In the matter of former Attorney General Steve Six’s elevation to the federal bench, it is vital for Senators to understand that Kansas was no ordinary state taking on just another ordinary Attorney General. 

In his testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Six portrayed himself as merely a disinterested professional letting the assistant attorneys general routinely perform their job.  Six has intentionally downplayed the legal chaos that he intensified to the advantage of abortion interests.  Kansas’ situation of political corruption was dire, and Six failed miserably to restore justice, or even to act impartially.
 
It had been a depressing, frustrating five years for law-abiding Kansans when Steve Six took over as the Attorney General.
 
•  Women were regularly whisked by ambulance to the hospital from late-term abortions that were supposedly banned. A district court ruling had secured open season for predators to bring their pregnant teen victims to abortion clinics.(1)
 
•  More pro-life legislators were being elected but they were just short of overriding Governor Sebelius’ annual veto of pro-life measures.(2)  The House and Senate held special investigations in the fall of 2007, surfacing the recalcitrance of the state agencies most involved in collusion with the abortionists.
 
•  After a grueling 3½ year fight to acquire the evidence of illegal abortions, the Kansas Supreme Court created a unique hurdle and a scrubbing protocol for prosecutors handling these records—unlike the ordinary caution with which other sensitive medical files are managed.
 
•  2 grand juries had been impaneled by citizen-petitions to investigate law-breaking by the top abortion businesses— Planned Parenthood and George Tiller.
 
Steve Six slid into this abortion maelstrom with the veneer of impartiality of his surname—his father had been a respected Republican Supreme Court justice. But Steve Six’s lack of impartiality and integrity quickly emerged within weeks of his appointment: he announced he oppose the subpoena from the Wichita grand jury because of supposed concerns about patient privacy.(3) 
 
At that moment, Six’s complete sell-out to the abortion industry’s media campaign about abortion patient privacy protection was revealed.(4)  The copies of abortion clinic records in his possession had already been immaculately scrubbed of patient-identifying information under protocols from the Court’s 2006 Alpha ruling.(5) 
 
The district court judge managing the grand jury said Six was wrong to refuse the subpoena. Six then joined Tiller and the Center for Reproductive Rights in an appeal to the state Supreme Court.(6)  This move effectively wasted more than half of the Wichita grand jury’s statutorily-limited time.
 
On May 6, 2008, the Kansas Supreme Court ordered Six to comply with the subpoenas. After waiting two weeks, he then turned over only 34 of the 61 files. If Six had simply done his duty in initially responding to the grand jury—if he had not literally, as well as ideologically, joined the abortion industry—the grand jury would have gotten their due quantity of Tiller records.

As it was, with only days to review the records—and incorrect guidance from the pro-Tiller Sedgwick County District Attorney’s office—the jury failed to indict, though they blasted the corruption they saw.(7)
 
Clearly, Sebelius had not changed her ways and found an honest, unbiased Attorney General to rectify the shameless pro-abortion actions of Paul Morrison, Six’s predecessor; she had found another man to protect the Kansas abortion industry.
 
Six quickly signed on to Morrison/Planned Parenthood lawsuits against Kline and Judge Richard Anderson to eliminate evidence that would otherwise convict the Planned Parenthood business in Johnson County, Kansas. Kline had become District Attorney of Johnson County; Judge Anderson was the judicial custodian of the abortion records.
 
Anderson stated that certain Planned Parenthood records appeared forged. When he was subpoenaed to bring this evidence to court, Six lowered the boom— he gagged the judge in a secret ex parte motion to the Kansas Supreme Court.(8)
 
Six effectively stalled Planned Parenthood’s trial for several years. The Kansas Supreme Court removed the gag order 2 1/2 years later.(9)  
 
Six also refused to facilitate a technical verification of state reports that also were needed (in addition to the redacted records) for the trial of Planned Parenthood; a simple act that new Kansas Attorney General, Derek Schmidt, has agreed to.(10)
 
Six inherited 19 misdemeanor charges against Tiller for not obtaining independent referrals for post-viability abortions. In his press conference on June 28, 2007, announcing the filing, Paul Morrison said “I was heavily involved in the decision-making process.”
 
Six, on the other hand, told the Senate Judiciary Committee, “I don’t in any case in our criminal division tell the prosecutors what I think they should do or not do.” (11)  Of course, Six’s crack criminal division—that ran its cases without his input—put on a ridiculously weak case against Tiller in March, 2009:
 
•  with only one witness (a hostile abortionist who had provided the illegal abortion referrals),
 
•  without the necessary financial paperwork to show how Tiller and this referring practitioner were illegally affiliated, and
 
•  without calling the KEY witness—the former Board of Healing Arts Director, Larry Buening, whom Tiller admitted on the stand invented the entire abortion scheme. (Buening worked for the state and was seen in the courtroom during the March misdemeanor trial.)

The Tiller jury, hearing no solid evidence to convict, ruled accordingly.
 
In stark contrast to Six’s deep complicity with the abortion industry and protection of Tiller from effective prosecution, a new and uncorrupted Executive Director of the Board of Healing Arts, Jack Confer, was waiting to act on a petition to remove Tiller’s license as soon as his trial ended.
 
Nonetheless, the Board eventually fired Confer—the man with integrity. Six, by contrast, a servant of the abortion industry, is being rewarded with a nomination to the federal appeals court!
 
Stephen Six wants the Senate to believe that he did not torpedo the Planned Parenthood prosecution! He wants the Senate to view him as worthy of being an impartial judge, honest and guided by justice, but he is not.
 
Where is the impartiality when Six not only ratified his predecessor’s finding of innocence for Planned Parenthood, but labored consistently to remove evidence of their wrongdoing from the prosecutor and the judge?
 
Where is the honesty when Six cheated a limited-term citizen grand jury of records for months with the ploy that redacted records implicate privacy concerns?
 
Where is the justice when Six’s prosecution of Tiller was a deliberately hamstrung farce that gave the false impression that Tiller was being truly prosecuted?
 
Regardless of the desire of Secretary Sebelius and President Obama to reward Six for his faithful service to the abortion industry, his dishonest double talk to the Senate, both verbally and in writing, disqualifies him for promotion to the federal bench.

________________________________
Footnotes

(1) Aid for Women v. Foulston, 327 F.Supp.2d 1273 (D. Kan. 2004).
(2) Kansans for Life legislative records show Sebelius vetoed abortion licensure in 2003 and 2005, pregnancy center assistance in 2004, and different late-term abortion regulating measures in 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009. http://www.kfl.org/SiteResources/Data/Templates/templateb.asp?docid=1033&DocName=2009-Mar%202%20PR:%20Sebelius-Setting%20the%20Record%20Straight
(3) Six questioned whether the grand jury had the authority to issue the subpoenas and said patients’ privacy could be in jeopardy. . . . Tiller's attorney, Dan Monnat, said Six’s request to the Supreme Court was encouraging. “Dr. Tiller is pleased to hear the voice of the top law enforcement officer in the state join in his call for protection of patient privacy.” Kan. AG Resists Grand Jury Subpoena, HAYS DAILY NEWS (Feb. 16, 2008). 
(4) In his answers to written questions from the Senate Judiciary Committee, Mr. Six continued to beat the privacy drum. Senator Grassley asked if he was aware that the redactions removed identifying information. Mr. Six answered that Judge Anderson said the redacted records could be used to identify a patient. Answer to Question 5, Additional Questions for the Record (Senator Grassley). But he did not add that Judge Anderson was referring to the patient herself or a close relative. As Justice Beier observed during oral argument, “a patient being able to  identify herself doesn’t-- doesn’t implicate any kind of privacy[.]” Oral Argument Transcript at 12. Mr. Six states that the Supreme Court also “noted this risk of disclosure of patient privacy from the redacted records.” But the Supreme Court merely echoed Judge Anderson. “There has been testimony that a patient and her family may still be able to tell from the records if her abortion is the one documented.” State v. CHPP, 241 P.3d 45, 72 (Kan. 2010) (emphasis added). Six also employed the privacy protection smokescreen to justify the mandamus actions while in office. See 05/03/08 AP Lawsuits Question Kline’s Handling of Documents, “Our goal has always been to protect women’s private medical records,” said Six spokeswoman Ashley Anstaett.
(5)Alpha Medical Clinic v. Anderson, 128 P.3d 364 (Kan. 2006). The records had already been reviewed by two independent physicians, a guardian ad litem and the Shawnee County District Court to make sure all patient-identifying and irrelevant information had been removed. Some of the records were used as the probable cause basis for filing criminal charges against Dr. Tiller and accordingly were already on file in the Sedgwick County District Court. Further, Judge Anderson of the Shawnee County District Court certified to the Supreme Court in 2006 that it was impossible to identify patients from the record.
(6) Case No. 08-100042-S, consolidated with 08-99951-S and 08-99972-S
(7) Kansas Grand Jury Had Doubts About Abortions Even if Tiller Got Off the Hook, LIFENEWS.COM (July 9, 2008).
(8) Emergency Motion for Protective Order, Six v Anderson, No. 99050 (Apr. 3, 2008).
(9) State v CHPP, 241 P3d 45 (Kan. 2010).
(10) The criminal prosecution is now moving forward, because Schmidt has agreed to deputize staff from the Johnson County District Attorney’s office (now under Steve Howe) to access the state reports. Response to Motions for Protective Orders, State v. CHPP, No. 07 CR 2701, at 4 (May 25, 2011).
(11) Testimony of Steve Six before the Senate Judiciary Committee (May 24, 2011).