'This is the first time a federal court has recognized that the United States Constitution protects the right of young people to keep certain information they give their doctors and psychologists private.'

In a case watched across the nation, US District Judge J. Thomas Marten ruled that Kansas healthcare providers should retain discretion in deciding what teenage sexual activities they report to the state as abuse. Attorney General Phill Kline had wanted most sexual contact involving children under age 16 reported.

Marten pointed out that both sides agreed certain abusive acts should always be reported, including incest, sexual abuse of a child by an adult, and sex involving a child under age 12.

"Therefore, the only issue presented is whether consensual underage sexual activity must be reported," Marten wrote.

'Twilight Zone World'

Later in the opinion, the judge added: "This case certainly is not about promoting sexual promiscuity among underage persons. Each and every witness testified that underage sex should be discouraged."

Simon Heller, one of the lawyers representing the healthcare providers, said Marten's decision could reach outside of Kansas.

"This is the first time a federal court has recognized that the United States Constitution protects the right of young people to keep certain information they give their doctors and psychologists private," he said.

Kline, however, claimed victory.

"We have defended the constitutionality of the law successfully," he said in a statement released by his office.

Heller said Kline not only misstated Kansas law but also misinterpreted the judge's decision.

"This is only true in the 'Twilight Zone' world that Phill Kline lives in," he said.

Heller said no one argued the 1982 child abuse law was unconstitutional -- only the way Kline said it should be enforced.

"We were never challenging the appropriation obligation of healthcare providers to report real child abuse," Heller said. "We have never challenged that and his spin on that is really remarkable and at the same time utterly false."

Kline claimed the suit endangered the state's ability to protect its children.

"I have always maintained, and continue to maintain, that the rape of a child harms a child," Kline said in his statement.

About Getting Education

Kansas law requires healthcare providers, teachers, counselors and others who work with young people to report any case where there's "reason to suspect that a child has been injured" as a result of sexual abuse.

In a 2003 opinion issued just months after taking office, Kline said abortion clinics must report any girl under 16 who showed up for services. A young girl's pregnancy, he said, was evidence of a sex crime. He went on to say that requirement would extend to other illegal sexual contact. In Kansas, that includes just about any intimate activity involving teens under the age of 16.

Sedgwick County District Attorney Nola Foulston, also named in the lawsuit, later testified to Marten that she would include fondling of breasts among reportable illegal actions.

Healthcare providers from the Wichita and Kansas City areas sued, claiming that such a broad interpretation of the law -- and the strict reporting requirements -- would drive teens away from their offices.

"It's not just about abortion. It's about getting birth control, getting care for infection, getting education," said Willow Eby, a registered nurse from Wichita who works at an abortion clinic and who participated in the lawsuit. "You produce more disease and unwanted pregnancies if you can't have healthcare education."

Doctors said Kline's opinion was trying to override their extensive training in spotting abuse.

"To be told that attorneys, who have less training in assessing child abuse, were more qualified to than I was, was extremely demoralizing," said Beth McGilley, a licensed psychologist from Wichita, and one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit. "As a woman, frankly, it was demoralizing. So I feel redeemed and validated."

Rights to Privacy

The case had been watched across the country by advocates of reproductive rights, anti-abortion groups and the healthcare profession. Other states had considered strict readings of their laws similar to Kline's.

Marten had originally imposed a temporary restraining order against enforcing Kline's opinion. The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned that decision in late January on the eve of trial, saying Marten needed more evidence on which to base his opinion.

Heller said he thinks Marten's newest order addresses the concerns of the Court of Appeals.

"It's the federal constitution that determines what our rights to informational privacy are, not state criminal laws," Heller said. "If that were true, states could take away all our rights to privacy just by making things a crime."

Kline had said earlier that he planned to appeal an adverse ruling. But by claiming success Tuesday, he cast doubt on whether he would pursue further action.

If Marten's ruling stands, the judge could order the state to pick up the legal bills for the other side.

Bonnie Scott Jones, another lawyer for the Center for Reproductive Rights, said that could add up to more than $100,000.