Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Kansas abortionists’ Category

stop dismembering posterJuly 1 is the day that SB 95, the historic Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Abortion Act, is supposed to go into effect in Kansas.

But, as always is the case with commonsense pro-life legislation, abortionists seek to win via the courts what they lost in the legislature.

The Overland Park Center for Women’s Health (CWH), run by the father-daughter abortion duo, Herb Hodes and Traci Nauser, filed for an injunction June 1. A hearing on the request is scheduled for Thursday morning in the court of Shawnee County district judge Larry Hendricks.

SB 95 would end a gruesome, barbaric, limb-ripping method of abortion performed on tiny, unborn living girls and boys. State health department statistics for Kansas abortions in 2014 show that this inhumane abortion method was employed 637 times, an increase of 9% from 2013.

Dismemberment abortions are every bit as brutal as the partial-birth abortion method, which is now illegal in the United States.

Indeed, the shocking act of a licensed physician dismembering a child repeatedly with metal tools while inside the mother’s womb is so repulsive that the abortion attorneys filing the CWH legal challenge do not dare even mention the word dismemberment in their pleadings, much less try to justify it.

Instead, abortion filings are claiming this method is too necessary and “expeditious” to prohibit, and that the public and the abortionists will suffer irreparable harm if they are unable to use it. The key CWF expert is a New York abortionist and teaching fellow who says that, without access to dismemberment, women will be subject to “painful, invasive medical procedures.”

Of course, there already is someone suffering from a “painful, invasive medical procedure”—the unborn child.

The abortionists’ attorneys offer the novel legal claim that preventing use of the dismemberment method would “violate the woman’s bodily integrity” by denying her the right to choose what abortion method she and her abortionist prefer.

What about the bodily integrity of the unborn son or daughter torn to pieces while the mother is under anesthesia?

The Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Abortion Act is model legislation drafted by the National Right to Life Committee. The law has also been passed in Oklahoma.

The state of Kansas’ legal filing strongly defends the dismemberment ban and points to the reasoning in the Supreme Court’s 2007 Gonzales v. Carhart decision which upheld the ban on partial-birth abortions:

  1. “The government may use its voice and its regulatory authority to show its profound respect for the life within the woman. ”
  2. “Under our precedents it is clear the State has a significant role to play in regulating the medical profession.”

Abortion attorneys try to spin Gonzales and the 1992 Planned Parenthood v Casey abortion ruling to their own ends–in effect, that Kansas dare not foreclose on a favored method of abortion.

But among other counter-arguments, the Kansas defense team notes, “[T]he U.S. Supreme Court explained that …‘Casey does not allow a doctor to choose the abortion method he or she might prefer …[and physicians] are not entitled to ignore regulations that direct them to use reasonable alternative procedures.’ ”

The state asserts that attorneys for Hodes and Nauser have not demonstrated, “that the alleged irreparable injury outweighs the harm to the State’s well-established interest in promoting human dignity and barring a procedure deemed inhumane.”

The state of Kansas will argue forcefully that no injunction against the dismemberment ban is deserved. We will soon see what the court decides.

Read Full Post »

A.G. Derek Schmidt

A.G. Derek Schmidt

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.

Read Full Post »

Former Texas State Senator and failed gubernatorial candidate Wendy Davis, was caught on video Saturday saying tragic medical conditions cause all late-term abortions.

However, ten years of Kansas abortion statistics demolish that claim, as well as a recent radio interview of Kansas ex-abortionist, Kris Neuhaus.“An associate of George Tiller,” Neuhaus admitted that most late-term abortions were due to teens in denial.

Let’s look first at Davis’ response, to a friendly-sounding questioner who asked, ‘how does a pro-choicer defend aborting seven-pound babies?’ (This is a reference to Sen. Rand Paul’s recent challenge that Democrat pro-abortionists, such as DNC Chair Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, be forced to answer that question.) Davis said,

“First of all that never happens. It never happens. It really never happens. And, the only time that late-term abortions occur is when something has gone horribly wrong and either the mother’s life is in danger or the child’s life is in a very precarious situation.

So ”it never happens, but when it does…. Davis’ answer is what abortion industry media advisors want the public to hear– that “late” abortion is crucial to saving mothers’ lives and ending the lives of unborn children diagnosed with medical challenges.

But that’s not what ten years of abortion statistics from the Kansas health department (KDHE) indicate.

From mid-1998 to mid-2007, there were 5,179 abortions 20 weeks post-fertilization reported to KDHE. Post-20 week abortions were not obtainable after the Tiller clinic closed in June 2007. Such abortions were then banned by law effective July 2011.

In all of these 5,179 late-term abortions, 41% of the total were reported as performed on a “non-viable” pregnancy. Only 13 of them cited a specified fetal malady.

In all ten years’ statistics, there was only one medical emergency listed (although undescribed) and not a single one of the 5,179 late-term abortions were reported as done to save the mother’s life. None.

So the remaining three fifths of Kansas late-term abortions were performed on viable unborn children without explanation. No physical medical conditions, much less “horrible” ones for those mothers, have ever been reported. Nada, Zero.

Moreover, during 1998 and 1999, when the partial-birth method was still in use in Kansas, all those abortions were specifically reported as performed for the mother’s “mental health.”

That’s why Kris Neuhaus’ radio commentary last week is relevant.

In 1998 Kansas passed a law to ban post-20 week abortions UNLESS the woman would die or suffer ”substantial and irreversible” harm, as verified by an independent practitioner.

However, a loophole was created when then-Kansas Attorney General Carla Stovall opined that such irreversible harm could include mental health. And thus a job was made for a physician willing to claim that temporary anxiety was “substantial and irreversible” harm that could only be relieved by an abortion—not delivery of a child.

From 1999-2007 Neuhaus was an otherwise unemployed Kansas-licensed abortionist who was paid to come to Tiller’s Wichita abortion business to provide supposedly unbiased “second opinions” [approvals, that is] for abortion seekers.

Neuhaus, in a self-serving interview meant to rev up contributions to her new online “fund-me” event freely revealed that most late abortions were due to the immaturity of teens in denial about their pregnancy!

According to Neuhaus, the teens didn’t really understand their pregnant condition and didn’t want the family to know they’d been sexually active.

Neuhaus said that some late -term abortions were sought for fetal anomalies but insisted the majority are done for “maternal” non-medical reasons, notedly:“you have a bunch of young women who, for whatever reasons, have decided to put themselves at risk of an unintended pregnancy and then suddenly when confronted with that– don’t always deal with that in the manner that they might at the age of 20…so that really comprises the largest percentage of [late-term abortions] that were there strictly for maternal reasons.”

In fact, those kind of abortion-seeking teens were evidenced in her 2003 medical records, subpoenaed in 2004 by former Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline. Specifically, eleven cases were selected in which teens obtained third trimester abortions after Neuhaus “excused” them as being under threat of irreversible, psychological harm.

Those subpoenaed records were used by the state Healing Arts Board of Kansas to charge Neuhaus with improperly evaluating those vulnerable girls and breaking state regulations requiring a proper health record for each patient. (The Board revoked her medical license in 2012, and after reversal on appeal, again revoked her license this January, for which she again has filed an appeal.)

Contrary to the assertion of Wendy Davis, those eleven approximately ‘seven-pound’ babies were not aborted by those teens in 2003 because of bona fide medical tragedies. Nor were most of the late-term abortions obtained in Kansas, as ten years of state stats show.

Read Full Post »

Kris Neuhaus

Kris Neuhaus

Ex-Kansas abortionist Kris Neuhaus wants your pity (she sees herself as a martyr) and your money.

In a radio interview Thursday, she elaborated that she has lost her research job “without explanation” and has initiated a second online “fund-me“ campaign to raise $100,000.

Fed by adulation in multiple pro-abortion outlets where she has been termed a “hero-provider,” Neuhaus now insists (as in a press conference in April) that she be referred to as Dr. Neuhaus and bills herself as,

the first woman physician in Kansas to publicly provide abortion care, performing or consulting on over 10,000 procedures.”

Pro-life readers know that she was a failed abortionist who rubberstamped mental health “approvals” for late-term abortions for George Tiller from 1999-2007.

Her medical license was revoked in July 2012, but on appeal, was remanded to the State Board of Healing Arts in March 2014. The Board revoked the license again this January on the narrower complaint of record-keeping failure.

She is now appealing that second revocation.

Neuhaus touts herself as a martyr who lost her medical license unjustly in the pro-life administration of Gov. Sam Brownback due to her “affiliation with Dr. Tiller.”

In actuality, Neuhaus was charged in 2009— during the administration of pro-abortion Gov. Kathleen Sebelius– with violating record-keeping regulations and violating the standard of care for 11 teens obtaining late-term abortions in 2003 at Tiller’s Wichita clinic.

The state Healing Arts Board of Kansas in the past has twice deemed her “a danger to the public” and views her as defiant, self-righteous and “unable to be rehabilitated.”

Neuhaus has promised in the past she will never again do abortions, and claims to have attained a Master’s degree in Public Health at the University of Kansas, so why is she not employable? No answer to that.

In yesterday’s radio interview she said she is seeking public funding to help her afford the filing fees required to apply for medical licenses in other states. (Watchout, America!)

Eighteen months ago, her online campaign raised $63,000 –ostensibly to be used to save her home and pay her legal fees to the Board, at that time billed as $93,000. She has paid nothing to the Board and is protesting the reassessed costs of $31,000 she now owes.

Her husband is running another donation site to repay attorneys for their pro bono work on her behalf.

Neuhaus believes she deserves public support “to enable me to continue to oppose the dire state of women’s health care in Kansas, and to help expose the right-wing’s attempt to export this insanity to other states.”

Defiant and self-righteous seems an understatement.

Read Full Post »

comp health PP (2)Planned Parenthood of Kansas & Mid-Missouri hates the new ban on dismemberment abortions passed in Kansas. But it is already eagerly using opposition to SB 95– “this atrocious law” in their words–to fundraise.

However, there are two things they have had to tiptoe around in bashing this example of so-called “extreme political measures.” First, is Senate Bill 95’s title in statute–“which shall be known and may be cited as the Kansas unborn child protection from dismemberment abortion act.”

The second is the descriptive definition of what is outlawed:

“’Dismemberment abortion’ means, with the purpose of causing the death of an unborn child, 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.”

An email solicitation sent to supporters yesterday, signed by PPKMM President/CEO Laura McQuade, read (with their emphasis in bold):

“If Senate Bill 95 goes into effect in Kansas on July 1, 2015, PPKM will need to drastically alter our surgical services. Using inflammatory and non-medical language, this bill bans one of the safest methods of second trimester abortion according to every major medical authority including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the World Health Organization.”

Before dissecting that information, insert the reminder that abortion is never safe for unborn babies.

SB 95 bans one method of abortion: the shredding of a still-living unborn child in which the abortionist reaches into the mother’s womb with an instrument similar to a pair of pliers and grabs onto a body part, ripping a tiny baby apart, piece by piece until she bleeds to death.

It should be noted that McQuade does not write “THE safest,” but ONE of the safest methods. She’s backing off what all abortion chatter, and testimony to committees, has been against this bill–that dismemberment was THE safest method.

(In its partial-birth ruling of 2007, the Supreme Court upheld a ban on that gruesome abortion method. At the time partial-birth abortion proponents said this was THE safest for women.)

PPKMM issued a public statement in opposition to SB 95 on April 7, the day the bill was signed into law by Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback. Again, their statement omitted the title of the law and gave not a hint about the abortion method banned.

The statement pledged to protect women’s “decision-making ability” and “ensure that every individual has the knowledge, opportunity and freedom to make informed private decisions.”

In reality, PPKMM wants women to stay unenlightened about the Dismemberment abortion procedure which they describe innocuously on their website as “removal of the pregnancy with forceps.”

This complete lack of candor is in line with court testimony from other abortionists that they are comfortable withholding a straight explanation of dismemberment to pregnant women considering abortion.

Truly informed decisions are those made with all the facts.

I guess the hypocrisy escapes McQuade.

Read Full Post »

Kris Neuhaus

Kris Neuhaus

Remember the Kansas abortionist who over a period of seven years “rubber-stamped” post-viability abortions at the Wichita abortion clinic of the late George Tiller?

Ann Kristin (Kris) Neuhaus is her name and the Kansas Board of Healing Arts is having one heck of a time getting her state license permanently revoked.

This past January, the Board issued a second revocation against Neuhaus. Undaunted, Neuhaus returned to the court that overturned the first revocation. On March 3,

attorneys for Neuhaus petitioned Shawnee County Judge Franklin Theis to block the Board’s second (the new) revocation and dismiss the legal expenses that she had been assessed.

A little history: In April 2010, the Board initiated legal action to revoke the medical license of Neuhaus for failure to provide “standard of care” and professional record-keeping for 11 teens aged 10-18 who had obtained third-trimester abortions from Tiller in 2003.

The role Neuhaus was supposed to play under the law was that of an independent “check” on post-viability abortions by providing bona fide second opinions on maternal health.

At that time, Kansas banned all post-viability abortions except under rare occasions threatening maternal life or substantial and irreversible “harm.” But the legislative intent was blown sky high when a pro-abortion Kansas Attorney General ruled that the “harm” could be “mental.”

Tiller testified under oath about the details of his arrangement with Neuhaus. He said he had called over 100 Kansas physicians but none were willing to do such referrals for him.

Tiller said he was connected to a financially desperate Neuhaus who was willing to provide the legally required mental health referrals using an online “Psych-Lite” diagnostic tool. (Neuhaus was never trained as a psychiatric consultant.)

What actually transpired, however, was that the “independent” referral from Neuhaus came after she interviewed abortion-seekers (almost exclusively from out-of-state) inside Tiller’s clinic just minutes before the procedure was initiated! All this was verified in a Wichita trial record from May 2007.

The Board charged Neuhaus with improperly evaluating those vulnerable girls and breaking state regulations requiring a proper health record for each patient. After extensive hearings by Administrative Law Judge Edward Gashler, the final order of revocation against her license was issued in July 2012 for “professional incompetence” and “failing to meet minimum requirements for maintaining records.”

Neuhaus appealed the order to a pro-abortion district court—that of Judge Theis. In March 2014, Theis overturned the Board’s revocation, concluding it was too “harsh” a penalty for Neuhaus’ atrocious record-keeping. Theis also disagreed with the finding of incompetence and ordered another review by the Board.

This past January, the Board issued

 a second revocation against Neuhaus on the single issue of incomplete medical files for those 11 teens. This was her “third strike” said the Board;

she had been cited in past years for improper patient documentation and had violated her legal stipulation to amend her ways.The Board order characterized her as stubborn and “incapable of successful rehabilitation,” and assessed legal costs at just under $32,000.

But earlier this month Neuhaus petitioned Judge Theis to again block the Board’s revocation and dismiss the legal expenses.

The saga continues.

Read Full Post »

Kris Neuhaus

Neuhaus at Board

Late Friday, the Kansas Board of Healing Arts issued a final order of license revocation for abortionist Kris Neuhaus, calling her “incapable of successful rehabilitation.”  Kansans for Life applauds the resolve of the Board in protecting the public from her.

Neuhaus’ license had been revoked in 2012 for her failure to follow both standard of care and record-keeping protocols when providing the legally-required “second  independent medical opinion ” that enabled 11 teens in 2003 to obtain third-trimester abortions at the Wichita abortion clinic of George Tiller.

Neuhaus challenged that revocation in state district court. While upholding the Board’s findings that Neuhaus repeatedly failed to document patient histories properly, Judge Franklin Theis vacated the standard of care charge and sent the matter back to the Board for a “do-over.” on Dec. 11  (see here).

The Board upheld using the sanction of revocation for record-keeping misconduct, because this was Neuhaus’ “third strike ” in this arena.

She had been involved in two prior disciplinary actions from the Board between 1999-2001 and as part of retaining her medical license then, she had legally PROMISED to correct her admitted record-keeping failures in the future.

Creating and maintaining proper medical records is not a trivial matter. The Board asserted that the “the interest of the patient is paramount…Failure to properly document denies the patient of the opportunity to receive proper follow up care and treatment.”

The Board particularly cited the youth, inexperience and vulnerability of the 11 patients, “who may have had a unique need for follow up because [Neuhaus] testified that some exhibited suicidal ideation or other indicators of mental illness or psychiatric problems.”

The Board found that Neuhaus:

  • intentionally, willfully and knowingly committed multiple violations of the Kansas Healing Arts Act;
  • “has not learned from prior disciplinary actions [and] fails to express contrition or otherwise acknowledge the wrongful nature of her conduct”;
  • feels”justified in her actions and showed no signs of remorse”.

Neuhaus’ attorney, Bob Eye, had pressed that Neuhaus had already suffered a sufficient penalty of not having had her Kansas medical license for the past years during litigation. However, the Board disagreed, and cited continued revocation and court costs were warranted under their sanctioning guidelines.

In the earlier revocation, the state lost the $93,000.00 in court costs charged to Neuhaus which Judge Theis dismissed. Neuhaus has fifteen days to file a new appeal.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 50 other followers