The battleground in Johnson County District Attorney Phil Kline’s effort to compel a district court judge to comply with a subpoena and testify at a criminal proceeding against Planned Parenthood will shift to the Kansas Supreme Court.

On Tuesday, Johnson County District Court Judge Steve Tatum declined Kline’s request that Shawnee County Judge Richard Anderson honor a subpoena issued by Kline’s office. The judge filed a motion seeking to have the subpoena quashed after he was ordered not to testify by the Kansas Supreme Court.

Kline said the high court offered no legal basis for its silencing of Anderson. At the hearing Tuesday, Kline told Judge Tatum that Anderson’s expected testimony would be “clearly relevant” in the criminal case against Planned Parenthood.

Attorney Pedro Irigonegaray, who represents Planned Parenthood, told Tatum that testimony anticipated from Anderson would not be relevant, because records on which the testimony would be based had not been authenticated.

Kline, in a motion filed with the Supreme Court last week, said Judge Anderson had testified previously in court that some documents supplied by Comprehensive Health for Women (the Overland Park clinic operated by Planned Parenthood) appeared to have been altered, possibly meaning “that somebody committed a felony in an attempt to cover up a misdemeanor.”

Ultimately, Judge Tatum refused to lift the Supreme Court’s order.

"I'm just a district court judge with limited powers,” Tatum said. “I don't tell the Supreme Court what to do.”

Tatum added that he couldn’t speculate on what the intentions of the Supreme Court were in ordering Anderson not to testify.

In the motion debated today, Kline suggested that political considerations could be influencing the judicial system, a contention that has been made openly by pro-life groups such as Operation Rescue.

“If the current case dealt with records related to any medical procedure but abortion, the rule of law would be made crystal clear by consistent court rulings that reflect the obvious meaning of Kansas statutes,” Kline’s motion stated. “Since the records, however, touch on the issue of enforcing late-term abortion prohibitions, court equivocation and meanderings contrary to precedent and Kansas legislative intent all too often have emanated from the bench.

“Such a pattern demonstrates that judicial branch actions have been guided too often by political considerations rather than the rule of law. If the judicial branch continues its apparent effort to prevent enforcement of Kansas law regarding abortion through creating new and novel procedural obstacles that do not in any fashion enhance privacy nor reflect law, the long-term damage to integral government will be immeasurable.”

The Supreme Court has not indicated yet when it plans to hear arguments on the Anderson subpoena issue.

  Back to The Week in Review