Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Votes in both chambers are imminent for the Disclose Act– an update of the 1997 Kansas “Woman’s Right to Know Act.”

The Disclose Act addresses the reality that 65% of Kansas abortions are “first-time” events, with the great majority of women knowing NOTHING about the procedure or the abortionist—much less his/her training, skill, or access to hospital facilities for a mishap.

Women are unaware of the following situations in Kansas:

  1. One clinic has had 100% turnover of their abortionist staff in 3 years; their current Kansas-resident practitioner agreed not to practice ob/gyn, under a State Board of Healing Arts disciplinary action.
  2. One clinic has recently hired a 76-year-old neurologist without ob/gyn formal training to do abortions.
  3. One clinic requires an overnight hotel visit for “2-day abortion procedures” and falsely labels the stay as “required under Kansas law.”

Kansans for Life has been told that, notwithstanding the state Board of Healing Arts’ “appreciating” our concerns for women, they will take no action for the above situations.

Yet abortion attorney Bob Eye told House and Senate committees this year that the Board insures abortionists meet rigorous standards and women therefore need not be told any professional data about them!

ABORTIONS ARRANGED ONLINE
All Kansas abortion businesses have individualized “informed consent” documents required to be downloaded 24 hours prior to the woman’s trip to the abortion clinic. The great majority of women obtaining Kansas abortions will be in the facility only on the day of the abortion, and nearly half of them are residents of another state.

The current abortion online consent documents fail to fully meet what the legislature has decreed for informed consent; instead, the clinics are:

  • using various formatting and fonts to downplay important state-required information and
  • undermining the requirement that each woman is giving consent to ONE specific practitioner –not a list of possibles.

KFL’s priority, the Disclose Act , (now renumbered as S sub SB 83) will help remedy these deficiencies; abortion business compliance will merely require a few minutes of one-time data entry. (see post here)

The Disclose Act will require

  1. the Kansas informed consent provisions be printed out in 12pt. black ink, Times Roman font, which is nationally recognized for readability, and
  2. seven “bullet points” of information be given for each listed abortionist.

Kansas “Voices for Choice” current abortion lobbying materials characterize the Disclose Act as “intended to undermine the confidence” in the abortionists whom the women can “get to know…when they meet with him/her 30 minutes before the abortion.”

Are they serious? (Pause for eye-rolling.)

Women contemplating elective abortion assume that Kansas regulators protect them from disqualified and/or untrained abortionists. Since that isn’t the case, women deserve passage of the Disclose Act.

On Thursday afternoon, the Disclose Act became part of a “conference committee report” process headed for votes in both chambers over the next few days.

ACTION ITEM: Contact your State Rep and Senator TODAY to urge passage of the Disclose Act, S sub SB 83. (Use this link if you don’t remember who your legislators are.)

Baby Charlie Gard: parents fight vs. life-support removal

Today, it was confirmed in the British press that the U.K. Court of Appeal will review on May 23, the case of Charlie Gard– a nine-months-old baby ordered off life support by the High Court last month.

Baby Charlie has been in a London hospital since October, when it was detected he had mitochondrial depletion syndrome, a rare and grave chromosomal condition that weakens his muscles. No successful cure is yet available, but he is eligible to receive an innovative treatment in the U.S. called nucleoside bypass therapy.

London’s Great Ormond Street Hospital, however, won’t allow Charlie’s parents, Connie Yates and Chris Gard, to remove him for the trip overseas– even after more than $1.5 million has been raised with a GoFundMe campaign, to cover medical expenses and travel.

The April 11 court decision by Justice Nicholas Francis backed the position of the hospital “bosses” (as the Brits term the hospital bureaucracy) that Charlie’s ventilator be shut off, and he be allowed to “die with dignity.”

But the modern definition of dignity is too often infected with subjective “quality of life” assessments and rationed care considerations.

The attorney for Charlie’s appeal is Charles Da Silva, and the granting of this appellate review reflects a legal analysis that the parents can possibly prevail.

Connie and Chris are desperate that their parental rights be upheld. They are not claiming the therapy will cure Charlie, but that it has shown some success and Charlie’s participation will aid the research. The parents have stated:

“If there is no improvement we will let him go. We just want to give him a chance. Charlie is still strong and stable. He is growing more beautiful by the day.”

The huge outpouring of support from the public is quite touching, including candlelight vigils, and letters storming Parliament as registered on social media at #charlie’s fight and www.charliesfight.org.

The public believes Charlie’s parents should be in charge of their son… will the Court of Appeal see it that way?

scientifically human

There is nothing newsworthy in today’s press release from the Guttmacher Institute (the former research arm of Planned Parenthood) asserting that pro-life laws in Kansas are not “science-based.”

Abortion promoters are trying to steer the public away from the absolutely irrefutable scientific fact that each abortion destroys a tiny unborn living member of the human family. That’s the science that matters—and it is demonstrated in every sonogram.

KFL Executive Director Mary Kay Culp commented,

the one truly irrefutable scientific fact in the abortion debate is the humanity of the unborn child; if they come up with a scientific report proving that wrong, we’re all ears.”

As they have regularly done in the past, Guttmacher misstates Kansas law. Kansans for Life has repeatedly reported errors, with documentation, to no avail.

In the state comparison chart, Guttmacher asserts that only two Kansas “provider” provisions are being litigated. However, all four “provider” provisions are part of the 2011 Abortion Clinic Licensure Act, enjoined and not in effect due to litigation stalled in the court of Judge Franklin Theis since June of 2011.

The PR problem the abortion industry faces is the increased pro-life convictions of the voting public, which has strongly elected pro-life legislators, the majority of all sitting governors and the new Trump administration.

Kansans have overwhelmingly supported the laws Kansas has passed. We cringe at our past history as the late-term abortion capital of the nation. It would be a travesty for the Kansas State Supreme Court to believe otherwise as they prepare to issue a ruling on whether our pre-Civil War Constitution contains a right to abortion broader than that created by Roe to Wade.

Charlie Gard, who suffers from a rare, life-limiting chromosomal condition that weakens his muscles, will turn 9 months on Thursday, in the Great Ormond Street Hospital (GOSH) of London.

But the raging battle over treatment options–and whether the government hospital service has sole medical authority over those decisions–is far from over even though a High Court ruling last month defends death for Charlie.

His parents, Connie Yates and Chris Gard, are devastated that their decision-making rights over Charlie’s care have been crushed. They met today’s deadline to file a legal complaint to prevent Charlie from being taken off life-support. According to Britain’s The Sun, a new legal team has been hired and made the required application.

No time line for court acceptance of the appeal has been announced.

Chris and Connie have been constantly at Chris’s bedside at GOSH since October. They are currently being prevented from taking him to the United States for an innovative treatment called nucleoside bypass therapy. The treatment has not yet been published, according to Connie, but has shown success. It involves administering natural compounds to remedy the mitochondrial depletion syndrome Charlie suffers.

Many thousands of well-wishers on social media have encouraged his parents, and pledged over $1.3 million pounds (roughly $1.7 million dollars) to Charlie’s GoFundMe account to cover expenses for the overseas trip.

precious Charlie

Yet on April 11, the U.K. High Court ruled against the parents, holding that GOSH could keep Charlie, shut off his ventilator, and allow the baby to “die with dignity” on the grounds that the proposed U.S. treatment could not “cure” him.

FUTILITY JUDGMENTS
The idea that any court can deny parents the right to remove their son from a hospital seems absurd and unjustifiable. But it’s a logical outgrowth of the reality of rationed care— particularly in Britain with the National Health Service– coupled with changes in medical ethics.

It is sadly no longer the assumption that medical facilities feel bound to sustain a patient’s life. Instead, doctors can delegate treatment as not to be administered because it will

  • not cure the underlying disease; and /or
  • not produce an “acceptable” quality of life.

Such care is alternatively called “non-beneficial,” “medically inappropriate,” or “futile.” A new law in Kansas, Simon’s Law, requires hospitals to disclose any futility policies upon request.

When the medical elite deem that certain patients should be denied medical care, those who object are considered as throwing a “monkey wrench” in the system. Charlie’s parents’ attorney found an email from a doctor at GOSH who called the parents a ‘spanner in the works’ due to their exploration of all medical options available internationally.

GOSH asserts that further treatment would unnecessarily “prolong” Charlie’s suffering. In an interview on British ITV, Connie said:

“If there is no improvement we will let him go. We just want to give him a chance. Charlie is still strong and stable. He is growing more beautiful by the day.”

Appeal judges will be considering whether Charlie’s parents have a reasonable chance of success before allowing a full appeal hearing to be held. The Mail reported the couple’s new attorneys may be looking at using human rights laws to defend their case.

“Before he was hired, the couple’s new lawyer, Charles da Silva, wrote on his firm’s Facebook page that the High Court ruling highlights that not only doctors but judges can get it wrong too,” the Daily Mail reported.

The world’s parents are watching. Stay tuned.

Charlie Gard with parents

Days after Kansas achieved a landmark law for parents’ decision-making authority governing hospitalized children, another baby and his parents are losing their fight with a London hospital to bring their ailing son to the U.S. for treatment.

On April 7, Kansas’ Gov. Sam Brownback signed “Simon’s Law,” to insure parents can reject hospital DNR (do not resuscitate) orders for their children. The law was instigated by the parents of Simon Crosier– an infant denied the right to live by a hospital DNR — based on bias against Simon’s life-limiting condition, Trisomy 18.

Simon Crosier

During consideration of the bill, and despite documented evidence to the contrary, there were plenty of denials that hospitals would ever overcall parents’ wishes on treatment to preserve life.

Yet consider this currently-unfolding tragic scenario as reported by the BBC and other UK media.

Connie Yates and Chris Gard’s eight-months-old son, Charlie, has been in Great Ormond Street Hospital (GOSH) hospital since October for treatment of a rare condition that causes progressive muscle weakness. Charlie is believed to be one of only 16 known babies ever to have had this mitochondrial-depletion disease.

As reported by the BBC April 3, there was “no evidence that he is in pain on a regular basis.”

Charlie’s parents have now raised over 1.3 million pounds through a “GoFund Me” campaign to be able to bring Charlie to the U.S. for pioneering treatment called nucleoside therapy.

Ms. Yates said, “the support and phenomenal kindness of countless people has been a source of strength.”

“We just want to have our chance. It would never be a cure but it could help him live. If it saves him, amazing. I want to save others. Even if Charlie doesn’t make it through this, I don’t ever want another mum and their child to go through this.”

But the London hospital won’t let them remove Charlie, concluding there is no “accepted cure.”

The parents took legal action but the High Court sided with the hospital on April 11. The BBC headline was dire, “Doctors can withdraw life support from a sick baby with a rare genetic condition against his parents’ wishes.”

The language used to officially overcall the rights of parents uses now-all-too-familiar terms.

  • The GOSH attorney argued that “world-renowned” experts agreed the child should not be given long-term life support as his “quality of life” is “so poor.”
  • UK doctors have insisted there is no “accepted cure” and Charlie should be allowed to “die with dignity.”
  • The attorney appointed to represent Charlie, said proposed treatment in the U.S. was “purely experimental” and continuing his life support would only “prolong the process of dying”.

Justice Francis

High Court Justice Nicholas Francis of the Family division made the fateful ruling that Charlie be moved from life-support to a palliative care regime and be allowed to “die with dignity.” And even after Justice Francis admitted that experimentation might benefit medical science, he asserted it could not “benefit” Charlie.

Justice Francis had seen Charlie at GOSH, and said it has been his “sad duty” to apply the law relating to disagreements between parents and hospitals. He expressed his “complete conviction” that it was in the “best interests” of the child to let him “slip away.”

But this was no mere settlement about what GOSH could or should provide.

This is an imprimatur on whether a child with a life-limiting condition, once admitted to a hospital, can leave!

On Tuesday, April 25, in the House of Commons, MP Ruth Cadbury spoke up for the plight of her constituents, Charlie’s parents. She urged the justice secretary to use “any powers to intervene…to do the right thing.”

MP Cadbury

The plea was immediately rejected.

Charlie’s parents, Chris and Connie, “are devastated” by the decision, and have until Tuesday, May 2, to file an appeal, said their attorney, Laura Hobey-Hamsher.  “They are struggling to understand why the court has not at least given Charlie the chance of treatment in America.”

The neurologist who would oversee the experimental treatment had testified to the court that while Charlie was in the “terminal stage” of his illness, treating him would be compassionate.

That notwithstanding, the hospital refuses to discharge Charlie and the High Court has decreed Charlie move to “a palliative regime.”

Tragically, British hospitals and government have ruled that Charlie Gard must die.

The Kansas Department of Health & Environment (KDHE) today reported a 2.4% drop in total Kansas abortions for 2016, compared to 2015. 6,810 abortions were registered with KDHE last year (including 20 obtained by Kansas women in other states), a drop from 6,974 abortions in 2015.

There were two three encouraging stats:

  • fewer Kansas abortions were obtained by girls under age 16 (46 in 2016, 55 in 2015);
  • the category of ‘filings of physical, mental or emotional abuse or neglect’ decreased to 4%, down from 6% in 2015;
  • a steady decline in repeat abortions; 65% of the total were a first-time abortion, as opposed to 60%, ten years ago.

Some disturbing trends, however, continue:

  • a 9.7% rise in gruesome, dismemberment method abortions, from 629 in 2015 up to 690 in 2016.
  • an 8.7% jump in abortion by pills from 44.3% (3,092) in 2015 to 53% (3, 617) in 2016.
  • 7% increase –from 720 to 770 abortions in Sedgwick County (home of Wichita with two abortion businesses)– after a drop from 834 abortions in 2014.

Otherwise, rates of abortions, including age, marital status, and racial groupings, stayed basically the same.

The 2016 total consisted of 6,790 abortions obtained in Kansas (3,381 to non-residents and 3,409 to Kansans) and an additional 20 abortions Kansas women obtained outside the state, including one at 22 weeks or greater gestation. That is the age abortions are banned in Kansas, as that is the age at which the pain-capability of unborn children is scientifically recognized.

stop dismembering posterDISMEMBERMENT ABORTIONS
It is very discouraging to see an increase in dismemberment abortions of unborn children in Kansas despite state and national pro-life education detailing this horrible procedure. This in no small part may be attributed to the dismemberment method being labeled by clinics on their websites merely as “D&E” with the sanitized description as “removing the pregnancy.”

According to KDHE statistics for last year, 690 abortions were listed under the category of “D&E” method, 61 more than last year.

That means that 690 well-developed unborn girls and boys were hacked apart while still alive, and bled to death in Kansas abortion clinics.

Kansas in 2015 outlawed –by specific definition– the dismembering of still-living unborn children, but that ban is under a temporary injunction and thus not in effect. The Kansas Supreme Court is now considering whether to uphold that injunction under a legal claim that the state constitution contains a broad right to abortion that protects such barbarity.

Kansas has four locations for abortions, two in Overland Park and two in Wichita. Eight abortionists (five over age 74) are listed as on staff for all locations, without one bit of professional information about them on the consent form. Read details here.

Kansans for Life reminds pro-lifers to encourage their state Senators to pass the Disclose Act, requiring basic professional data be printed on online consent forms. Read more about the measure here and see the video here.

The House has already passed the Disclose Act. The legislature returns from spring break on May 1. The Senate contact information is here. Unsure who your state senator is?  Find out here.

Ron Estes wins 4th district seat

Kansans for Life congratulates the fourth district for electing pro-life State Treasurer, Ron Estes, to replace outgoing Congressman Mike Pompeo, who is now director of the CIA. UPDATE, Mar.18: KFL congratulates Sen. Jacob LaTurner (R-Pittsburgh), whom Gov. Brownback has appointed as the new state Treasurer.

Estes defeated pro-abortion attorney James Thompson, who was strongly supported by pro-abortion organizations such as Planned Parenthood, 53% to 46%. Libertarian Chris Rockhold received 1%.

Pro-life Kansans clearly provided the margin of victory for Estes, maintaining an all pro-life representation for Kansas in the U.S. House and Senate.

Preliminary results from the Kansas Secretary of State’s office show Estes taking every county except Sedgwick (where the city of Wichita is located) which he lost by about 1,800 votes to Thompson.

The Kansas seat was the nation’s first special election since President Trump’s election. There are more to come, primarily because President Trump selected a number of sitting Republican office holders to be part of his administration. Thompson said he will run again in 2018.

“Ron reflects genuine Kansas values,” KFL Executive Director, Mary Kay Culp, said. “It was not widely known until very late how extreme Mr. Thompson was in his abortion position and when it did become known, he tried to pretend he held different views from those he had clearly stated.”

Thompson’s position was to “repeal all infringement on women’s right to choose abortion, including [the] Hyde amendment,” as tweeted by Wichita Eagle reporter Dion Lefler. The Hyde Amendment is credited with saving two million lives.

Repealing all ‘infringement on abortion’ is the radical position welcomed by Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion business, which endorsed Thompson.

At a March 23 forum, as reported by the Associated Press, Estes promised he’d “defund Planned Parenthood,” mentioning “the ‘disgusting’ videos [that] he says show the group was selling baby parts.” (Kansas had first-hand experience with this baby parts scandal, as documented by ABC news in March 2000, see pg. 3, here.)

Thompson, by contrast, claimed the video expose was “fake news” and that “Planned Parenthood has done a lot of good.”

Kansans know which position is true, and voted that way.