Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for October, 2014

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.”

 

Read Full Post »

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!

Read Full Post »

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.”

Read Full Post »

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.

Read Full Post »