make teens immediately refrain from a basic urge.  Again, call me foolish......but I don't think so.

That's my personal view... and my professional view?  As an RN, I can tell ya, there's no way in hell I'd report that a teen has shared with me that they're having consensual sex.  Guide them, counsel them?  Of course.  But report them?  Never!  When I became an RN, patient confidentiality was a major part of my curriculum and I honor it.  And I don't care how old the patient is and more important......I don't care what any silly law states.

If this entire situation wasn't so crazy, it would be downright scary.  Passing laws to forbid teens to have consensual sex and then forcing the health care professional and educators to report it.  What's next?  Will government be in our bedrooms infringing on our rights to intimacy?  Ah, maybe they'll think that people over 65 shouldn't be entertaining such thoughts.....why not pass a law to have surveillance cameras in all of our homes making sure only those between ages 16 and 64 are engaged in sexual encounters.  And while we're at it.....to up the ante.....why not tell neighbors it's their "civic" duty to report any suspected activity and by doing so, they'll earn themselves magnificent tax breaks.

Ah yes.....God bless America!  See you tomorrow.........