Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for February, 2016

Simon bookCan a DNR (Do Not Resuscitate) order be placed in your child’s medical file without your knowledge? YES!

Can your child be denied life-sustaining care based on a quality of life assessment by a hospital ethics board? YES!

Are both situations outrageous and scary? YES!

The remedy? Simon’s Law, a pro-life bill filed and being promoted in 2 states: Kansas and Missouri.

Simon was a 3-month-old precious boy who was starved, given antagonistic medication and not resuscitated due to the secret placement of a DNR order on his medical chart.

And why? Because Simon was labeled as suffering under a “syndrome”of an extra gene, Trisomy 18… and thus discriminated against as not worth life-sustaining care.

Simon’s family watched as he expired before their eyes and only later discovered in horror that a DNR had been placed on his chart which they in no way wanted or had even discussed.

Simon’s Law would do 2 simple things:

  1.  prevent any medical facility or practitioner from secretly placing a DNR order for children under 18 years of age without written consent of at least one parent or guardian.
  2. require that a facility disclose, upon request, any existing written policy on denial of life-sustaining treatment.

Under the second provision, a family would be able to better determine whether their child is at any risk of any refusal to treat (i.e.”futility” policies) at the medical facility. (read more about such policies here and here)

Imagine your eight-year-old sustains critical injuries from a skateboard collision,  or your sixteen-year-old is involved in a car accident with life-threatening injuries. Wouldn’t you want to be fully engaged in the decision making, rather than trusting unknown medical professionals without any mandate to seek your consent for non-treatment?

ALERT: Kansans for Life is seeking additional support for Simon’s Law this week from interested citizens and health care personnel for an upcoming Senate hearing. Email any testimony to kfltopeka@gmail.com and include full contact information.

Read Full Post »

Bill carrier Rep. Todd

Bill carrier
Rep. Todd

Although this proposal already passed the Senate THREE YEARS AGO, the Kansas House today could not muster the 2/3 needed (84 votes) to put HCR 5005 on the November ballot. HCR 5005 would let the public vote to change the way state Supreme Court justices are selected.

The vote attained was 68 for, 54 against (with 3 reps absent). Those voting yes are the reps who treat the pro-life cause as a priority– not a preference, or an afterthought. Kansans for Life considered this the most important pro-life vote of this legislative session.

Here are the names of state reps who supported this measure to allow Kansans to vote for a change in judicial selection, with those in bold having spoken at the podium urging passage:

Anthimides, Barker, Barton, Billinger, Boldra, Bradford, Bruchman, Campbell, B. Carpenter, W. Carpenter, Claeys, Corbet, Davis, DeGraaf, Dove, Edmonds, Esau, Estes, Garber, Goico, Gonzalez, Grosserode, Hawkins, Hedke, Hemsley, Highland, Hildabrand, Hoffman, Houser, Huebert, Hutchins, Hutton, Johnson, D.Jones, K.Jones, Kahrs, Kelley, Kleeb, Lunn, Macheers, Mason, Mast, McPherson, Merrick, O’Brien, Osterman, Pauls, Peck, Powell, Rahjes, Read, Rhoades, Rubin, Ryckman,Jr., Ryckman,Sr., Scapa, Schwab, Schwartz, Smith, Suellentrop, Sutton, Thimesch, Todd (bill carrier), Vickrey, Waymaster, Weber, Whitmer, Williams.

Speaker Merrick

Speaker Merrick

State reps Henry, Kiegerl and Seiwert were absent. Contact information for all state reps is here. Read explanations of votes here (pgs. 1991-1994).

Please thank your state reps who voted yes. Special thanks to House Speaker, Ray Merrick (R-Stillwell), for allowing this vote and staging the informational caucuses this week.

The issue is not closed. Kansas has the least transparent and least democratic process used to arrive at nominees for the state Supreme Court (see chart). Behind closed doors a commission of nine –including five lawyers voted in by lawyers– puts forth three names and the governor must choose one or else the Supreme Court Chief Justice picks one.

Our State Supreme Court is more liberal than the U.S. Supreme Court, which — with an 8-1 vote– chastised our top Court two weeks ago for its handling of a death penalty sentencing issue.

Our second highest state tribunal, the Court of Appeals, recently allowed dismemberment abortions to continue by a split decision interpreting our 1859 state Constitution to embody a right to abortion stronger than that of Roe. That’s pathetic!

All our pro-life laws are in jeopardy when the courts continue to deliver rulings that substitute abortion advocacy for strict construction analysis. Stay tuned!

Read Full Post »

AG Derek Schmidt

AG Schmidt

On Monday, Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt filed an appeal with the Kansas Supreme Court, asking for an expedited ruling on the question of whether the Kansas Constitution embodies a right to abortion.

A  7-7 ruling from the Court of Appeals on Jan. 22  maintained a district court’s temporary injunction against the Kansas Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Act.

However, Schmidt  asserts that properly understood,  the 7-7 tie is really a 7-6-1 ruling,  thus denying any state constitutional right to abortion.

The appeal (ironically titled a “prayer” in legal jargon) argues that the heart of the Court of Appeals ruling is whether the state Bill of Rights mimics the due process protection of the federal Fourteenth Amendment that is the basis for Roe v Wade.

  • Seven appellate judges (in the dissent, penned by Chief Judge Thomas Malone) held that the state Bill of Rights does not provide “Roe” protection,
  • six judges (in the ruling written by Judge Steve Leben) said the state Bill of Rights does provide “Roe” protection by extension, and
  • one concurrence (by Judge G. Gordon Atcheson) conceded that the state Bill of Rights’ Article 1 really doesn’t match up with “Roe” but no matter because abortion is protected in a stronger way.

    Judge Atcheson

    Judge Atcheson

Judge Atcheson wrote, “Article 1 provides a constitutional protection [for abortion] that has no direct analog in the federal Constitution… [it] effectuates self-determination consistent with an evolving and ever more enlightened understanding of humanity across both race and gender.”

He also wrote, “a woman’s right of self-determination, as established in Article 1, takes precedence [over a fetus] incapable of free-will or self-determination,” and “I cannot infer a particular legislative purpose or governmental interest advanced in Senate Bill 95 [the dismemberment ban].”

Truly the abortion protection that Judge Atcheson wishes to be found in Kansas’ 1859 Bill of Rights is broader than Roe and –if agreed to by the Kansas Supreme Court—poses a threat to all existent pro-life laws in this state.

On the other hand, the six appellate judges who want a state right to be an extension of Roe implicitly would examine pro-life laws under the “undue burden” standard, which is more workable than if abortion is declared fundamentally protected and laws have to pass “strict scrutiny.”

Because the appellate court really left all Kansas courts adrift in confusion, Schmidt urges the Kansas Supreme Court to take up the issue. Until it is resolved, it will continue to be raised in existent and future lawsuits, he argued.

At issue is a compelling constitutional question of “first impression.” That is something that ultimately only the Kansas Supreme Court can resolve.

Read Full Post »