Feeds:
Posts
Comments
KFL exec.Director Mary Kay Culp celebrates with Se.Roberts Tues. night

KFL Exec. Director Mary Kay Culp congratulated Sen.Roberts Tues. night

All eyes turned to “reliably red” Kansas in October for reasons no pro-lifer wanted. Polls indicated the campaigns of both our pro-life U.S. Senator Pat Roberts and our pro-life Governor Sam Brownback were surprisingly struggling.

Already active, pro-lifers brought their far-flung efforts to a whole new level, determined to turn that around. Last night those immense efforts paid off. First, a quick summary.

  • Expected to either lose or win by a hair, pro-life stalwart Roberts, in fact, pulled off a sweet and convincing 53%-43% victory over pro-abortion “independent” challenger Greg Orman. Roberts’ re-election was crucial to taking control of the United States Senate out of the hands of pro-abortion Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.)
  • Pro-life leader Brownback also surged to a win by a margin of 50%-46% over pro-abortion Democrat State Rep. Paul Davis. The message was clear: Kansans want their administrative branch to stay pro-life.

KFL Executive Director, Mary Kay Culp, gave this commentary:”We worked as hard as we did because we knew that life issues in Kansas mean more to voters than any D.C. pundit understood, or poll took into account, which certainly proved true on election night!”

SENATE RACE
Kansas pro-lifers were alarmed in early summer at the upstart campaign of Senate challenger Greg Orman– a 45-year-old millionaire businessman without any record of public service and who had never held elected office. Millions of dollars in TV ads were introducing him as the solution to the ‘overriding problem of government gridlock.’ Even a few conservatives were showing some interest in Orman, despite his bizarre claim that he was unsure which party he would caucus with if he won.

But pro-lifers knew differently. They knew that Reid would not allow any pro-life measures passed in the House of Representatives to come to a vote, including the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. Pro-lifers also were well aware of the anti-life provisions of ObamaCare that were protected by Reid. Even more troubling, Orman had no voting record to contrast with the 100% pro-life record of Sen. Roberts.

KFL-PAC member Carol Dengel andPac co-director, Tim Hand celebrated pro-life wins in Topeka

KFL-PAC member, Carol Dengel, and KFL-PAC co-chair, Tim Hand, celebrated pro-life wins in Topeka Tues. night

Kansans for Life’s PAC went into high gear with phone calls, radio spots and other initiatives. We produced and distributed well over one million educational pieces, which is four times the number we have done in the past.

Orman largely hid from the press and kept to the strict script ‘that he had tried both political parties and found both deficient’. His history undermined that claim (as did Vice President Joe Biden at the last minute).

Although Orman had briefly registered as a Republican, he had long been a Democrat, and over 90% of his past and very sizable campaign donations had gone to pro-abortion Democrats. Even Kansas Democrats believed Orman would caucus with Democrats–as shown when they coaxed their own Senate candidate, Chad Taylor, off the ballot on Sept. 3rd so that the field was cleared for Orman.

On Election Day, however, Orman’s pretense at independence was shattered when Vice President Biden, speaking on a radio program, said Democrats “have a chance of picking up an independent who will be with us in the state of Kansas.”

Sen. Roberts has always been endorsed by Kansans for Life and the National Right to Life Committee, and has been a lead supporter of important pro-life bills. Orman described himself as ‘pro-choice’ in an October 15 debate with Sen. Roberts and dismissed pro-life concerns as something to “get past.”

Sen. Roberts quickly rebutted Orman’s position as “unconscionable” and publicly promised “never to stop fighting for life.” Orman continued to act as if pro-life issues were unimportant. For example, he never honored his October 9 pledge to several national media outlets to read and comment on two pro-life bills awaiting passage in the U.S. Senate and supported by Sen. Roberts.

But on Tuesday, Kansans reaffirmed that pro-life issues are important, and re-elected U.S. Sen. Pat Roberts by over a 90,000 vote margin. We so appreciate the help of the NRLC-PAC in producing radio and print materials for this race.

GOVERNOR’S RACE
After years of battling an administration that supported abortion and was pushing destructive embryonic research, Kansas pro-lifers were thrilled to turn that around with the election of Sam Brownback as governor in 2010. During his first term, he signed thirteen pro-life measures, including nationally-important bills championed by NRLC.

Gov. Brownback with Mary Kay Culp

Gov. Brownback with KFL’s Mary Kay Culp Tues. night

The contrast could not have been more clear. Challenger Davis was part of the cadre of anti-life legislators fighting every one of those bills. In fact, during his tenure in the House from 2003-2014, Davis voted 80 times against pro-life bills!

It may not be well known that Kansas has long had three political players: pro-life GOPers, a dwindling number of pro-abortion GOPers, and Democrats, who are now 95% pro-abortion. Bitter, pro-abortion GOP legislators who had fought the Brownback initiatives and lost their elections in 2012 added their support for Davis.

Going into the elections, the race was too close to call and early returns showing a slight lead for Davis had pro-lifers holding their breath. Those returns reflected that:

  • counties from Kansas’ eastern edge bordering Missouri (which came in early) traditionally lean Democrat, and
  • the bitter pro-abortion GOP wing seemed to be voting a straight GOP ticket except for Brownback and, to a lesser extent, Roberts.

But, as returns continued, Gov. Brownback finished ahead of Davis by about 33,000 votes. Another 33,000 votes went to a third party independent candidate, Keen Umbehr.

What you won’t see highlighted is that Brownback prevailed even in liberal-leaning Johnson County, the home of two abortion clinics, and serviced by the Kansas City Star, whose editorial board supports abortion and never overlooks a chance to slam Brownback.

We congratulate our many pro-life volunteers who helped insure another four years under Gov. Brownback! Social media has certainly impacted election politics, but in Kansas, the tried and true pro-life ground game was richly rewarded yesterday.

Kansans are facing a a pivotal choice for the U.S. Senate: incumbent pro-life GOP Senator Pat Roberts versus pro-abortion multimillionaire Greg Orman.

Orman was unknown to Kansans before he bought over a million dollars in TV ads this summer denigrating Washington’s “gridlock” politics, and offering to end it. Orman portrays himself as an “outsider”–an “Independent” candidate– even though more than 90% of his sizable past political donations have gone to Democrats.

Orman is quite the stealth candidate, except to the abortion industry. They know exactly who he is. Back to that in a moment.

Sen. Roberts released a great new radio ad yesterday, with a crystal clear message that cuts right to the heart of the differences between himself and Orman:

“The right to life is the most fundamental right we have.
From conception to natural death, the life of every Kansan, every American, every human should be honored and protected.
That’s why we need to keep Pat Roberts in the Senate.
Pat Roberts has a 100% pro-life voting record.
Endorsed by both National Right to Life and Kansans for Life, Pat has been a key supporter of every major pro-life initiative in Senate.
Pat opposes abortion on demand and federal funding of abortion.
If you care about life, Pat Roberts is the only choice.

Pat’s opponent, liberal Greg Orman, doesn’t share our values.
Greg Orman is pro-abortion.
Greg Orman would give President Obama another pro-abortion vote in the Senate.
We can’t let that happen.
Orman says we have to move past this issue.
Pat Roberts, on the other hand, will never stop fighting for life.
Protect life, Pat Roberts for Senate.”

Back to Greg Orman. He has never held public office, lacks any record of public service, and has generally avoided taking specific positions on the major issues.

But in a recent debate with Sen. Roberts, Orman described himself as “pro-choice.” He said he “trusts women” and the public should “get past” the abortion issue.

Surprise, surprise. All three Kansas abortion businesses are supporting him!

  • The Overland Park abortion clinic of Hodes & Nauser (father-daughter abortionists who have sued Kansas’ pro-life laws) have Orman signs in the windows.
  • Last Saturday Planned Parenthood of Kansas & Mid-Missouri held a joint rally in support of Orman and other Kansas pro-abortion Democrat women candidates (Orman’s wife was advertised as being there on his behalf).
  • A letter praising Orman’s candidacy was published in the Wichita Eagle, written by Julie Burkhart, who has opened an abortion business (manned by “circuit-rider” abortionists) at the location of the late George Tiller’s infamous abortion clinic.

The choice for Kansans is clear: Pat Roberts, who has pledged, “never to stop fighting for life.”

 

Rep. Paul Davis

Rep. Paul Davis

Kansas is a leading pro-life state, electing a pro-life super majority to both chambers. We’ve enacted many benchmark pro-life laws signed by pro-life GOP Gov. Sam Brownback. Brownback is seeking re-election, opposed by Democrat Paul Davis.

With the abortion issue omitted at every gubernatorial debate, many Kansas voters haven’t learned how very extreme Davis is on the life issue. As a state representative for 14 years from the most liberal district in Kansas, Davis voted 80 times AGAINST pro-life bills. Here’s a partial list of what Davis voted against:

  • bans on sex-selection abortion, tax-funded abortions and gruesome abortions done on unborn children with proven pain capability;
  • parental consent for abortion and against abortion clinics sending fetal dna samples from pregnant girls under age 14 to the KBI (as evidence for rape prosecution);
  • state licensure for abortion clinics to include death and injury reporting for the health department;
  • allowing prosecution for crimes against pregnant women to include separate charges for death and injuries to unborn children;
  • conscience protection for pro-life doctors, healthcare workers and businesses that object to abortion.

Davis was tutored in anti-life stridency when he worked for Kathleen Sebelius (as state insurance commissioner) and interned for now-Senate Minority Leader Anthony Hensley. This animus is not just against state regulation of abortion, it shows when Davis voted against modest grants for pregnancy care centers and for creation of a unique (and ethical) stem cell therapy center.

Additionally, as Democrat policy chair, and later, as House Minority leader, Davis whipped up the opposition to pro-life bills, pressuring Democrat state reps not to vote pro-life. There are now less than a handful of pro-life Democrats left in the Kansas House.

Davis’ website reads, under the topic, HOW SHOULD KANSAS CHANGE LAWS RELATED TO ABORTION?:

“Kansas’ abortion laws are among the strictest in the nation – I will not change that as governor. I do feel that every woman has the right to make her own personal medical decisions in consultation with her family and her doctor – free from government intrusion.

Well, of course he says he will not change the laws in effect, because he CANNOT do so! What he didn’t promise was to vigorously defend, and not undermine, the existing pro-life laws.

As an example, a Kansas abortion may not be performed unless the woman has accessed state info available at: woman’srighttoknow.org. Yet implementation of the 2009 update of this website was botched under the administration of then-Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, and not correctly implemented until Sam Brownback became governor in 2011.

Through his choice of agency heads and budget priorities, an extremist pro-abortion politician like Davis would be a disaster for the unborn and women’s health. Davis could:

  • veto new pro-life laws enacted by the pro-life Kansas House and Senate;
  • use the state budget to fund abortion, instead of the current modest support for pregnancy help centers;
  • select a cabinet whose members would allow subversion of current life-protective laws and agency regulations;
  • deter the health department from investigating maternal deaths occurring at abortion clinics;
  • pressure the state medical board to ignore abortion malpractice;
  • refuse to rigorously defend state laws challenged in court.

The governor makes hundreds of appointments to advisory boards, as well as  selecting a variety of judges, including those on the state Supreme Court.

It is not hard to imagine how much damage Davis could do as governor. Pro-lifers need to get the word out and get to the polls!

Incumbent pro-life Sen. Pat Roberts and challenger Greg Orman

Incumbent pro-life Sen. Pat Roberts faces pro-abortion challenger Greg Orman

In the cola-dominated soft drink market, 7-up enjoyed great success after it labeled itself the “UN-cola”. And for the last 2 months, a multi-millionaire without public service experience, Greg Orman, has gotten some good poll numbers portraying himself as an independent “UN-politician” running against incumbent Kansas U.S. Sen. Pat Roberts.

 But in the candidate debate last night, Roberts charged that Orman’s attitude about abortion is “UNconcionable.”

Here’s how it developed: more than halfway into the debate, the sole “life issue” question was posed:  Kansas abortion law requires a mandatory ultrasound, should that be a federal law? (By the way, no such ultrasound mandate has been filed in Congress.)

Orman didn’t answer, instead responding:

  • that, as a man, he’ll never face that issue, and he “trusts women” (this is the slogan created by the late-term abortionist George Tiller);
  • abortion is settled law about which we have wasted too much time when there are other important issues to discuss.

The debate moderator interrupted to ask whether he was pro-life or pro choice and Orman said pro-choice.

Roberts looked at Orman with incredulity, saying that to admonish us to “get past” the rights of the unborn and those at the end of life is unconscionable.

“I am pro-life,” he said [voting record: 64 out of 64 correct pro-life votes] and am proud to be endorsed by National Right to Life and Kansans for Life.

In a follow-up rebuttal, Roberts added, “[abortion] isn’t settled law because we had a great fight over Hobby Lobby, didn’t we? …[that] we’re not going to accept Obamacare because it strikes at our religious beliefs. And the Hobby Lobby won. And so it isn’t settled law, not by a long shot.”

Later on, during discussion of second amendment gun rights, Roberts brought up Orman’s support for a bill [S.J. Resolution 19, see here] that would severely restrict first amendment free speech rights of groups like Kansans for Life.

Orman is running neck and neck with Roberts and the Kansas Democrat candidate for Senate dropped out of the race Sept. 3 (more here). Notwithstanding Orman’s repeated claim that, if elected, he has not decided which party he will side with, no one believes it; there are currently two “independent ” Senators who vote with the Democrats.

Roberts’ key message is that a vote for Orman is a vote for the Democrat anti-life agenda of Harry Reid and President Obama; for example, Reid has refused to allow a vote on the Pain-capable Unborn Child Protection Act (s. 1670, read here) which passed this year in the U.S. House.[Kansas passed this law in 2011.]

KFL executive director, Mary Kay Culp, commented, “One Kansas City-area abortion business has posted Orman signs on the premises. They know that Orman is not a new-style, problem-solving “UNpolitician”– he is an old-style politician trying to downplay an unconscionable pro-abortion position in a state with a pro-life majority.”

Patrick Wiesner, passed over for Orman

Patrick Wiesner, passed over for Greg Orman

Last month, Kansans witnessed court shenanigans to secure a dirty back-room deal to try to stop Republican pro-lifers from taking over the U.S. Senate majority.

The floundering Democrat Senate candidate– Topeka District Attorney Chad Taylor—submitted a last-minute statement of withdrawal on Sept.3. Taylor did not type out,“I am incapable of fulfilling the duties of this office if elected,” which (after the primary has passed) is the only allowable excuse, other than death, for getting out under Kansas statute 25-306a .The Kansas State Supreme Court ruled that his use of the phrase “pursuant to” in his statement, sufficed to remove his name.

No one disputes that Taylor’s exit was designed to facilitate opposition to 3-term GOP incumbent, Sen. Pat Roberts, coalescing around multimillionaire “independent” candidate, Greg Orman, who’d been running TV commercials promoting his candidacy before he was even technically on the ballot. (Read pro-abortion support for Orman here and national media frenzy over the Roberts challenge here)

The tougher question that the Kansas State Supreme Court ducked was whether the Democrat Party could be held in contempt (and fined) for not supplying a Democrat replacement for Taylor. The party had publicly refused to find a replacement after Secretary of State, Kris Kobach, said the law required it (even with a viable candidate, see below).

A lone, long-time-Democrat-voting citizen, David Orel, filed suit for Democrats to perform that duty.

The state Supreme Court wanted to dodge that question and certainly the fact that four of those justices are Democrats and one of their homes was being used that week for a Democrat fundraiser had no impact, right? So the issue of whether the Democrats were illegally not replacing the Taylor name was sent to a lower court panel of three judges who

  • were insulted that Orel did not come to court, although his attorney argued that the court merely needed to interpret the statute, without testimony;
  • found that Orel would not be uniquely harmed by not having a Democrat candidate for U.S. Senate on the ballot;
  • ruled that the law about replacing withdrawn candidates was not a mandate, just an option.

Now, it is true that current legal scholars hate laws that use the word “shall.” But, as the filing of the Kansas Attorney General’s office in this matter explained, the pertinent Kansas election provision in the Taylor/Orel matter uses “shall” for some mandates and “may” for some optional duties—indicating that the legislators understood the difference, and that candidate replacement by the party (after the primary) was mandatory.

WHERE’S WALDO?
But, wait… where was the Democrat whom the public and the courts should have heard from? The rightful replacement for Taylor is Taylor’s runner-up in the primary, who garnered 46.3% of the vote and who could, with not much effort, resume campaigning for the seat.

Patrick Weisner is that person– a successful CPA and attorney, newly retired from the military, who in fact had also campaigned for the U.S. Senate seat in 2010! Where had he disappeared to in all this? Oh wait, a perusal of Weisner’s political positions (here, here and here) shows he is not a lock-step Democrat. Guess he was muffled off as part of this back-room deal.

In conclusion, Kansas election law enacted to preserve the integrity of primary-chosen candidates has been perverted and needs to be revisited.

Justice Beier

Justice Beier

Kansas is a “red” conservative state with a “blue” state Supreme Court and a liberal media supporting the latter.

But even the slavish Kansas media is having a hard time keeping the illusion alive that the behavior of Kansas’ top Court is ethically disciplined and above politics.

Last week the Court rushed to rule that the name of a Democrat candidate for U.S. Senate would not appear on the upcoming ballot. (more here)

No one disputes that the withdrawal was aimed at consolidating opposition to pro-life GOP Sen. Pat Roberts behind a newly-emerged, “independent-but-Democrat leaning,” pro-abortion, multi-millionaire challenger, Greg Orman.

The widely acknowledged impact of the Kansas Supreme Court’s decision could be to help unseat Roberts. The media gleefully positioned the ruling as slapping down a partisan Secretary of State who would not deem a candidate’s hasty withdrawal as legal.

But the Court was not done. It gave Democrats another gift: the time delay they needed to avoid selecting a replacement candidate for the Democrat ticket, as required by law. The Court on Tuesday sent that issue to a lower court with an indefensible excuse, read: The Kansas Supremes Give Democrats Exactly What They Wanted . . . Again

However, another story arose the same day, one the press groaned inwardly to report because it shredded what few excuses there were to insist the Court’s decision was above board: complaints from the GOP that a fundraiser for the extremely anti-life Democrat gubernatorial candidate would be held that night at the home of State Supreme Court Justice, Carol Beier!

The most incensed media outlet was the uber-liberal (and rather raunchy) “alternative” online source, The Pitch, based in Kansas City. Reporter Steve Vockrodt wrote

[Carol Beier is] often accused by the state’s Republican activists of advancing stridently liberal ideology on the state’s highest court.
A Tuesday-evening backyard barbecue at Beier’s house thrown in support of Democratic gubernatorial candidate Paul Davis, however, seems tailor-made to amplify such claims while calling into question the judge’s integrity.
“It’s my husband’s event,” Beier tells The Pitch. “I’ve taken pains not to be involved in it.”
But it’s hard to see the upside to holding a campaign event at the home of a top judicial official, someone who could have a say on the legal muster of legislation that Davis might sign as a future governor. At best, it’s reckless.
Both Beier and Davis are lawyers who should understand that even the appearance of a conflict of interest is a troublesome prospect. But neither seems bothered by the question today.

While it is true that no rule in the Kansas Code of Judicial Conduct limits the political activities of a judge’s family, the media is warning Beier, and the Court, such blatantly partisan stunts are nearly impossible for the media to spin as passing the smell test.

The media will, however, continue to help the liberals and anti-lifers. They sanitized the Paul Davis lap dance story and refused to link it to his role in opposing (and mocking) state proposals to regulate strip clubs over the past few years. (see Community Defense bill vote here)

The media has portrayed the Kansas state Supreme Court ruling as a rebuke to a partisan Secretary of State—not as inappropriate activism by a pro-Democrat Court wanting to help prevent the Republican Party’s takeover of the U.S. Senate. But consider….

  • There was no media mention that the Supreme Court majority are Sebelius-appointees unvetted by the Senate and selected by an elitist committee.
  • There was no questioning why a longtime Democrat advisor and long-time business partner with the state Democrat Party, Justice Dan Biles, didn’t recuse himself from an issue so critical to the democrat party interests.

It is supposed to be commonly held that the media and judges discipline themselves to be neutral. But consider, as a mental exercise, whether the Kansas Court rulings and media stories would be the same if it were the GOP overturning the results of a state primary to achieve a back-room-made deal disadvantaging the Democrats.

Sec. of State Kobach (l) tried to keep Chad Taylor on US Senate ballot

Sec. of State Kris Kobach (l) was overruled on keeping Chad Taylor (r) on ballot

As we predicted after Tuesday’s hearing, the Kansas Supreme Court ordered that the name of Shawnee County District Attorney, Chad Taylor, be removed from the ballot as the Democrat contender for U.S. Senate.

It remains unsettled whether the final ballot for the Kansas U.S. Senate seat will include a Democrat because Secretary of State, Kris Kobach, asserts that the state Democrat Party is legally obligated to submit a replacement candidate for Taylor. At a press conference Thursday, Kobach announced the new Democrat name must be received by noon, Sept. 26.

UPDATE, 5pm, Fri. Sept.19: The AP now reports that Kobach’s office sent a directive to county officials, telling them to move ahead with mailing the ballots without having a Democrat nominee listed for the U.S. Senate race.

Taylor had filed at the last possible hour to remove his name (see more here) and has not yet commented on the reason he withdrew. The Kansas law on this matter was supposedly strengthened to prevent such late withdrawals of candidates for purely partisan calculations that disenfranchise those who voted in the primary.

The state Supreme Court’s unanimous ruling late Thursday remained very narrow and focused, declaring that Taylor’s official request to remove his name “pursuant to” the statute was acceptable, without a declaration of his “incapability to serve.”

Kobach told Bloomberg News he was disappointed:

 “The court’s decision essentially nullifies what the legislature did in 1997 when they inserted 14 words into the law to require a candidate declare that he is incapable of fulfilling the duties of office.”

Incumbent Republican U.S. Senator, Pat Roberts, is the only pro-life candidate for that office. He commented about the ruling, “This is not only a travesty to Kansas voters, but it’s a travesty to the judicial system and our electoral process.”

Pundits point out that elimination of a Democrat nominee will benefit lately-entered “independent” candidate,  Greg Orman. Multi-millionnaire Orman has already spent over $900,000.00 on TV commercials.

The state Supreme Court did not rule Thursday on the legal duty to supply a Democrat substitute for Taylor, but a motion for the Court to address this issue has now been filed by a disgruntled Democrat.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 41 other followers