George Tiller - Trial and Acquittal

Trial and Acquittal

Kansas law prohibits abortions after the beginning of fetal viability, which is generally midway through the second trimester, unless two doctors certify that continuing the pregnancy would cause the woman "substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function." The two consulting doctors must not be "financially affiliated" with the doctor doing the abortion. Tiller went on trial in March 2009, charged with 19 misdemeanors for allegedly consulting a second physician in late-term abortion cases who was not truly "unaffiliated".

The case became a cause célèbre for both supporters and opponents of abortion. WorldNet Daily Columnist Jack Cashill compared the trial to the Nuremberg Trials of Nazi war criminals, while New York University Professor Jacob Appel described Tiller as "a genuine hero who ranks alongside Susan B. Anthony and Martin Luther King Jr. in the pantheon of defenders of human liberty."

On March 27, 2009, the jury found Tiller not guilty on all charges. However, the Kansas Board of Healing Arts continued to investigate charges of ethical violations that mirrored the prosecutors' criminal allegations.

In February 2012, the Kansas Board of Healing Arts determined that Ann Kristin Neuhaus did not meet accepted standards of care when she referred patients to Tiller. The Board reported that in some cases, she used a software package to make mental health determinations without making direct examinations of the patient, as the software manufacturer required. An administrative judge recommended that the Board revoke Neuhaus' license but the Board postponed the decision until June 22, 2012.

Stephen Maxwell, one of top assistants in both the Kansas attorney general's office and later the Johnson County District Attorney's office, was later accused of mishandling the case. The complaints against him include: allowing his underling to commit perjury, copying patients' records and failing to report their location to the court, and failure to report a court opinion that didn't support contention for a subpoena.