Is fornication with a child protected by the constitution?

A federal judge in Kansas is about to rule. This case is a perfect example of the lunacy that afflicts us.

A federal judge has begun hearing testimony about whether doctors, nurses and other health care professionals in Kansas should be forced to report instances of underage sex to authorities.

The decision could set a legal precedent across the nation because federal courts have not dealt much with the rights of adolescents to informational privacy, said Bonnie Scott Jones, attorney for the Center for Reproductive Rights.

The case stems from a 2003 opinion by Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline that argued the state's 1982 reporting statue requires health care providers to tell law enforcement or the Kansas Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services about underage sex, even if it is consensual. He contended the reporting was required because such sex inherently involves abuse of a child.

The Center for Reproductive Rights, a New York advocacy group, sued, arguing that forced reporting discourages adolescents from seeking counseling or medical treatment and intrudes on their privacy. In Kansas, the age of consent is 16.

The case is being heard by U.S. District Judge J. Thomas Marten without a jury.

When Marten issued a preliminary injunction in 2004 barring Kansas officials from enforcing Kline's interpretation of the state law, he called Kline's opinion a "monumental change in policy" because of the imposition on minors' civil rights.

On Friday, the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver lifted that stay. The appeals court ruled that the state's interest in information about the voluntary sexual conduct of children overrides any minor's right to privacy. The case then went back to Marten for trial. (Thanks to the Las Vegas Sun and CNSNews.com for the heads up.)