Impact of Kansas fertilization declaration in new law

The Pro-Life Protections Act, HB 2253, is headed to Gov. Sam Brownback for his signature. Section two of the bill says that “the life of a human being begins at fertilization” and that Kansas will uphold the rights and privileges for all human beings except where barred by the U.S. Supreme Court.  (See legal impact of this declaration here, from National Right to Life.)

There has been much misreported about the Pro-Life Protections Act, including the impact of this declaration on fertilization (Read James Taranto here about abortion supporters’ alarmism on this.)

Section two is neither a personhood measure, nor affects birth control (protected under Kansas law here.)  “Personhood” measures attempt to defy Roe v Wade by (1) winning a state ballot initiative that declares the state constitution forbids abortion, and (2) hoping the federal courts will allow it to stand. Kansans for Life does not believe such a strategy will succeed due to the federal Supremacy Clause.

The language in section two was copied from Missouri, which the U.S. Supreme Court let stand in 1989 in its Webster decision. Thirteen states have adopted it. Under the declaration of life begins at fertilization, the state may legislate with a preference for childbirth over abortion –in effect “corraling”  Roe from  drifting into other areas.  For example, because of Roe,

• some states don’t allow criminal prosecution for 2 victims when a pregnant woman is murdered –Kansas does allow such prosecution, under Alexa’s Law passed in 2007 (see here);
• some states allow the filing of lawsuits for compensation that a disabled child exists that ‘should have been aborted’ — these are wrongful birth lawsuits that Kansas now doesn’t allow, under the newly passed Kansas law, “Civil rights of the Unborn.”

The reality is that every state has been working for 40 years –either to promote abortion or to promote life –and Kansas is pro-life. Being a pro-life state is more than passing law, it is how our citizens stand against the forces that push abortion. Our state has continued to increase the number of centers across the state where pregnant women can get free assistance.

KANSAS LAW BACKGROUND
In 1973, the Roe Court cherry-picked some language to define a “constitutional” person such that homicide of the unborn could be accepted. But it was never denied that unborn were human beings, just that they could be aborted because they were not “protected constitutional persons” like their mother and the abortionist.

In 2007, for purposes of criminal prosecution, Kansas legally defined “person” and “human being” to include “unborn child” and  furthered defined unborn child as “a living individual organism of the species homo sapiens, in utero at any stage of gestation from fertilization to birth.” (see here)

In 2011, for purposes of abortion informed consent, Kansas adopted the South Dakota statement (approved by the eighth circuit appellate court in 2008) that “abortion terminates the life of a whole, separate, unique, living, human being.” (see here, section b(5))

Now in 2013, the legislature has officially adopted the scientific fact that life begins at fertilization as an undergirding for further public policies.

Read Full Post »

Kansas passes bill to defund abortion, help Down Syndrome

Sen. Mary Pilcher-Cook

The Kansas Pro-Life Protections Act (HB 2253) passed the Senate by a vote of 29-11, after a nearly 3-hour debate Monday that focused on extraneous amendments offered by pro-abortion Democrat Senators.

Only one amendment (tweaking the tax code) was adopted. Because of that, HB 2253 must procedurally be “re-passed” in the House before heading to Gov. Sam Brownback’s desk.

The Pro-Life Protections Act actually enacts no new restrictions on abortion, rather it:

• recognizes that life begins at fertilization for purposes of public policy decisions;
• prevents state discrimination against pro-life entities;
• restricts tax-payer funding for abortion;
• defunds abortion training at the state university medical school;
• keeps abortion businesses out of public school sex-ed;
• codifies informed consent topics already used by the state health department;
• strengthens medical and community support for Down Syndrome & other conditions.

Sen. Mary Pilcher-Cook (R-Shawnee), Chair of the Health committee, introduced and defended HB 2253 as positive and protective legislation. She had her hands full explaining what the bill didn’t contain when rebutting senators repeating the spin that liberal pro-abortion forums like the Huffington Post have spewed for two years.

Sen. David Haley (D-Kansas City), who ordinarily causes pro-lifers to groan, really startled observers Monday by first complaining that abortion opponents “impose narrow Taliban-like philosophies” and then with his repeated–and bizarre– claim that “this bill would empower rapists.” Haley twice admitted in debate that “he didn’t know what was in the bill,” even though he was in the committee that took testimony and ‘worked’ the bill!

Haley offered three hostile amendments that failed; the first one was identical to the Wilson amendment which was offered and failed 2 weeks ago during House debate on this same bill.  Though described as limiting three abortion laws for women pregnant by assault, the language actually would invalidate ALL Kansas abortion statutes, including—just to name a few– informed consent, parental involvement, physician penalties, and protection of unborn children who feel pain.

Haley’s  second amendment was described as keeping birth control legal, which is already in Kansas statute, and his third motion was to table the bill.

Sen. Marci Francisco (D-Lawrence) introduced four amendments, one of which would overturn our 2011 law that excludes elective abortion coverage in private health plans. The ACLU took this law to court (a law which other states have had on the books for decades), forcing Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt to defend it. As the trial neared, the ACLU dropped the suit.

Francisco also made a motion to expand abortion deductions and a motion to add domestic partner language to the bill; those amendments failed. Her tax-tweaking amendment succeeded.

Senate Minority leader, Anthony Hensley (D-Topeka), heartily endorsed every defeated motion.

The third abortion supporter to offer an amendment was freshman Sen. Pat Pettey (D-Kansas City). She wanted breast cancer and pre-term birth topics removed from the bill’s informed consent provisions.

KDHE (the state health department) has determined for 15 years that these topics are relevant to provide legally acceptable informed consent.

KDHE cites the Institute of Medicine and a 2009 international meta-analysis in their exposition of possible future pre-term birth risk.

As for breast cancer, KDHE has a modest section citing that there are studies for and against what is known as “the independent” risk factor of abortion. What is pre-eminent is the incontrovertible biological evidence that the risk of breast cancer is reduced with a full-term delivery. An already-pregnant woman deserves that information.

In fact, a national Planned Parenthood fact sheet (submitted by the Kansas City affiliate in opposition to HB 2253) actually reinforces this fact in their breast cancer section:

“reproductive factors have been associated with risk for the disease since the seventeenth century…it is known that having a full-term pregnancy early in a woman’s childbearing years is protective against breast cancer.”

Now compare Planned Parenthood’s statement above with the first 3 sentences in the KDHE abortion informed consent booklet, under breast cancer risk:

 Your chances of getting breast cancer are affected by your pregnancy history. If you have carried a pregnancy to term as a young woman, you may be less likely to get breast cancer in the future. However, your risk is not reduced if your pregnancy is ended by an abortion.

The language is nearly identical! Sen. Pettey’s amendment failed. The challengers sought headlines, not improvements for the bill. Kansans can be proud of this legislation.

Read Full Post »

Kansas House passes Pro-Life Protections Act for 2013

Rep. Lance Kinzer

The Kansas House today provisionally passed HB 2253, an updated version of last year’s Pro-Life Protections Act, with a final vote to be taken Wednesday. UPDATE Mar.20: Passed 92-31

The bill–which passed without any of the four hostile amendments offered–

• removes tax breaks for abortionists and tax funding of abortion & abortion training;
• codifies informed consent already created and in use by KDHE (state health dept.);
• unifies abortion statute definitions;
• adopts ‘Life begins at conception/fertilization’ as basis for legislation; and
• improves support for medically-challenging pregnancies and disabled children.

Opponents’ game plan today was to introduce a new headline for the liberal press—which ate it right up—that Kansas rejected a rape exception for abortion. Nevermind that the ‘exception’ was actually a bold attempt to overthrow ALL state abortion regulation from the past two decades with one floor amendment. The headline got through, to be sent out on social media.

Neither did abortion supporters brush aside their usual untruths that the Kansas bill is ‘sweeping’ and forces doctors to lie to women that abortion causes breast cancer. No matter how many times the truth is told that the bill contains over 50 pages of required tax statutes, and that abortionists will not be required to utter any KDHE scripted remarks, they will ignore it.

The most vocal opponent, as usual, was long-retired anesthesiologist, Rep. Barbara Bollier with her perennial complaint that the bill was medically inaccurate. “I’m so disappointed in you all who have not gone to medical school, who have not gone to nursing school and think you know better. It’s shameful” said the Republican from Mission Hills, addressing the House.

Bollier has many ‘facts’ wrong, for example,

there is no phrase “abortion-causes breast-cancer” in the state informed consent materials, or in this bill that codifies those materials—no matter how many times she repeats it.

Even though she was made to admit at the podium, near the end of debate, that the first full-term pregnancy is well known to give lifetime risk protection from breast cancer, Bollier stubbornly said that does not prove that abortion has any effect on a pregnancy. She denied the logic of alerting a woman experiencing her first pregnancy of the risk that can result by preventing a full term delivery!

The first of Boiller’s 3 hostile amendments attempted to remove the topic of abortion’s link to breast cancer and pre-term future births from Woman’s Right to Know informed consent materials. Then Bollier tried to delete information describing the pain capability of the unborn child from the same materials. As she did 2 years ago when fighting passage of a law protecting pain-feeling unborn children, Bollier insisted no science backs it up. This time, her defense was more astounding.

First, Bollier—who has not practiced medicine for 14 years, was flat out wrong when she told House members that anesthesia is never given to unborn children directly, but only through their mothers. Then, in an even more insistent and embarrassing display, she argued that unborn children can’t feel pain, or “feel” a stress reaction, they can only “mount” a stress reaction!

HB 2253 bill sponsor, and House Judiciary chairman, Rep Lance Kinzer (R-Olathe), rebutted Bollier:

When it comes to stress reactions I imagine an unborn child does indeed experience stress when being dismembered and having arms and legs torn off. He cited the scientific evidence at doctorsonfetalpain.org.

Retired surgeon, freshman Rep. Shanti Gandhi, (R-Topeka) stood in strong support of the bill: “I come here to confirm one fact that’s indisputable, at least in my case having studied medicine, that is that life does start at conception. If we believe that, I think this bill is too long. All it needs is one paragraph that says life begins at conception.”

Speaking in SUPPORT of the bill were Reps. Kinzer, Gandhi, Steve Brunk (R-Wichita), Peggy Mast (R- Emporia), Allan Rothlisberg (R-Grandview Plaza), and Joe Edwards (R-Haysville).

Speaking in OPPOSITION to the bill were Reps. Bollier, Jim Ward (D-Wichita), Louis Ruiz (D-Kansas City), Anne Kuether (D-Topeka), Annie Tietze (D-Topeka), John Wilson (D-Lawrence), Roderick Houston (D- Wichita), Patricia Sloop (D-Wichita), and Carolyn Bridges (R-Wichita).

Read Full Post »

Kansas pro-life measures combat abortion coercion

SCR 1606 conferees Ruth Tisdale, Advice & Aid Pregnancy Centers Inc.(left) and Donna Kelsey, Wyandotte Pregnancy Clinic (right) with KFL’s lobbyist, Jeanne Gawdun

Moving through the Kansas legislative process this week were two measures combating abortion coercion: the Pro-Life Protections Act and SCR 1606, a resolution commending pregnancy maintenance resource centers (also known as crisis pregnancy centers).

SCR 1606 was adopted by the Senate (fittingly) on Jan. 22 and recognizes the valuable contribution of such centers nationally, as well as the 71 Kansas centers officially found in the state informed consent registry. The resolution was sent to the House Health & Human Services Committee, which on Wednesday heard presentations of the work done at these centers– work the Kansas Catholic Conference testimony described as the “front lines of the Pro-Life movement” where “caring individuals offer the material and emotional assistance that changes lives, and even saves them”.

But how stunning to hear that 95% of the women at one center were headed for an abortion due to the unborn child’s father! The center’s director described their task as helping the woman “own” her pregnancy decision and providing her with true medical information about her baby. Although the media did not attend this committee hearing, would they have filed the story of rampant abortion coercion had they been there?  You know the answer.

The media description of the Pro-Life Protections Act, HB 2253, likewise, overlooks how the bill addresses abortion coercion. HB 2253 passed out favorably from the House Federal & State Affairs committee on Thursday and was reported as a “sweeping regulatory” bill, viewed “by opponents as the biggest threat to access”.

The press angle is all too predictable—how are abortionists being harmed and how are abortion-seeking women interfered with by the state? Never a politically incorrect story about protecting women from systematic victimization by the abortion industry.

Nevertheless, not only the wonderful pregnancy maintenance centers, but pro-life legislation aims at helping abortion-vulnerable woman who feel the lack of support for giving birth. Women who may be coerced into abortion are addressed in at least four ways by HB 2253, which:

• strengthens a state-produced anti-coercion warning which abortion clinics must post inside the premises;
• empowers a pregnant women by insuring she has access to scientific risks that meet the legal standard of information relevant to her pregnancy decision;
• requires abortion businesses to link to the entire state’s “Woman’s Right to Know” website with 4-D ultrasound presentations on gestational development;
• adds new services for women diagnosed with “medically challenging” pregnancies.

The last bullet point addresses the fact that abortion has been promoted, not only as a solution to unborn children diagnosed with serious and lethal conditions, but even for those with Down Syndrome. In HB 2253, a national perinatal (pre- and post- birth) Hospice registry becomes part of state information, as well as a mandate that the state health department co-ordinate and provide support systems for Down syndrome and other prenatally and postnatally diagnosed conditions.

This new mandate to strengthen the information available to help families face challenging medical outcomes is modeled after the Brownback-Kennedy federal bill which—while passed—never was properly funded. Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback sponsored the bill as U.S. Senator, noting that, 90% of children prenatally diagnosed with Down syndrome are aborted.

That percentage is similar for children prenatally diagnosed with other conditions such as spina bifida, cystic fibrosis, and dwarfism.

Rep. Steve Brunk (R-Wichita) told the Federal & State Affairs committee of his daughter’s spina bifida condition, and the lack of resources which propelled him to create, and lead for ten years, the Spina Bifida Association group in Kansas.

So these are some of the “sweeping” provisions of Kansas pro-life legislation that are never deemed “newsworthy”.

Read Full Post »

Kansas Senate committees recommend 2 pro-life bills

SB 199 conferees, Dr. David Prentice & KFL lobbyist, Jeanne Gawdun

Kansas Senate committees today worked, and passed out favorably, two pro-life measures.

The Senate Judiciary committee passed SB 142 [Civil Rights for the Unborn] and the Senate Public Health and Welfare committee  passed SB 199, to establish the Midwest Stem Cell Therapy Center at the University of Kansas Medical Center (KUMC).

Support for SB 199 came from KFL, pointing out that in 2006, despite heavy lobbying to support unproductive and unethical embryonic research, the Kansas legislature made the correct decision to support adult stem cell research by

• enacting legislation to facilitate the recruitment of entities, and encourage strategic partnerships.

• budgeting $150,000 to fund a KU adult stem cell research project using umbilical cord blood.

Overall the Senate Public Health and Welfare committee heard support for the novel KU Center from a stem cell patient, four doctors /researchers and a representative of KU. In addition, Rockhurst University ethicist John Morris submitted testimony (read it here) explaining the alarming phenomenon of “stem cell tourism”, in which patients travel abroad to obtain unproven treatments from unqualified personnel.

SB 199 conferee Dr. David Prentice has noted, “the Kansas City metropolitan area has become one of the strategic centers in the nation for life sciences.” Umbilical cord blood research is already being done at KU, using a discovery made at K-State (“Wharton’s Jelly”) so there’s no reason to delay establishing a global center here for stem cell treatment, research, and education. (see past posts here and here)

The Senate Judiciary committee passed SB 142, which was part of the 2012 Pro-Life Protections Act passed 88-31 last year in the House. SB 142 would

• BAN any “wrongful birth/life” lawsuits claiming that the child, in essence, is a ‘damage’;
• BROADEN civil suits on behalf of wrongful death of an unborn child to be filed throughout gestation, not just after viability.

TAKE ACTION : Both SB 199 and SB 142 are expected to go to the Senate for votes quite quickly to meet the Friday deadline for action on bills originating in each chamber. To contact your senator about either bill, you may use the roster here.

Read Full Post »

Abortion lobby’s errors and deceit about KS pro-life bill

Testimony last Wednesday to the Kansas House Federal State Affairs committee from opponents of this year’s version of the Pro-Life Protections Act, HB 2253, showed they don’t know how to read a legislative bill.

Pro-abortion conferees so misunderstood which parts of the bill include existing statute that they were asking the committee not to pass provisions [the pre-abortion 24-hour waiting period, and definitions of medical emergency and bodily health] that already exist as state law!

Of course, the other explanation is that the abortion lobby doesn’t care about accuracy as long as the spin works. Some examples follow.

ABORTION SPIN: Up again for consideration in Kansas is “70 pages of anti-abortion regulations”.

FACT: In Kansas, bill drafts must include the entire statute that is relevant– even for just a one-word change. The lengthiness of HB 2253 is due to the necessary inclusion of the revenue tax code plus the  “Woman’s Right to Know” (WRTK) handbook, issued by KDHE (the state health department).

ABORTION SPIN: This bill “forces doctors to lie” and “contains a huge amount of medically inaccurate information that doctors should never have to repeat.”

FACT: HB 2253 does not mandate abortionists “tell” women anything, period. The abortionist is free to disagree with KDHE materials, even mock them—as one KCK clinic has done on its website for years. By law since 1997, the abortion-seeking woman signs a paper for her clinic file that she has ‘accessed” these materials 24 hours prior to the abortion. HB 2253, codifying the WRTK handbook, conforms to the ‘reasonable patient standard’ in law covering potential risks needed to be revealed. If breast cancer and pre-term birth risks are nonexistent, KDHE can say so under this bill.

ABORTION SPIN: “No credible evidence exists” linking abortion with future pre-term birth.

FACT: In 2006 the Institutes of Medicine listed induced abortion as an immutable cause of premature birth in its publication on prematurity. A 2009 analysis of international studies concluded prior induced abortion, especially repeat abortions, as associated with a significantly increased risk of low birth weight and preterm births. KDHE finds this persuasive.

ABORTION SPIN: This bill says “abortion causes breast cancer”.

FACT: HB 2253 does not say that! It requires that the WRTK handbook “shall also contain objective information… including risk of premature birth in future pregnancies, [and] risk of breast cancer.”  The information currently provided is one short paragraph on each topic, based on medical and scientific evidence. To read the pertinent section from the WRTK booklet go here.

ABORTION SPIN: “Claims linking abortion and breast cancer fly in the face of scientific evidence.”

FACT: That sentence was taken from the national ‘fact sheet’ issued by Planned Parenthood and submitted by their Kansas facility as defending their opposition to WRTK info. However, two paragraphs further on that ‘fact sheet’, the section on breast cancer reads:

“reproductive factors have been associated with risk for the disease since the seventeenth century…it is known that having a full-term pregnancy early in a woman’s childbearing years is protective against breast cancer.”

Now compare Planned Parenthood’s statement with the first 3 sentences in the WRTK booklet under breast cancer risk :

Your chances of getting breast cancer are affected by your pregnancy history. If you have carried a pregnancy to term as a young woman, you may be less likely to get breast cancer in the future. However, your risk is not reduced if your pregnancy is ended by an abortion.

Gee, sounds nearly identical; even the World Health Organization acknowledged over 50 years ago that the first, full-term birth gives women the “greatest lifetime protection” against breast cancer. When a woman is pregnant, it is her unborn child who sends the chemical signal (after the 32^nd week) to the mother’s breast cells to “mature” and become milk-producing. This breast cell maturation brings resistance to cancer-causing agents.

Thus, if an already-pregnant woman deserves all relevant information, the fact that delivering this child will enhance her breast cancer protection and abortion will decrease it, is relevant. And the fact that abortion raises future pre-term birth risk is also relevant. The KDHE is on solid ground, as is the Pro-Life Protections Act. (read more here)

Abortion opponents are intentionally promoting deceit.

Read Full Post »

Action on KS sex selection abortion ban & pro-life bills

SB 141, banning sex-selection abortions, was passed favorably out of the Senate Public Health & Welfare committee on Thursday. Only Sen. David Haley (D-Kansas City) voted in opposition and wanted his vote recorded.  Testimony came from: Concerned Women for America, Kansas Catholic Conference, physician Patrick Herrick, KFL, and international population expert, Steven Mosher, who also was the special guest at the annual KFL Valentine’s Week banquets in Wichita and Shawnee. Action in the full Senate has not yet been scheduled.

On Wednesday, Kansans for Life testified in support of HB 2182, a measure reforming certain protocols for citizen-petitioned grand juries. The Founding Fathers recognized such juries as an important “Government Watchdog” tool and Kansas is one of only six states which still allow such juries. Kansas Pro-lifers and anti-pornography advocates have repeatedly tried to use this tool– only to see the issues manipulated by certain district attorney offices and die without indictments or prosecution. The reforms proposed include allowing the petitioner to address the jury BEFORE any district attorney gets involved, and to suggest names of appropriate special prosecutors. HB 2182 will be discussed and voted upon Monday or Tuesday in the House Judiciary committee.

SB 142, Civil Rights for the Unborn, will get a hearing in the Senate Judiciary committee Monday, Feb. 18.  The measure is based on language taken from the 2012 version of the Pro-life Protections Act, which passed the Kansas House 88-31.  SB 142 will:

• ALLOW civil suits on behalf of wrongful death of an unborn child throughout gestation, not just after “viability” (Kansas already allows criminal prosecution for injury or death to the unborn during crimes committed against the mother); and
• BAN any “wrongful birth” type lawsuits claiming damages for a disabled child that “would have been aborted” but for some action or information of another (these lawsuits in other states have typically claimed insufficient prenatal tests were performed, or that they were  incorrectly performed).

The House Federal State Affairs committee will hear testimony Wednesday, Feb. 20, about HB 2253, this year’s Pro-Life Protections Act. It differs from the 2012 version (that was not allowed action in the Senate) in a few ways: two provisions have been removed and made into stand-alone bills (SB 141 and SB 142) and the language of last years “Life Begins at Conception Act” has been added. The bill:

• Removes state funding for abortion and tax advantages for abortionists; and
• Places KDHE informed consent materials for abortion into statute.

The exciting proposal discussed here to create an adult stem cell center at the University of Kansas Medical Center now has a bill number, SB 199. The bill hearing in the Senate Public Health and Welfare is set for next Friday, Feb.22.

No House action is yet scheduled on Judicial Selection reform, HCR 5002, or similar companion measures already passed by the Senate, SCR 1601 and SB 8.

Read Full Post »

Kansas hears expert testify for sex-selection abortion ban

Gov. Brownback greets Mosher

The Kansas Senate Health Committee held a hearing Monday on Senate Bill 141, an act to save our littlest children from violent gender discrimination through sex-selection abortion. A 2006 Zogby International Poll, surveying over thirty thousand, showed 86% public support for enacting such a ban.

The lead off testimony came from Steven Mosher, President of the Population Research Institute and an internationally recognized authority on demographics and sex-selection abortion.

“What we are concerned with here is more than job or pay discrimination,” said Mosher, “this is discrimination that kills.”

Sex selection is generally banned in Europe, he noted, but the bans on such abortions in India and China have not been as effective as they could be in the U. S. When asked about how the actual numbers here can be ascertained, Mosher responded that the law is a great teacher and even if reports are anecdotal, just one death is too much.

Kansans for Life’s testimony cited a history of journal articles and studies that show sex selection abortion was a concern within 2 years of Roe v. Wade.  We testified that the issue of “choosing” gender is aggravated by the growth in ‘noninvasive’ prenatal testing (using sampling of the mother’s blood or urine) that are directly marketed to parents.

Also noted to the committee was the 2008 National Academy of Science report analyzing “son preference” that found “evidence of sex selection, most likely at the prenatal stage” and likely to be “more widely practiced in the near future.”  An undercover video “sting” showing alleged sex-selection abortion being abetted at an abortion clinic was shown to the committee. (see Undercover videos)

No conferees spoke against the bill, although N.O.W. lobbyists were in the audience.The abortion lobby says “they are focused on other measures,” but the truth is they really are stuck messaging this issue.  Abortion labeled as gender discrimination undermines their argument that the so-called “reproductive rights” movement exists to prevent discrimination against women.

The language of SB 141 was part of the Pro-Life Protections Act of 2012 which passed the House 88-31, but died in the Senate.  This year, as a stand alone bill, it has 21 Senate co-sponsors.

Read Full Post »

Gallup poll’s “most, but not all” abortion category nonexistent

Tuesday’s Gallup poll results from May 3–6, show that 50% of citizens label themselves as “pro-life,” as compared with a new low of 41% calling themselves “pro-choice.” (see NRLC analysis here) Other Gallup questions attempt to further characterize abortion positions:

• 20% of Americans said abortion should be “illegal in all circumstances,”
• 39% said that it should be “legal only in a few circumstances,”
• 13% said it should be “legal under most circumstances,” and
• 25% said it should be “legal under all circumstances.”

However, the polling questions don’t specify which abortions are not supported by the 13% who want to be distinguished from the group of 25% accepting all abortions.

Other than representing a convenient construct on the pollsters’ continuum, we see no evidence of such a sector of opinion supporting “most, but not all” abortions. Certainly, the Kansas mainstream media does not belong to this group, as they never recommend even qualified support for any abortion-restricting provision. 

Supporters of “most, but not all” abortions never show up to testify about abortion-restricting measures at the Statehouse!  We only hear from the all-abortion crowd, and they oppose every abortion restriction.

As an example, after an eight-year federal battle

Read Full Post »

Kansas House passes Pro-life Protections Act

The Pro-Life Protections Act, House sub 313, passed the Kansas House 88-31 today on final action.  The bill would:

• end tax advantages for businesses that perform abortion,
• stop tax-funding for abortion including abortion training at KU Med school,
• ban sex-selection abortion,
• uphold the civil rights of the unborn throughout gestation to match their protection in criminal law,
• protect the rights of parents to accurate medical information about childbirth.

Kansans for Life executive director, Mary Kay Culp, commented, “This common sense bill simply insures women have access to medical information compiled by Kansas health department professionals, protects human dignity in civil law, prevents Kansas taxpayers from subsidizing abortion, and poses zero threat to medical school accreditation.

Abortion supporters have relied on the Huffington Post and other liberal outlets to spread falsehoods about the bill, and have launched several internet campaigns to shut down the webpages of our governor. The  ACLU has promoted Google ads for months (pictured), falsely telling the nation that, under this proposed pro-life law, Kansas will

Read Full Post »