Auditioners read ECHO scripts

Auditioners read ECHO radio scripts

Movie animators take great care to find just the right voices to “match” their painstakingly-drawn characters. Kansans for Life similarly took great care to cast just the right voice for our new radio spots in which an unborn child “talks” about life in the womb.

This summer, numerous delightful girls and boys, age 6-10, came to our Wichita office to audition to be the voice of “ECHO, an unborn child.” The kids had a good time, although reading and rereading a “script” with emphasis, clarity, and the right lilt in the voice was probably a bit harder than they anticipated.

Our new one-minute radio segments featuring “ECHO, the unborn child” began appearing yesterday across the state on many secular and Christian stations. We are getting many compliments on the approach and pray that thousands of listeners will think about the marvels of an unborn child in a fresh way. Here’s an excerpt:

“Hello, it’s me, “Echo”… your favorite little friend coming to you from inside my mother’s womb. She calls it a “womb,” but it’s more like my room, complete with my very own hot tub. Most of the time in here, I’m just kicking back… literally. I’m trying to outmaneuver the sonogram paparazzi. That’s why I call myself ECHO– Sonograms! Imagine… a bunch of giants trying to get a look at your private parts, just so they’ll know whether to buy pink baby clothes or blue ones…”

The concept of hearing an endearing “voice from the womb” in the middle of your regular radio broadcast is the brainchild of David Gittrich, Kansans for Life State Development Director.


David Gittrich

David became involved in the pro-life movement 36 years ago after his friend dragged him to see the film, “Assignment: Life.” At that time, sonograms were just beginning to be available, and the images were pretty grainy. In the film, the late Dr. Jack Willke describes the baby developing in the womb, shows beautiful pictures of the unborn child and then challenges the audience, “Who would want to kill a baby you can see?”

That line made a lasting impression on David. He has a deep commitment to reminding Kansans that the most precious natural resource that we need to protect is our unborn children. One of his aims in this project is to personalize the child in the womb to the casual radio listener, without any reference to abortion.

Although 4-D ultrasounds are now ubiquitous, the ECHO project allows the radio audience to “see” in a new way—by listening to the baby’s voice– the marvelous developments and abilities of the child in the womb.

This is one more way we can build a society in which abortion is unthinkable.

Read details about the ECHO project here.

Julie Burkhart

Julie Burkhart

Oklahoma– Kansas grieves with you on the sad occasion of last week’s opening of the South Wind Women’s Center in Oklahoma City (SWWC-OC), run by Kansas abortion entrepreneur, Julie Burkhart.

We grieve that more innocent, unborn babies will be brutally destroyed while an exuberant press regurgitates Burkhart’s inane “Trust Women” propaganda, written by their new press agent– a former long-time reporter for the McClatchy-published Wichita Eagle—such as:

  • metro areas without abortion clinics are “underserved communities;”
  • Burkhart’s businesses “provide high-quality health care,” and
  • the public believes her clinic “is going to serve the community well.”

The new clinic will perform abortions up to 21.6 weeks. Burkhart has been predicting for months that it will do “1,500 abortions in the first year, increasing to as many as 3,000 per year after a few years.“

Trust Women Foundation boasted last Monday that it received a $100,000.00 grant from the Unitarian Universalist Congregation at Shelter Rock in New York to open more clinics in “underserved communities.” Notwithstanding, apparently, when residents don’t want them opened.

Oklahoma citizens didn’t want another abortion shop. Pro-life prayer vigils are already being held outside SWWC-OC.

In fact, Oklahomans wanted, and achieved, a state ban on dismemberment abortions, although—as in Kansas– the law is being litigated and not yet in effect.

Thus, tragically, many more hundreds of well-developed, fully-formed babies will soon die in excruciating pain when Burkhart’s practitioners use sharp-toothed metal tools to tear them apart, limb from limb, using the gruesome dismemberment method. dismemberment-brochure-art

And to add insult to the barbaric process, Burkhart charges up to $2,000.00 for each dismemberment abortion.

Burkhart says six practitioners will staff SWWC-OC. One is already notorious–  Colleen McNicholas, a traveling ob/gyn employed by Planned Parenthood in St. Louis, Missouri, as well as by Burkhart in Wichita, Kansas.

A fawning May article in Marie Claire began with this chilling data: “By the end of her eight-hour workday, [McNicholas] will have terminated 31 pregnancies.”

Although likely penned by the author to portray McNicholas positively, that sentence betrays the hardened reality of Burkhart’s business:

each hour, four beautiful unborn children will undeservingly suffer grisly deaths. Each hour, Burkhart will reap thousands of dollars in profit.

That’s not health care at all. Nor is it serving the community.

And that is why we grieve.

pp-bkgd-obamaThe Obama administration is slapping down every state that has acted on the idea that the federal Title X reproductive healthcare program was NOT created to bankroll Planned Parenthood.

A proposed new Health & Human Services(HHS) rule announced last week would nullify state eligibility thresholds (such as Kansas has) that prioritizes Title X grants to full-service medical facilities.

Created in 1970 to help the indigent and uninsured, Title X is federally-dispersed money designed to assist low income-qualifying women for non-abortion reproductive health services, including contraceptives and health screenings. In Kansas, Title X is distributed by the Kansas Department of Health & Environment (KDHE).

It is good stewardship for the state to allocate financial support to full-service public clinics and hospitals to provide the poor with the full range of well-woman care (not just gynecological services, but nutritional, cardio, mental health, etc.) as well as pediatric and geriatric care for women and men.

Beginning in 2007, Kansas legislators did just that. They annually passed the Huelskamp-Kinzer proviso, directing KDHE to prioritize Title X reproductive health care grants to full-service public clinics and hospitals.

Planned Parenthood cannot meet that criteria. It only offers a narrow range of exams and screenings and cannot provide mammograms, chest X-rays, and other essential medical evaluations.

The Huelskamp-Kinzer proviso was repeatedly vetoed by pro-abortion Kansas governors Sebelius and Parkinson until Gov. Sam Brownback’s first year in office, 2011, when it was approved. Planned Parenthood immediately sued.

A district court judge blocked the Huelskamp-Kinzer proviso and forced KDHE to continue to pay Planned Parenthood and another clinic roughly one million dollars during litigation. At the time of the ruling, Dr. Robert Moser, who was KDHE head in 2011, said

 “Title X was not intended to be an entitlement program for Planned Parenthood. Other providers are already offering a fuller spectrum of health care   for Kansas patients. This highly unusual ruling implies a private organization has a right to taxpayer subsidy. The people of Kansas disagree.” 

However, after Planned Parenthood lost its legal appeal in the Tenth Circuit  Court of Appeals, the Huelskamp-Kinzer proviso went into effect in mid-2014. (It was made a permanent law this spring.) The ruling held:

  1. that Planned Parenthood’s claim of a First Amendment violation lacked merit, and
  2. that Kansas could select mainstream, full-service health care providers as preferred grantees.

If the aim of Title X is truly to help the uninsured and indigent get disease screenings and full reproductive health care, Kansas’ priority of one-stop access at local comprehensive-care medical centers is the right model.

The new HHS proposal eliminates state authority. It should be opposed as an unabashed power play to send our tax-funded Title X money to the nation’s largest abortion business.

HHS is open to public input on the proposal through Oct. 7. Sign the KFL petition  to HHS today.


mother-teresa-babyAs the world watches Hillary Clinton clawing for the title of president, urging limitless abortion with full tax-funding, they will also see Mother Teresa being canonized Sunday. The comparison could not be more striking.

Hillary has spent her entire life chasing political power at the expense of the unborn; Mother Teresa gave her entire life in selfless service of the poor and vulnerable. Breitbart news reports:

“As Pope Francis canonizes Mother Teresa, we will also be reminded that the most vulnerable among us are the voiceless unborn children who can be legally eliminated at any moment, whom Mother Teresa fought valiantly to defend and whom Hillary is committed to forgetting.”

22 years ago, Mother Teresa spoke passionately against abortion in her address to 3,000 guests at the Feb. National Prayer Breakfast. Afterwards, the applause and a standing ovation lasted  nearly six minutes, with one conspicuous exception:  at the head table, a few feet away from Mother Teresa, President Bill and Hillary Clinton and Vice-President Al and Tipper Gore, sat in stony silence, neither clapping, nor standing.

Mother Teresa had not pressed for the politically correct call for more government involvement in fighting poverty. She spoke pointedly about the unborn child as truly the poorest of the poor, and deserving of our protection from abortion.

In contrast,

  • One year earlier, Hillary had urged her husband Bill on the very first day of his presidency to sign five executive orders authorizing federal funding for abortion, galvanizing the U.S. government’s sordid partnership with Planned Parenthood.
  • Seven months after the Prayer Breakfast, Hillary sent a virulent pro-abortion delegation to work against Mother Teresa at the Cairo Conference on Population and Development, attempting to coerce the world into accepting abortion as a basic human right.
  • This past January, America’s largest abortion provider, Planned Parenthood, endorsed Hillary for President with an unprecedented $20 million donation.

Mother Teresa’s entire 1994 speech  (transcript here) is inspiring, but here are the most pertinent abortion sentiments:

“I feel that the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a war against the child, a direct killing of the innocent child, murder by the mother herself. And if we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another?

By abortion, the mother does not learn to love, but kills even her own child to solve her problems. And, by abortion, the father is told that he does not have to take any responsibility at all for the child he has brought into the world. That father is likely to put other women into the same trouble. So abortion just leads to more abortion.

Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching its people to love, but to use any violence to get what they want. This is why the greatest destroyer of love and peace is abortion.

But what does God say to us? He says: “Even if a mother could forget her child, I will not forget you. I have carved you in the palm of my hand.” We are carved in the palm of His hand; that unborn child has been carved in the hand of God from conception and is called by God to love and to be loved, not only now in this life, but forever. God can never forget us.”

mad scientist warningIn a disturbing but not unpredicted development, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) last Thursday announced its support for expanded tax-funding of experiments in which human genetic material is combined with animals.

NIH will take public comment on the matter until Sept. 4 but—sadly– the agency has never changed directions based on negative public input.

For decades, researchers have engaged in ethically-noncontroversial mixing of human and animal cells such as growing human cancer tumors in mice to study disease processes and evaluate treatment strategies.  Also ethically-noncontroversial are therapies that utilize animal tissue, for example, using a pig’s heart valve for human heart repair, or other use of mammalian tissue in humans.

Stem cell research, however, is fundamentally different. “Pluripotent” stem cells can turn into any cell in the body, and when injected into animal embryos (as the new NIH proposals would allow) scientists don’t know what kind of new species will result. (See KFL post on hybrid creation controversy.)

UC-Davis stem cell researcher Paul Knoepfler, told the New York Times,

we lack an understanding of at what point humanization of an animal brain could lead to more humanlike thought or consciousness.”

David Prentice, board member of the Midwest Stem Cell Therapy Center in Kansas raised concerns about the results of injecting stem cells into animal embryos:

 “[N]ew forms of life—human-animal hybrids—could then be in view, or even the development of an animal with a largely human or fully human brain. NIH’s answer to objections like these seems to be to preclude such animals from breeding (this would likely not be 100 percent effective—just ask anyone who has run an animal facility)…If human-animal chimeras are allowed to be intentionally created for research, the door is also open to reproductive experiments, creating part-human organisms or designer animals to, say, carry out dangerous or degrading tasks human beings do not want to perform. Or donate organs these creations sacrifice for their human betters.”pigmanface

Research into creating animal–human hybrids is ongoing with private funding. Last September, NIH looked around at what was developing there and issued a moratorium on government funding of such projects. But after holding a November 2015 workshop, apparently all questions of acting responsibly have been abandoned and NIH is ready to plunge into this ‘brave new world’ of interspecies experiments.

Bioethics author Wesley J. Smith is not optimistic  about these developments:

“If we had a science sector that believed in the intrinsic dignity of human life, we could explore these potentially beneficent avenues of biotechnology with little concern that scientists would begin to blur vital distinctions or cross crucial ethical lines dividing human beings from fauna. Alas, we don’t live in that milieu and we can’t trust our regulatory bodies–which can be more controlled by the sectors they are supposed to regulate than the other way around–to maintain strict boundaries.”

Beyond the moral quagmire of mixing species, this kind of experimentation would destroy many human embryos. Read our KFL fact sheet about animal-human hybrids (also called chimeras), which includes reasons why pro-lifers should be opposed:

  1. The research on these procedures would destroy many human embryos. No matter what we might learn from watching cells grow in the conditions created by a chimera, the fact remains that researchers would be killing human embryos to get their cells.
  2. If the purposeful creation of human-animal chimeras is allowed for research purposes, it opens the door to abuse of the technique for reproduction, as well as creation of part-human organisms as bizarre designer humans or animals.
  3. It could produce an animal that produces human sperm or eggs.
  4. It could produce an animal with a human brain.

NIH should be halting these ethically-unmoored manipulations of the human-animal boundary. Instead, this agency is moving to sanction them and promote them with our tax dollars.

God help us.

elections matterTurnout in the Kansas primaries was extremely low and the results rested heavily on economic issues, as AP writer John Hanna reported:

“The voting occurred against the backdrop not only of the state’s fiscal woes but ongoing legal and political disputes over funding for public schools. Kansas has struggled to balance its budget since the GOP-dominated Legislature slashed personal income taxes in 2012 and 2013 at Brownback’s urging to stimulate the economy.”

U.S. Senator Jerry Moran won his primary with 79% support, and Congressman Kevin Yoder won his 3rd District primary with 64%. Both have a 100% pro-life voting record.

Huelskamp loss for pro-lifers

KFL mourns Huelskamp primary  loss

However, embattled conservative and pro-life champion, Congressman Tim Huelskamp, lost in a fierce primary that saw multi-million dollars’ worth of ads from non-Kansas special interest groups. Challenger Roger Marshall, an Ob-Gyn doctor who describes himself as pro-life, won the GOP 1st district spot with 57% of the vote.

At the statehouse, KFL-endorsed candidates stacked up 18 wins in the House and 6 in the Senate, with 17 losses in the House and 10 in the Senate. However– and notably–in some races, the winners who had not earned KFL endorsement have stated they are pro-life.

Ten reliable pro-life reps won their primaries yesterday along with eight KFL-endorsed challengers. A key issue for KFL endorsement has been the candidate’s willingness to allow the public a vote to improve judicial selection for the state Supreme Court. Otherwise, Kansas’ pro-life laws are jeopardized by rulings from extremist judges selected without public accountability.judicial selection

Pro-lifers were dismayed to learn of the defeat of eight great state representatives: Rob Bruchman, Will Carpenter, Brett Hildabrand, Jerry Lunn, Kasha Kelley, Charles Macheers, Craig McPherson, and Connie O’Brien. Three of those races had the narrowest of margins and may be recounted.

KFL-endorsed primary challengers lost in House districts 21, 45, 52, 60, 64, 68, 89, 104 and 115.

Headed into November Senate elections are pro-life incumbents Don Kerchen, Ty Masterson, and Mike Peterson along with KFL-endorsed former state reps Bud Estes and Gene Sullentrop.

Five great pro-life state Senators retired in May: Senators Steve Abrams, Les Donovan, Mitch Holmes, Jeff King and Michael O’Donnell. Primary results indicate voters in four districts (15, 25, 27 and 32), will have pro-life candidates to replace them, but not so in district 33.

Six solidly pro-life incumbent state senators disappointingly lost their primaries yesterday: Tom Arpke, Terry Bruce, Forrest Knox, Jeff Melcher, Larry Powell and Greg Smith. Four districts will be left without pro-life representation:  districts 11, 14, 21, and 24.

Dismemberment schmidt postcard, editTwo of the 6 winning Senate challengers had told the public they were pro-life. In district 34, Ed Berger was the victor. In the campaign, Berger claimed he was pro-life because he was Catholic, but refused to fill out the KFL survey. In district 39, challenger John Doll, a former Democrat who lost a statewide office race before winning a seat as a GOP state rep, has a mixed voting record on the life issues.

In a very bitter result for pro-lifers, a GOP Topeka district remains in the hands of the sole GOP Senator to vote against a ban on dismemberment abortions, Sen. Vicki Schmidt. The bill was signed into law in 2015, but awaits the review of the state Supreme Court—which appears to be delaying their ruling until after the November elections in which 5 of the 7 justices are up for retention.

Kaine & Sebelius

Pro-abortion Catholics Kaine & Sebelius

There’s been a long line of abortion-supporting politicians who try to fool pro-lifers into believing that they were “catholic” and “personally pro-life” during campaign seasons.

Democrat Vice-presidential candidate Tim Kaine, who hails from Kansas, described himself in his 2005 gubernatorial campaign as,“I’m Catholic; I’m against abortion.” However, as governor of Virginia and as a Virginia Senator after that, Kaine’s record has been 100% pro-abortion.

Former Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius is another who was intentionally dishonest about her abortion support when she campaigned as a Catholic for governor in 2002. However, the abortion industry was not fooled.

The lobbyist for notorious late-term abortionist George Tiller bragged in fundraising letters in 2002 that Sebelius as governor would usher in a new era for abortion promotion.  And it did. Those were frustrating years for pro-lifers.

In the last few election cycles, thankfully, Kansans are voting out a great number of pro-abortion politicians. Which brings us to the Kansas primary elections on Aug. 2nd.

In 2004, there were at most two dozen Kansas pro-life Democrats. That was the last year that the Democrat Party’s national platform declared abortion should be “rare.” Their 2016 platform says abortion availability is a matter of “justice” and it should be tax-funded. Kansas Democrat pro-life lawmakers are now as rare as hens’ teeth.

Only six Kansas Democrat state reps voted last year to end the most vile and barbaric-dismemberment abortions that tear apart living, fully-formed unborn children. In the Senate, not even one Democrat voted for that same dismemberment ban. Not even one!

Kansas Democrats also uniformly oppose reforming our Kansas judicial selection process– the process that has led to extremist pro-abortion court rulings that are decimating Kansas pro-life protections.

When it comes to Kansas Republicans, the national and state platform is pro-life. Kansans voted out a significant number of GOP politicians who supported abortion or played games with the issue. Some of those politicians want their power back and have formed “shadow” advocacy groups in campaign season to sow confusion among pro-lifers.

During the GOP primary is where these groups hope to remove 100% pro-life lawmakers.

These groups are backing self-described “conservative” candidates whose major appeal is on other issues, like taxes. Senate races in districts 34 and 39 are instructive.

100% pro-life Sens. Bruce & Powell

100% pro-life:  Bruce & Powell

In Senate district 34, pro-life incumbent Terry Bruce, is the Senate majority leader and a proven pro-life champion with a 100% voting record. Sen. Bruce has the endorsement of the KFL-PAC.

His challenger, Ed Berger has

  • no record of pro-life advocacy;
  • refused to fill out the KFL candidate survey;
  • supports keeping the current judicial selection model acknowledged as the worst in the nation.

Berger’s backers want voters to solely rely on Berger’s claim that his Catholic faith will insure he votes pro-life—while the sad reality is there are many pro-abortion Catholics in the Kansas State House.

In Senate district 39, 100% pro-life incumbent Larry Powell has a stellar voting record extending back into his days as a state rep. This is reflective of his district’s pro-life sentiment and Sen. Powell has the endorsement of the KFL-PAC.

Challenger John Doll–a former Democrat and current state rep– has a dismal pro-life record, contrary to what he may claim. In his four years in the House, he voted for the anti-life position nearly half the time!

Pro-lifers who put the pro-life issue on the back burner would betray all of the protections we have achieved in Kansas.

Serious pro-life voters cannot rely on candidates who merely proclaim they are “pro-life,“ due to their religious affiliation.
That is a smokescreen unless the candidate also supports reforming the judicial nominating system that is undermining all of Kansas’ hard-fought pro-life laws.

A complete list of candidates endorsed by the KFL-PAC is found at www.voteprolife.net.