As expected, opponents of Kansas’ historic new ban on dismemberment abortion are seeking an injunction in the Shawnee County District Court of Judge Larry Hendricks to prevent the measure from going into effect July 1st.
The Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Abortion Act, signed as SB 95 on April 7, defines Dismemberment abortion as
“knowingly dismembering a living unborn child and extracting such unborn child one piece at a time from the uterus through the use of clamps, grasping forceps, tongs, scissors or similar instruments that, through the convergence of two rigid levers, slice, crush or grasp a portion of the unborn child’s body in order to cut or rip it off.“
This is a law with overwhelming public support in our state. Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt issued a short comment: “As is our duty, our office will provide for a vigorous defense of the state’s duly enacted law.” Schmidt allocated funds for this expected challenge.
Monday’s challenge by the Overland Park Center for Women’s Health (CWH)– as well as its earlier two suits in 2011 and 2013– was ostensibly filed to block abortion restrictions from going into effect. However, the even deadlier legal goal is to get a state Supreme Court ruling upholding CWH assertions
that the Kansas state Constitution actually contains a fundamental right to abortion! This kind of ruling would devastatingly undo Kansas’ past pro-life laws.
The Attorney General’s legal team, however, has already responded in past filings that any such claim of an abortion right existing in our pre-Civil War state Constitution is “a fantasy.”
The CWH plaintiffs are the father-daughter abortion duo, Herb Hodes and Traci Nauser. In his submission to the legislature during consideration of SB 95, Hodes wrote that the dismemberment method is “the safest and most expeditious” and, without it, “the sanctity of the doctor-patient relationship” would “be jeopardized.”
They also insist that a ban on an abortion method that brutally and painfully dismembers a living unborn child somehow undermines “women’s autonomy” and “bodily integrity.”
Consider how bizarre an inversion that assertion is! The barbaric ripping apart of a living unborn baby is being demanded in the name of a so-called “sacred relationship” between an abortionist and his client seeking an “expeditious” termination.
There are some very ugly truths revealed in the abortionists’ supporting testimony that will be examined in future posts. Here are a few of the reasons given in Monday’s filings by those battling for the “right” to keep performing inhumane dismemberment abortions:
- alternate methods using feticide injections require a lot of medical skill and are too “upsetting” for many women;
- labor-induction methods are more time-consuming and unable to be handled in free-standing clinics.
Which brings us to the matter of the necessary cost of defending our laws. Pro-abortionists inevitably bring this up as if it was the legislature’s fault that they file suit. The media helps them complain by only reporting abortion-related legal expenses without ever inquiring about the costs for other laws being defended by the Attorney General. Kansans for Life asked for a breakout.
The Attorney General’s office responded that their outside legal expenses for all cases totaled $8.14 million from 2011 through 2014. The highest costs went to school funding battles at $1.48 million (18% of total), followed by water rights at $1.41 million (17%), and tobacco settlements at $1.21 million (15%). In fourth place is the defense of pro-life laws at $1.10 million, only 13% of the 4-year total. A variety of other cases make up the balance.
And it is important to remember that the state of Kansas to date has won all completed lawsuits brought by abortion interests.
Kansas will continue to protect the unborn, no matter the price.