Senate Bill 95, the “Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Abortion Act,” was the topic of the Kansas House Federal State Affairs committee this morning. But only pro-life proponents actually discussed the dismemberment abortion procedure in clear language while testimony from opponents neither mentioned the procedure by name or explained what takes place.
The measure has already passed the state Senate on a vote of 31-9. Pro-life Gov. Sam Brownback (R) has promised to sign this bill. Lt. Gov. Jeff Colyer, M.D. testified in person in support of SB 95.
Speaking in opposition to SB 95 were essentially the same few abortion defenders who came to the first hearing on the bill in the Senate. They were utterly bereft of meaningful testimony, including Elise Higgins, the lobbyist for Planned Parenthood and Julie Burkhart, Wichita abortion business owner.
Rather than talking about what happens in a dismemberment abortion– arms, legs, and other body parts are torn off a baby until she dies–the message of opponents was to allege that the bill tied abortionists’ hands from using the safest method and could lead to costly legal fees when the law is challenged in court.
They noted that Kansas has already paid over a million dollars defending pro-life laws but opponents of SB 95 failed to mention that Kansas has won all completed lawsuits and is narrowing the final two still in progress.
But there were two individuals today whose attitudes did not likely win the hearts and minds of committee members.
One wrote that she had needed to undergo repeated “D&C” procedures years ago. (A D&C is when a gynecologist scrapes the uterine walls.)
In oral testimony, she incorrectly charged that SB 95 would have prevented her from getting the treatment she needed. But a D&C is not an “D& E” which is an intentional grasping and ripping of body parts of the unborn child.
She wagged her finger at the committee, accused them of oppressing one gender (women), and lectured them that the issue is too “private” for their consideration.
Actually, the U.S. Supreme Court, in consideration of the methods of partial-birth and dismemberment abortions, has said that legislatures are the appropriate factfinders– and that if clear language is not used, the public is disserved!
Another witness told the committee that the state had no business creating laws that restricted abortion because “For some women, happiness and even basic survival is dependent on not having a child.”
The eugenic flavor of her comments prompted Rep. Jan Pauls (R-Hutchinson) to gently probe whether the witness was really advocating that babies were better off being aborted than being born into poverty? The witness basically answered yes.
She also asserted that “this bill caters to a specific religious perspective on when life begins.” This dodge was predicted (and answered) in earlier comments that morning from Michael Schuttloffel, director of the Kansas Catholic Conference:
“[Abortion supporters regularly assert in these hearings that the humanity of the unborn] is a philosophical or religious question, not a scientific question. So I want someone to explain to us today the science of how this is NOT a human being. This unborn child is alive. She has arms, legs, her own heartbeat, her own brainwaves, her own blood, often a different blood type from the mother, and her own human DNA What is this– if it is not a human being?
I really think [opposing] legislators–before they vote against this bill –should go visit an abortion clinic and see the results of a dismemberment abortion. [After] the [abortionist] removes all of the pieces of the baby to make sure they haven’t left anything behind…”
At the close of her testimony, Burkhart did invite legislators to visit “her” clinic, saying she is “very proud of it.” Do you want to bet she shows visitors the facility and not the tray with dismembered baby parts?