Sunday, January 17, 2010

Judge Wilbert Gets High Marks From Attorneys

The Wichita Eagle and the Wichita Bar Association conduct a survey of attorneys every election year to get an evaluation of the District Court judges from those that practice in front of them. The most recent survey was in 2008.

173 attorneys ranked Judge Wilbert. The percentage who stated they "agree" or "strongly agree" with the survey questions was above 60% in every category:

Is fair ------------------------------------------------------- 68%

Demonstrates knowledge of the law,
including the rules of procedure and evidence ----------------- 77%


Communicates orally and in writing in
a clear and logical manner ----------------------------------- 79%

Clearly explains rulings -------------------------------------- 73%

Is prepared for court ----------------------------------------- 79%

Is respectful, courteous and professional --------------------- 71%

Is punctual and demonstrates a fair work ethic. --------------- 78%

Applies the law appropriately --------------------------------- 67%

Treats people fairly without regard to
race, gender or sexual orientation ---------------------------- 71%

Is ethical ---------------------------------------------------- 66%

If the attorneys who appear before Judge Wilbert feel this strongly about him (and we know some win and some lose) then we need to calm down and trust him to try the case appropriately.
Share/Save/Bookmark

Senator Brownback Does Not Know About the Medical Needs of Women in the Military

On Wednesday, we told you that Todd Tiahrt Does Not Care About the Medical Needs of Women in the Military. We've now heard back from Senator Brownback and his position is . . . well . . . unknown. Read this non-responsive response and let us know if you can decipher what he means.

Thank you for your recent correspondence regarding the Compassionate Care for Servicewomen Act. You may be assured of my interest in this matter, and I appreciate your taking the time to express your views to me. Please be assured that I will give this issue my most careful consideration, keeping your particular comments in mind.

I am honored and privileged to serve you in the United States Senate. Kansans elected me to Congress on a platform of Reduce, Reform, and Return in order to restore the American dream for Kansans and all Americans; and I continue to base my service upon these principles. From taxes to welfare reform to education to matters of fiscal responsibility to defense and all that comes in between, I cast my vote with these principles in mind.

The undergirding principle behind all of this is my deep and abiding respect for the dignity of every human being. When the Congress passes a law or Washington bureaucrats write a regulation, the lives of many people can be affected. Too often, policy in Washington is short-sighted or fails to take into account the long-term or broader effects and implications of laws and regulations on individuals' lives. While the Federal government does play an essential role -- especially in the areas of defense, commerce, and transportation -- I do believe that many other important decisions are better made at the local level where individuals have faces, and are more than just numbers or statistics.

Again, thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts on this issue. As I continue my service in Washington on behalf of all Kansans, please continue to keep me informed on issues that are affecting you. I encourage you to visit my website at brownback.senate.gov to learn more about issues on which I am working. You are the reason that I am here, and I look forward to hearing from you in the future.

Sincerely,

Sam Brownback
United States Senator

Share/Save/Bookmark

AOG Doesn't Like Pro-All-Life Groups

We've always known that the folks over at AOG don't see eye to eye with their anti-choice brethern. Let's face it, AOG is "pro-life" and advocates killing while most other pro-life organizations are, well pro-life. So while doing some research today I wasn't that surprised to see that AOG had issued a "List of the Baby Betrayers."

This is a list of pro-life groups that took a pro-life stance and denounced the terrorist acts of Scott Roeder. So, who are these "evil" pro-life groups that think that all life has value?

Rev. Patrick Mahoney, director of the Christian Defense Coalitions.

Rev. Rob Schenck of the National Clergy Council

Society for the Protection of Unborn Children

40 Days For Life

Center for Bio Ethical Reform

American Life League

Focus on the Family

Women Influencing the Nation

Campaign Life Coalition

Kansas Coalition for Life

Life Issues Institute

Family Research Council

The Christian Anti-Defamation League

Kansas Family Policy Council

Susan B. Anthony List

Priests For Life

Kansans For Life

Stand True

The National Right to Life Committee (NRLC),

CatholicVote.org

Kelowna Right to Life

Real Women of BC

Rev Chet Gallagher OSA Las Vegas

Flip Benham OSA/Operation Rescue

Eric Scheidler of the Pro-Life Action League

We're not big fans of many of these folks either, but we do respect them taking a stance against terrorism and for that they get to be mentioned in this blog (this once) out of respect.

As for you AOG, we wouldn't expect anything less from you than your anti-life position. Your tinfoil hat is in the mail.
Share/Save/Bookmark

Saturday, January 16, 2010

A couple of reasonable articles

"Reasonable" is not a judgement on quality but a statement of reasonableness.

Friday, the AP published a story regarding the public vitriol directed towards Judge Wilbert, Kansas judge in abortion case comes under scrutiny. The article mentions that Wilbert was endorsed by the Kansans for Life PAC in 2008. We had been informed of this a few days ago, but knowing how endorsements are given for judges, we did not feel this would impact his decisions. We also discovered Dan Monnat, one of Dr. Tiller's attorneys, had represented Wilbert a couple of years ago. The AP expanded further on that saying Monnat had donated to Wilbert's re-election campaign. Honestly, from what Judge Wilbert has said in court so far, we could not tell one way or the other what his opinion on abortion was. He has used fair language (even using "medical clinic" to describe WHCS), and his rulings have made sense.

Which leads us to A Tough Case to Make at the Tiller Murder Trial in Newsweek.

This means Roeder has to demonstrate not one, but four things. First, that there was a threat to a third person. Second, that the threat was imminent. Third, that imminent threat was the result of an unlawful act. And, fourth, that he honestly believed all of this. If Roeder fails to prove just one, his defense falls apart. Roeder will have to convince the jury that he believed the fetus counts as a "third party"; so far, no state has ever declared a fetus a person. Proving Tiller to have been an imminent threat also poses a challenge, given that he was shot at church, not at his abortion clinic. Even if Roeder could prove that he honestly believed the fetus to be a third party, and that Tiller was indeed an imminent threat, he would still have to convince the jury that he honestly believed Tiller was committing an "unlawful act." Such a belief, however, would have absolutely no basis: despite numerous attempts by former Kansas Attorney General Phil [sic] Kline, Tiller was never convicted of performing an "unlawful" abortion.


A "formidable and daunting task" indeed.

And now to some unreasonableness. We've had two comments left on another post pointing out what appears not to be obvious: here on Roeder Watch, we're biased. We are honest in our pro-choice bias, but we are not blind in our bias. We're not, as danbeyer said, "pro death zealots". In fact, we're quite pro-life. We're anti-war (which is pro death) and anti-death penalty (likewise pro death) among other things. We're also actively anti-discrimination. And denying women a choice in reproduction is discrimination against women. The right to choose abortion is not in any way similar to slavery in America. Abortion is not our "golden calf" as Mark Archer says. We do not worship or idolize choice. We're quite well-rounded in our activism, but the past few months since Scott Roeder came to our city and killed a doctor in his church has shifted our focus for the time being. That being said for the past few years,we have worked to stop the slow destruction of access in Kansas. The right and access to reproductive options, including abortion, are among the several rights necessary for women to be able to fully participate in society. It is not the only right, but it is a fundamental right for full participation.

In May 2009, Scott Roeder walked into a church here in Wichita, Kansas, and shot Dr. George Tiller. This act was intended to scare other people from providing access to abortion and to frighten women in general. This was an assassination, and this was terrorism. You are free to disagree. But this is what Roeder has admitted to, and we will call it what it is.

Trial update: jury selection continues. Thus far, 25 out of 61 jurors have passed legal challenges with very few being dismissed. The defense has stated they fear the jury may be in danger and has requested special instructions to be given to jurors.
Share/Save/Bookmark

Wednesday, January 13, 2010

Todd Tiahrt Does Not Care About the Medical Needs of Women in the Military

I've got to step away from the Roeder terrorism trial for a minute to share this E-mail I just received from Rep. Todd Tiahrt. No comment from me is necessary.

Thank you for contacting me to express your thoughts regarding the provision of emergency contraception to women in the military. I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue.

As you may know, Rep. Michael Michaud (D-ME) introduced H.R. 4386, the Compassionate Care for Servicewomen Act, on December 16, 2009. This bill would require emergency contraception to be made available upon request at all military health care treatment facilities. It is currently awaiting consideration in the House Armed Services Committee.

Due to the potential health risks, and controversial nature of emergency contraception, I cannot support this legislation. There are many physicians and pharmacists across the country with moral and professional reservations about the use of emergency contraception, and this bill does nothing to recognize those reservations. Although emergency contraception contains the same hormones that compose standard oral contraception, emergency contraception contains a much higher dosage than oral contraception. Specifically, one dose of EC is the equivalent of taking twenty single-dosage pills, followed by twenty more single-dosage pills 12 hours later of prescription only birth control pills. Reports have shown that the drug's side effects include nausea, infertility, ectopic pregnancy (which can be life threatening), and blood clot formation.

Again, thank you for contacting me. If you have any additional questions on this matter, please do not hesitate to call on me or Richard Henkle of my Washington, D.C. staff. It is an honor to serve the people of Kansas in the United States Congress.

Best regards,

Todd Tiahrt
Member of Congress

Share/Save/Bookmark

The Sky Is Not Falling

I was going to write about why we feel the concerns many have over Judge Wilbert's recent rulings are overblown. Trying to determine just how to approach this issue I came across this great piece by Mike Hendricks of the Kansas City Star.

The title of his editorial, Judge being commendably cautious in Roeder trial, says exactly what we're thinking.

Hendricks said it best:

And guess what? Despite the continuing hysterical fears from abortion-rights groups, Wilbert is doing exactly what you’d expect from a judge in such a sensitive case.

He’s being careful.

“Every defendant has the right to have his theory of defense presented,” says Carl Cornwell, an Olathe defense attorney who has handled his share of murder cases.

For instance, some mistakenly think Wilbert has already decided to instruct jurors to consider a lesser charge of voluntary manslaughter when it’s time for deliberations. He hasn’t.

Nor is he promising that he’ll allow Roeder’s attorneys to present evidence in support of their client’s contention that he thought he had to kill Tiller to protect others.

All Wilbert has done is left open those options so Roeder can’t later assert in an appeal that he was denied a fair trial.

None of us want to see Scott Roeder walk free. But we especially don't want it to happen the way it did the last time he was arrested, because his constitutional rights were violated - something that can be prevented.

Give Judge Wilbert a break. He's following the law and that is what we want in a Judge. If you don't like the law as it is (and there is reason to dislike it for sure) then the appropriate response is to work in the legislature to change the law. Judge Wilbert can't write the law, all he can do is follow it.
Share/Save/Bookmark

Tuesday, January 12, 2010

DON'T PANIC! And today's hearing. [Updated]

*Found a couple of errors, one on voluntary manslaughter and the other on previous charges against Dr. Tiller. I have corrected them below.

Earlier today, Judge Wilbert made the same ruling he did Friday and three weeks ago: he is open to allowing evidence for "imperfect self-defense". He did, however, clarify a few things.

He started off today pointing out the media and members of the public have been all fatalistic on his decision to follow the law (and filling his email inbox). And he reminded us he's made only one decision as a matter of law: the necessity defense is not allowed under Kansas law. As for the voluntary manslaughter every other Chicken Little pro-choice activist is running around screaming about? He cannot rule on that. The state presented their motion quoting cases where the Kansas Supreme Court ruled premeditation and voluntary manslaughter cannot be decided by a jury simultaneously. The defense argued that in those cases, the jury instruction was to decide on them together. Judge Wilbert's ultimate statement was he cannot rule on matters of evidence until the evidence has been heard. The Constitution guarantees Roeder's right to a fair and impartial trial and to hear all appropriate evidence in his defense. He emphasised he wants to have only one trial as free of error as possible. He also reworded "an uphill battle" as "formidable and daunting task".

He gave us a new case to look at when talking about the voluntary manslaughter charge. In 2002, Bobby White drove from Great Bend, Kansas, to Augusta, approximately a 2-hour drive, and killed his son-in-law. He believe his grandson was being abused by his son-in-law, Aaron. So he walked into Wal-Mart and shot Aaron three times -- once after he was on the ground -- walked off and gave up to law enforcement. In his first trial, a defense witness was not allowed to testify. At the time, the jury had been given instructions to include both second-degree murder and voluntary manslaughter. They returned first-degree, premeditated murder. Because the defense witness was not allowed to testify, the Kansas Supreme Court overturned the conviction and a new trial ordered. The second trial did *not* give the voluntary manslaughter jury instruction. He appealed. The Kansas Supreme Court decided because he could not present imminent threat, it was proper not to instruct the jury on voluntary manslaughter.

Whenever we see this lesser included charge talked about, we only see discussion on the second part of the law, added in 1992, that includes the honest but unreasonable belief. What is not talked about, however, is part a is the rest of that line about use of deadly force*: imminent threat. This was part of why Judge Wilbert did not allow the necessity defense. We say again: Roeder drove three hours, stalked Dr. Tiller on more than one weekend, shot him, and ran off. There is also additional evidence to be presented that we have no clue about at this time. It will be incredibly difficult for Roeder and his defense team to say Dr. Tiller represented a threat, that threat could only be solved by killing Dr. Tiller, and an embryo's or fetus's life was more important than Dr. Tiller's. While the issue of abortion will not be argued, Roeder's beliefs could be brought up. But he would still have a very difficult time arguing imminent.

The other part about these motions is these arguments are not normally had at the start of a trial. They are intended in jury instructions, instructions Kansas jurors have heard before. Judge Wilbert said decisions on evidence will be heard on a witness-by-witness basis, even question-by-question. He cannot rule on what may or may not be presented. That is Roeder's constitutional right. It is our constitutional right.

Something for everyone to remember: in 2006 and 2008, two Kansas grand juries did not bring charges against Dr. Tiller for performing illegal abortions. While Phill Kline and Paul Morrison, while serving as Attorney General, did bring up these charges, Steven Six did not. . While Phill Kline, serving as Attorney General, did bring up these charges, Paul Morrison did not.* The ones he brought up were not that Dr. Tiller performed illegal abortions but that he did not meet Kansas's law on a second opinion. This last one would have been an incredibly easy way for a jury to slow him down if not shut him down. Some of the six jurors described themselves as pro-life. And in 45 minutes, they returned 19 not guilty verdicts. While not all Kansans are law abiding citizens, our jurors are good people.

Judge Wilbert did not in any way bring about an "open season" on abortion providers. His decision is not "chilling". It in no way "sends the message that religious fanaticism can be considered a defense for murder." And while wannabe terrorists see a glimmer of hope, it is because they are grasping at straws.

What Judge Wilbert did do was his best to limit the possibility of a mistrial or for Roeder to walk on appeal. That happened in 1996 when an over-zealous police officer violated his (and our) constitutional rights. He is working within the confines of the law, both statutes and case law, and to give Roeder his right to trial by jury and presumption of innocence. It is difficult to remember that especially given why Roeder assassinated Dr. Tiller and what Dr. Tiller means. Fatalists are just working themselves into an unnecessary panic. Of course, for many of them, that's their job. For us here at Roeder Watch, we want to make sure Roeder spends the rest of his natural life in jail. But we're not willing to misrepresent the law and the case at hand.

Jury selection will start tomorrow morning. Judge Wilbert has ruled the media and public is not allowed in. A few media outlets are protesting this. We disagree with Judge Wilbert on this issue and await a decision by the Kansas Supreme Court.
Share/Save/Bookmark

First day of trial delayed

Yesterday, jury selection was set to begin in The State of Kansas v. Scott P. Roeder. Over the weekend, however, the prosecution filed a motion to stop so-called "imperfect self-defense" from being used. Yesterday, the defense filed a motion to allow the defense saying Roeder thought Dr. Tiller was an imminent threat to "unborn children". They will be arguing these motions today. We will try to live-tweet the hearing.

Since Friday when Judge Wilbert said he would leave the door open on the lesser charge of voluntary manslaughter, pro-choice activists have been screaming. And we at Roeder Watch have been trying to figure out how best to approach this. We're quite befuddled that in December when Judge Wilbert said the exact same thing, people were praising him and last week, he has suddenly opened up the possibility of open season on abortion providers (the quotes from Spitz and Leach are a nice touch, basically confirming what the Feminist Majority Foundation and Dr. Hern said). Today's hearing might settle this, but we'd just like to say yelling at Judge Wilbert isn't the answer. It's the law that is unclear, not the ruling.

We're also befuddled that, of all the things Judge Wilbert said on Friday, they jump on that one statement. Not that he feels Roeder will have "an uphill battle," that Roeder admitted to the cold-blooded murder, or that the trial will not be about abortion but about murder. That last one is what we all want, is it not? And why is it that uphill battle? Because it was so obviously premeditated: Roeder drove three hours to Wichita on more than one occasion, stalked Dr. Tiller at his church, shot him, and ran off. That's pretty cut-and-clear on premeditation. While we don't know if Judge Wilbert will allow this defense, we trust Kansas juries to see through the bull. Others may not, but Kansas juries have had more than a few opportunities to find Dr. Tiller guilty of something, anything, and they time and time again have not, no matter their opinion on abortion.

But even though the trial will not be about abortion, the defense is continuing in their effort to make it so. In addition to subpoenaing Phill Kline, the request for Dr. Tiller's professional calendars switched from asking the prosecution for it to subpoenaing it from Mrs. Tiller. We expect these records -- which constitute confidential medical records under federal law -- to stay out of the courtroom.

One last note before I prepare to go to the courthouse. We don't care your opinion on abortion, Dr. Tiller, Scott Roeder, or most anything else for that matter. Calling up a reporter and threatening his life? Go directly to jail; do not pass "Go". While we are not to fond of "abortion doctor" and "abortion trial," Ron Sylvester has shown to be an excellent and dedicated reporter.

In short: stop being assholes.
Share/Save/Bookmark

Friday, January 8, 2010

Final Round of Pretrial Motions Heard in Scott Roeder Terrorism Trial

Today was the final series of pretrial motions and arguments by counsel for Scott Roeder's trial. We learned that Roeder filed a 100 page (maybe more) motion to reconsider the earlier denial of a "necessity defense." We've no doubt this is actually the motion prepared by Mr. Letch that has no real legal basis but is instead just a bunch of continued anti-choice preaching and screaming.

The Judge again denied the necessity defense for all the same reasons he did last month.

However, the court has left open the possibility of a statutory "defense of others" claim. Roeder will be able to put on some evidence of this defense but the court indicated that it was unlikely anything presented would rise to a level that would ultimately lead to the jury being instructed on the defense. The Court made it clear that this is not going to be a trial about abortion and if it should or should not be legal. It's about the actions of Scott Roeder.

Finally, the Court indicated that if supported by the evidence it would give the jury a lesser offense instruction of manslaughter. In short, if Roeder had an honest belief even though it was wrong that he had to act to protect others, that may rise to the level necessary for a lesser offense instruction. To get it however Roeder almost has to testify as to what he was thinking/feeling (like he would skip the chance to talk in this case).
Share/Save/Bookmark

Twitter Updates - Motion Hearing


Sorry for the lack of Twitter updates on today's motion hearing. Twitter fail whale is making repeated appearances.
Share/Save/Bookmark

Kline Voluntarily Coming to Testify on Behalf of Scott Roeder


As you've no doubt heard, anti-choice hero Phil Kline has received a defense subpoena to testify on behalf of Scott Roeder. The Associated Press reports "Kline said in a statement e-mailed Tuesday to reporters by his spokesman, Brian Burgess, that he had received a subpoena by mail and would comply with his legal obligation to appear." (AP story)

While receipt of a subpoena in the mail is in some circumstances valid if you reside in the state, it is not when you live outside the state, and thus outside the jurisdiction of Kansas Courts. One would think that Kline being a lawyer (albeit one who has had his license suspended in the past) and being the former "top cop" of the State he would be familiar with Chapter 22 of the Kansas statutes.

Since Kline now lives in Virgina, unless he wants to come back of his own free will and testify, there is much more that must be done to compel him to return.
Kline's statement that he will honor the subpoena means he's willingly coming back.

Anyone care to guess why Kline would agree to come back and testify for a domestic terrorist against Dr. Tiller?
Share/Save/Bookmark

Tuesday, January 5, 2010

The witness list got a little more interesting

I apologize for not posting about Roeder's last pre-trial hearing. My life suddenly got very weird. Roeder has another pre-trial hearing this Friday. The prosecutor's office is adding 10 new names to their witness list including Roeder's brother, David, to whom he spoke shortly before shooting Dr. Tiller.

KlineBut it's another witness that'll show this trial to be more of a circus. Former Attorney General Phill Kline has been subpoenaed to testify by the defense. Two options here: they are either trying to say Dr. Tiller did, indeed, break the law; or they are saying Kline's fishing expedition drove Roeder over the edge. Roeder has said that the lack of conviction of Dr. Tiller in March compelled him to take action (and the posts on Operation Rescue's website also indicate this). Kline's persecution was bound to lead to more than legal troubles for Dr. Tiller.

For those who don't know, Phill Kline was elected Attorney General largely because he promised to go after people who raped underage girls (I have a problem with "child rape" as a phrase) and a few other tried-and-true neo-con tricks to get in (that and he's Republican ... though the Democrat who ran against him came pretty close to winning, but that's another story). Shortly after taking office, he schemed to close down Women's Health Care Services in Wichita and Planned Parenthood in Kansas City, two abortion clinics in the state (at the time, there were two others). His team lied to state agencies, a judge, and a grand jury for this expedition. He said he was going after underage girls having abortions and was also going after underage girls giving birth saying both indicate a crime has been committed (even though he was the only Attorney General to rule that way). But he only ever went after girls who had abortions. He sent his people to both clinics to take pictures of patients' cars and got hotel records so he could assign names to redacted medical files (way to go, privacy!). And when he finally filed charges, only 1/4 of them were for girls -- mostly, he went after late abortions.

He lost his re-election in 2006 to Paul Morrison who left office for having an extramarital affair with one of Kline's employees. Morrison's replacement, Steven Six, filed different charges dealing with technicalities. It was these charges that Dr. Tiller was cleared of last March. In addition to that grand jury, there was another petition-driven grand jury that found no evidence of wrong-doing by Dr. Tiller. In other words, every attempt by Phill Kline to shut Dr. Tiller and Planned Parenthood failed. Except for the secondary intention of these: to make both clinics unpopular. That Kline went on The O'Reilly Factor shows this wasn't about tackling crime but bring down Dr. Tiller. And he succeeded. The State of Kansas has accused two of Kline's aides, Stephen Maxwell and Eric Rucker, of violating ethics standards.

Quite the circus ...
Share/Save/Bookmark

Tuesday, December 22, 2009

Scott Roeder May Not Claim "Necessity" as a Defense to Terrorist Assassination

Motions were heard today in the terrorism trial of Scott Roeder. Carolyn Marie was in the courtroom and will post here analysis and comments soon. For now, we can tell you:

Change Of Venue - Denied The Defense had sought to change venue to another county (why they didn't have a venue study done is beyond us, or the results may not have been good). This was a LONG shot motion. No case in Kansas has ever been reversed for failure to grant a change of venue. Had the motion been granted then the trial would have been moved to another county in Kansas.

Motion in Limine on the Necessity Defense (State's Motion) - Granted Judge Wilbert gave an EXCELLENT analysis of the law in Kansas as to the common law defense of necessity. He granted the State's motion and ruled that Roeder will not be allowed to claim it was necessary to assassinate Dr. Tiller. We're sure Letch Leech will be whining soon. But the ruling was one based squarely on the law and not on what the antis would like the law to be.

The State tried to expand their motion to include the statutory defense of others and the ability to ask for a lesser offense instruction of voluntary manslaughter. Because those issues had not been briefed and the defense not been made aware of them the Court did not rule. However, his analysis of the "necessity" defense made it clear that the terrorist has a huge hurdle to meet if he has any hope of being allowed to use defense of others.
Share/Save/Bookmark

Monday, November 23, 2009

Yup, Roeder plans on putting Dr. Tiller on trial

It would seem we now know why Scott Roeder's lawyers wanted Dr. Tiller's schedule. According to the AP, Roeder's lawyers are going to the necessity defense after all after explicitly saying otherwise when Roeder announced he'd use it when he confessed to the AP a couple weeks ago.

"For the Court to grant the State's motion to prohibit 'any evidence' in support of the necessity defense would be premature, and contrary to Kansas law," the defense wrote. "In addition, it would be rank speculation on the part of the state (and the Court if it were to grant said Motion) as to the purpose of any and all evidence that the Defendant may seek to introduce."


While the prosecution's motion refers to a decade old case settled by the Kansas Supreme Court that rules out necessity defense for trespassing, the defense says trespassing won't necessarily save lives but murder would. At the time, the Court stated allowing personal beliefs to justify criminal activity would "not only lead to chaos but would be tantamount to sanctioning anarchy." Allowing anti-choice militants to shoot abortion providers would certainly lead to both chaos and anarchy, especially since abortion is 100% legal and a constitutional right in the United States.

"It is inconclusive whether the lives of the unborn were spared as a result of the act of criminal trespass," they wrote. "In the instant case, the result of the alleged murder resulted in the termination of abortions being performed in the City of Wichita by the victim, Dr. George Tiller."

Defense attorneys noted the Supreme Court also said that whether "the necessity defense should be adopted or recognized in Kansas may best be left for another day."


Perhaps performed by Dr. Tiller, but it certainly didn't prevent any abortions, in spite of Roeder's insistence otherwise. The number of abortions in the US have dropped consistently since the 80s and have leveled off since 2000 due to better access to contraceptives, which is true worldwide, and outlawing or restricting access to abortion does not prevent it. The only thing accomplished by assassinating providers is to force women to have unsafe and illegal abortions. Want a necessity defense? How's this: unsafe abortions killed 70,000 women last year. Each year, 2 million babies and 536,000 women die in childbirth, most of which can be easily prevented. The US ranks higher than other industrialized countries in premature births and maternal and infant mortality rates. This rate is linked largely to poverty and being uninsured throughout a woman's life. Why not save those babies and women? Why kill abortion providers?

[Roeder] told The Associated Press on Nov. 9 that he shot Tiller to protect unborn children and he planned to present a necessity defense at his trial. He also said one of his two public defenders, Mark Rudy, had given him the "green light" to talk to the media about it.

But the following day, lead defense attorney Steve Osburn told reporters the necessity defense did not exist in Kansas law and the defense team did not plan to present that strategy.


It's not allowable under Kansas law, but they're still going to argue it. Hopefully, this will all be settled next month when these motions are brought up in hearings.
Share/Save/Bookmark