Planned Parenthood (PP) never misses a chance to misrepresent pro-life legislation for fund raising, so it is unsurprising what they’re telling national supporters about the Kansas Pro-Life Protections Act (introduced in February as HB 2598, now House sub 313).
In a national email appeal this weekend, PP president, Cecile Richards writes that this bill contains “outrageous attacks on women’s health [that] will spread to state after state.” Further, with bold emphasis, Richards says:
“Kansas state lawmakers are set to force doctors to lie to women about abortion — and allow doctors to withhold information from pregnant women.”
In fact, the Pro-Life Protections Act forces NO doctor to deceive women.
The Kansas Medical Society takes no position on abortion, but watches EVERY legislative proposal. Be assured that if ANY of their members were being forced to do ANYTHING, they would have stood up against it. Yet they have been silent about this bill, despite four months of internet agitation by abortion supporters.
The Pro-Life Protections Act does NOT mandate that any practitioner “tell women” anything, period. The bill codifies informational materials (whether via print or online) that women in abortion clinics must have access to, 24 hours before they obtain a Kansas abortion.
Richards’ email continues: “Even if the woman seeking abortion is a victim of rape or incest, her doctor will lie to her about her risk of breast cancer on the orders of Kansas lawmakers.”
In truth, Kansas lawmakers are NOT “invading” the doctor-patient relationship. Court rulings about abortion issued since Roe, always uphold the state’s right to oversight of medical providers.
Women entering abortion facilities do not forfeit their right to state protection from prostitution of the medical arts. Abortion is most commonly obtained from a practitioner whom the woman finds in the yellow pages or online. In the huge majority of cases, there is hardly a “trusted relationship” with that practitioner–either before or after the abortion.
Politicians are NOT “intervening” in the abortion consultation, and are NOT telling health agencies how to assess risk. A woman who is ALREADY pregnant has a legal right to all information that a reasonable patient would find relevant. (read more)
For 14 years, the Kansas state health department (KDHE)–not a pro-life agency by any means–has recognized the tie-in between reproductive events and breast cancer, and has given a modest “heads up” about a connection in a section that makes up about 2% of the informational brochure.
Even without the bill’s specific statutory command to include the topics of breast cancer and future pre-term birth, KDHE researchers knew that they had to admit the biological tie between those outcomes and abortion. If there is no connection, the agency is free to say so in the materials.
Since 1997, when the state informed consent law was enacted, no woman seeking a Kansas abortion has been required to review the state materials with anyone at the clinic. The abortionist is free to disagree with the materials, even mock them–as the Aid for Women clinic has done on its website for years.
The dishonesty of USA government health authorities about breast cancer’s link to abortion will eventually be acknowledged, like smoking’s long-suppressed link to lung cancer. And though most people who smoke don’t get cancer, we are waging a public health campaign against smoking. Most women who get breast cancer did not have abortions and most women who get abortions will not contract breast cancer, but the overall 30-50% increased statistical risk is real.
Despite abortion sloganeering, the bill does NOT dictate “that abortion causes breast cancer.” What is sending the abortion industry into orbit is that the Pro-Life Protections Act adds 12 words (underlined) to the open-ended instruction on subjects needing objective relevant information:
“The material shall also contain objective information describing the methods of abortion procedures commonly employed, the medical risks commonly associated with each such procedure, including risk of premature birth in future pregnancies, risk of breast cancer, risks to the woman’s reproductive health and the medical risks associated with carrying an unborn child to term.”
ANY selections of the KDHE materials that are being codified into statute were devised by the KDHE, which has to muddle through the politically correct federal health bureacracy.
For example, the National Cancer Institute is schizophrenic on this topic, even after a NCI division head published that abortion raises breast cancer risk. The undisputed biology of women is that a first full-term delivery affords the best protection against breast cancer. NCI admits that first full term delivery is protective (here) and then on the same page it absurdly denies that abortion (which prevents delivery) is linked to breast cancer! Kansas abortion supporters cling to that third position, though it will not stand much longer.
Forthcoming post: Kansas lawyers don’t believe Planned Parenthood claims.