Archive for the ‘Lawsuit v Kansas’ Category

comp health PP (2)Kansas cannot cut off Medicaid funding for two Planned Parenthood affiliates reports the Associated Press this evening.

“The Governor will continue the fight to make Kansas a pro-life state,” said Eileen Hawley, spokeswoman for Gov. Brownback,  “We will review today’s preliminary ruling and move forward with the litigation.”

U.S. District Judge Julie Robinson in Kansas City, Kansas, issued the temporary ruling late Tuesday which prevents the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) from cutting off funding Thursday for Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri and the organization’s St. Louis regional affiliate.

Mary Kay Culp, KFL executive director, commented,

“We oppose any public money that helps the abortion giant Planned Parenthood stay open. Planned Parenthood is not the trusted health-care provider they like to call themselves –everything they do is poisoned by their abortion business and advocacy .”

Planned Parenthood in Overland Park was indeed trafficking in baby body parts in the late 90’s, which caused Kansas to enact a law governing fetal tissue procurement.

Several ongoing bona fide lawsuits nationwide have found Planned Parenthood to be defrauding the public. See here.

The state of Kansas should have control of dispensing federal tax funded support to the indigent and have trustworthy partners. KDHE alleges they did not get respectful access to onsite inspection from Planned Parenthood that health care grantees must provide.

Unfortunately, the authorization language for Medicaid is not the same as for the Title X federal funding. Federal changes should be made to allow states more control over tax-funded health care distribution. The Medicaid amount involved appears to be under $50,000 this year.

Kansans for Life is happy, however, that

Planned Parenthood no longer gets Kansas Title X annual health care funding–well over one-third million dollars– that is now going to full-service public clinics and hospitals.

Kansas won that battle in court and this past session, the legislature made that funding priority a permanent statute. Read more here.

Read Full Post »

smaller baby in bronze judicial scale

Judges, protect the unborn!

Just before the holiday weekend, key arguments were filed with the state Supreme Court of Kansas on behalf of abortionists who want to continue dismembering living unborn babies limb from limb until they bleed to death, and from attorneys for the state Attorney General’s office who are defending the state’s ban on dismemberment abortions.

Last April 2015, Kansas was the first state to pass “The Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Abortion Act.” Four other states have now enacted this law –Oklahoma, West Virginia, Mississippi, and Alabama. The bill is on the governor’s desk in Louisiana and expected to be signed perhaps today.

The federal constitutionality of this ban has not been tested, but it was drafted as the logical consequence of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2007 Gonzales ruling upholding a federal ban on heinous partial-birth abortion method abortions.  Gonzales was based on the reasoning that abortionists’ preferences cannot trump compelling governmental interests in regulating the medical profession and voicing respect for human life and dignity.

Hodes & Nauser

Abortionists Nauser & Hodes

Attorneys from the New York City-based Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR) challenged the Kansas dismemberment ban in state court last June on behalf of Kansas City suburban father-daughter abortionists, Herb Hodes and Traci Nauser. They asserted that a hitherto-undiscovered Kansas constitutional foundation exists for abortions—one that precludes banning dismemberment method abortions.

 Judge Hendricks

Judge Hendricks

Shawnee District Court Judge Larry Hendricks found the novel CRR position so appealing that within moments of the oral arguments last July, he imposed an injunction preventing the ban from going into effect.

Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt sought immediately to undo that injunction with the Kansas state Court of Appeals. (see documents here) However the Court of Appeals rendered a split ruling January 22, allowing these abortions to continue unabated.

AG Derek Schmidt

AG Derek Schmidt

Both sides appealed to the state Supreme Court. (see AG supplemental filing and abortionist supplemental filing) In addition to arguing that the trial judge’s conclusion was in error, Schmidt’s office argued that the appellate ruling was –in fact—actually a 7-6-1 decision and is hopelessly confusing. The state Supreme Court has since agreed to review the matter but the hearing date has not yet been set.

If the claim that abortion is grounded in the state Constitution succeeds, the strategy will undoubtedly be used in every other state. Thus these new legal filings last week are of the utmost importance not just to Kansas but to all states. Of paramount concern is that credence will be given to these abortion attorneys’ claims:

  1. that a state Constitution must be contorted to contain an even more radical basis for unlimited abortion than that of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v Wade ruling;
  2. that the Kansas Bill of Rights language about “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” (that many states share) must elevate woman’s “self-determination” and “decisional autonomy” and ignore the distinct, separate rights of the fully-human unborn child; and
  3. that Courts must be emboldened to ignore plain reading standards and accept “evolving” reasons to invalidate duly-passed legislation.
KS court appeals

Kansas Court of Appeals

On Jan . 22, 2016, seven of the 14 members of the Kansas state Court of Appeals firmly rejected those claims. They acknowledged what seven other appellate judges ignored—that there is an unborn child’s right to life at stake.

“Because the Kansas Constitution provides no substantive due process right to abortion, our legislature is free to restrict abortion procedures to the extent it finds it appropriate.”

Furthermore, they rightly concluded there is no right to abortion “expressly found in the text” of the state Constitution and that “it should not be done by judicial decree.”

Ks Supreme Court

Kansas Supreme Court

As the Kansas Supreme Court begins consideration of this issue, they:

  • should refuse to take the pro-abortion activist stance which invents abortion protection that did not exist in the Kansas pre-Civil War Constitution, nor afterward, and
  • should properly stay within its judicial boundaries and affirm duly-passed laws that protect tiny unborn girls and boys from inhumane torture.

We can only hope and pray this Court will do the right thing.

Read Full Post »

2015 Rally for Life 2015 Rally for Life urges ban on dismemberment abortion bans

Last April, Kansas became the first state to pass legislation barring the barbaric dismemberment method abortions. Now, under challenge  by pro-abortionists, that first-of-its-kind law, which is on hold, is about to be reviewed by the Kansas Supreme Court.

This ban prohibits the gruesome abortion method of tearing apart fully-formed, living babies– limb by limb– until they bleed to death.

The Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Abortion Act, model legislation drafted by the National Right to Life Committee, has since been enacted by Oklahoma, West Virginia, and (soon) Mississippi. This vital legislation has also been introduced in Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Idaho, Nebraska, Missouri, Louisiana, Rhode Island, and Utah.

Thus the impact of the ruling by our Supreme Court will extend beyond our state borders.

The premise of the Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Abortion Act comes from the U.S. Supreme Court Gonzales ruling. In that 2007 decision, the justices upheld a ban on partial-birth abortions by acknowledging that,

“the State may use its regulatory power to bar certain procedures and substitute others, all in furtherance of its legitimate interests in regulating the medical profession in order to promote respect for life, including life of the unborn.”

Abortion supporters have thus sought to find and secure in state constitutions a broader and more unassailable “right” to abortion.

pro-abortion judgesThat’s what happened in Kansas last June, when Shawnee District Court Judge Larry Hendricks blocked the ban on dismemberment abortions from going into effect.  Hendricks adopted abortion attorney arguments–literally–asserting that the Kansas state Constitution protects abortion even more fundamentally than the standard established by the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision.

The temporary injunction was obtained by the New York-based Center for Reproductive Rights on behalf of Kansas’ father-daughter abortionists at the Center for Women’s Health in suburban Kansas City.

The injunction allows three Kansas abortion businesses to continue to perform these grisly procedures — 629 last year–at a cost of up to $2,000 each.

That activist ruling by Judge Hendricks was left standing when the full Kansas Court of Appeals reviewed it and announced on January 22 that they were divided, 7-7.

However, pro-life Attorney General Derek Schmidt appealed the appellate decision to the state’s highest court. Schmidt argued that the appellate ruling does not make precedent and current abortion lawsuits remain in limbo without clear guidance. Yesterday, it was announced the appeal will be heard. (documents here) Here are the three questions that the state of Kansas has posed for the state Supreme Court to rule on:

  1. Does the Kansas Constitution create a right to abortion?
  2. If that right exists, does it clearly prevent government from regulating dismemberment abortions?
  3. Did the Court of Appeals wrongly accept the lower court’s facts and legal standard?

Our state Constitution was enacted in 1859, when abortion was illegal in Kansas and across the nation. Yet one radical judge of the Kansas Court of Appeals, G. Gordon Atcheson (writing to concur with the injunction against the dismemberment abortion ban) believes that the state Constitution is an “evolving” document with an “ever more enlightened understanding of humanity” and women’s “self-determination.”

Mary Kay Culp, KFL executive director commented, “The challenge we face is whether a majority of the Kansas Supreme Court will follow the U.S. Supreme Court’s holding that allows states to ban barbaric abortion methods, or whether it will follow Appellate Judge Atcheson’s opinion that the dismembering of unborn children comports with an ‘enlightened understanding of humanity’.”

Read Full Post »

baby SImon Crosier died to a secret DNR

Baby Simon died due to a secret DNR order

The Kansas Senate has approved two pro-life bills: SB 437, Simon’s Law, and SB 436, prioritizing public clinics for Title X money that Planned Parenthood had claimed in 2011 was “theirs.”

The Senate passed both bills provisionally Monday with a final vote tally for both scheduled for Tuesday.UPDATE, State Legislative website error corrected Tues. 7pm: Final tally: SB 437,Simon’ s Law, passed 37-3 and SB 436 passed 32-8.

Sen. Jacob LaTurner (R-Pittsburg) was bill carrier for Simon’s Law, adopted from a measure originally filed in Missouri. Simon’s Law would:

  • prevent children from being denied life-sustaining care through DNR (Do Not Resuscitate) orders issued without parental knowledge or permission; and
  • require hospitals and medical facilities with policies about withholding life-sustaining treatment to disclose such policies upon request.
Sen. LaTurner

Sen. LaTurner, pro-life bill carrier

“I think this is a very good piece of legislation, very necessary to make sure that this doesn’t happen to any children in the future in the state of Kansas,” LaTurner said, after detailing the in-hospital death of baby Simon Crosier, using the words of his mother, Sheryl Crosier.

Kansans for Life had presented a collection of tragic accounts of how medically-fragile children were harmed –or  had died!– due to “secret” DNRs.  See personal testimonies and blog posts, here and here.

Simon’s Law does not criminalize any actions of doctors or hospitals; it merely sets in law the same process already in state statute for guardians when life-sustaining care is threatened to be denied to their wards.

During Monday’s floor debate, consternation about the bill came only from pro-abortion regulars, Sen. Vicki Schmidt (R-Topeka) and Sen. Laura Kelly (D-Topeka) who are each married to Kansas physicians. (No current Kansas senators are physicians or nurses by profession.)

Sen. Schmidt opened her comments on the floor by asking if, under Simon’s Law, a child in an emergency room must be kept alive if he/she had arrived without a parent. The answer was, certainly, yes! And isn’t that what every parent should be able to assume will happen? Yet Sen. Schmidt found it troubling!

Sen. Schmidt

anti-life Sen. Vicki Schmidt

Schmidt also tried to raise fears that foster parents or the state family agency would be unworkable as petitioners. However. the protocol to petition the court on behalf of a child in need of treatment, applies smoothly for those “acting in the place of” parents. Thus was the sum of her objection to Simon’s Law

To explain why no entity opposed Simon’s Law, Sen. Kelly made a false claim that “the process for it was too rushed,” with only one day’s notice given for the March 3rd hearing –thus prohibiting all stakeholders from testifying. That was both absurd and provably false!

  1. There’s a myriad of medical interest lobbyists at the Capitol who learned on Feb 10 that Simon’s Law was in process and had plenty of time to prepare testimony.
  2. Moreover, KFL records show the Senate Health committee secretary specifically notified all committee members (including Kelly) and 50 other interested parties on Feb 23–not March 2 as Kelly claimed–about the Simon’s Law hearing.

Sen. Kelly said that Children’s Mercy Hospitals in Kansas City, MO and St. Louis. MO, as well as the SMS Missouri health network had opposed the Missouri version of Simon’s Law, and had discussed their concerns with her. However, the superficial medical opposition to the Missouri version has seemed to evaporate toward the Kansas version, perhaps due to clarifying definitions and conflict protocols from KFL not in the original Missouri version.

On the Senate floor, Health & Public Welfare chairman, Sen. Michael O’Donnell (R-Wichita), rebutted Sen. Kelly’s claims of “committee process abuse”and said none of her named entities–or any other party– has ever yet to contact him with concerns. Most observers realized Kelly’s claim of abuse of process was a weak attempt to excuse why she will be passing on tomorrow’s final vote.

The unique situation in which a Kansas pro-life bill has gone unchallenged in committee may actually reflect reluctance by physicians and hospitals to state openly:

  • their unwillingness to relinquish sole control over DNRs, as well as
  • prove that a pernicious medical elitism and bias exists toward patients they believe are not “worthy” of living.
Sen. Ostmeyer

pro-life Sen. Ostmeyer

Pro-life Sen. Ralph Ostmeyer (R-Grinnell) alluded to physicians who issue DNRs in order to “put parents (not the child) out of their misery.” Sen. Ostmeyer insisted parents deserve to make the final call, adding,”Don’t let the doctor play God.”

The second bill passed is SB 436, which targets Title X contracts to provide comprehensive care to the indigent.  (see KFL blogs here and here and KFL testimony)

Kansas’s right to prioritize full-service providers was upheld in 2014 by federal appellate court after Planned Parenthood sued the budget allotment —and lost.

In Kansas, federal Title X reproductive health funds go first to full-service facilities, mainly public health clinics, and then public hospitals. The Kansas legislature has annually budgeted for this since 2011 (after 4 years of pro-abortion governor vetoes).

The point of SB 436 is to make permanent in statute what has been an annual budget item. On behalf of her 26 Senate co-sponsors, Sen. Caryn Tyson (R-Parker) was the bill carrier.

As she had attempted in committee, abortion supporter, Sen. Marci Francisco (D-Lawrence) once again tried to amend SB 436 to create a new revenue stream for Planned Parenthood. The amendment failed.

Read Full Post »

Senate committee chairmen O’Donnell & Masterson expedited pro-life bill hearings

Pro-life Senate chairmen,  O’Donnell & Masterson

Pro-life Senate Public Health & Welfare chair, Mike O’Donnell (R-Wichita) and Senate Ways & Means chair, Ty Masterson (R-Andover) expedited committee passage of 2 pro-life Kansas bills this week.

On Wednesday, March 9, the Senate Public Health & Welfare committee passed Simon’s Law, SB 437, a bill addressing parental rights and life-sustaining treatment for minors.

Only one committee member, Sen, Laura Kelly (D-Topeka), voted against passage. Sen. Kelly complained that medical opposition had NOT come forward to oppose this eminently reasonable and protective bill!

Simon’s Law was named for a baby, Simon Crosier, who was allowed to die due to a DNR (Do Not Resuscitate) medical order issued without knowledge or permission of his parents; they believe Simon was discriminated against due to his Trisomy 18 condition.

Simon Crosier & parents

Simon Crosier & parents

Kansans for Life brought the committee many compelling testimonials from other families whose medically fragile children were harmed and/or denied medical resuscitation– due to negative “quality of life” value judgments from physicians and hospitals. Simon’s Law will do two important 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, upon request, a facility must disclose any existing written policy on denial of life-sustaining treatment.

The Senate Public Health & Welfare committee added clarifying language defining futile care and a process for DNR conflict resolution. The full Senate is expected to vote on Simon’s Law within days.


Anti-life Senators Kelly & Francisco

Anti-life Senators Kelly & Francisco

On Tuesday, March 8, the Senate Ways & Means Committee passed out a pro-life bill that would make permanent the way the state health department, KDHE, assigns grants using Title X federal funding.

SB 436 codifies the original 2007 Huelskamp-Kinzer proviso, prioritizing comprehensive care facilities as Title X recipients. The proviso was annually passed– but line-item vetoed– until signed into law in 2011 under Gov. Sam Brownback.

Planned Parenthood sued in 2011 to get that Title X money which it no longer qualified for. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals denied their claim in 2014. The ruling vindicated Kansas, and what former KDHE secretary, Robert Moser, had maintained: “Title X was not intended to be an entitlement program for Planned Parenthood.

SB 436 prioritizes that full-service public clinics and hospitals are first in line for Title X reproductive-services money. Remaining money is secondarily prioritized to private, full-service clinics and hospitals. The measure strengthens local ‘safety net’ health clinics.

The Senate Ways & Means committee passed SB 436 with Senator Marci Francisco (D-Lawrence) as the only no vote. This bill is also expected to get a vote from the full Senate in short order.

During committee action, Sen. Francisco, with support from Sen. Laura Kelly (D-Topeka), had offered an amendment to SB 436 that would have created a brand new KDHE funding stream for Planned Parenthood! The committee soundly defeated that amendment.

Read Full Post »

Hon. Thomas Malone

Appellate Chief Judge Malone

On the 43rd anniversary of Roe v. Wade, Kansas pro-lifers groaned when they heard that the state Court of Appeals had tied 7-7, meaning that a lower court’s ruling would stand and, with it, a temporary injunction on our historic ban on dismemberment abortions.” An appeal is being quickly drafted by the office of Attorney General Derek Schmidt to the state Supreme Court.

The “Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Abortion Act” became law in Kansas in April, just days before Oklahoma enacted the law. The Act prohibits one specific method of abortion—a torturous, piece by piece, dismemberment of a living unborn child.

Shawnee District Court Judge Larry Hendricks was the first judge in the nation to review the matter. Hendricks so much loved the abortion attorneys’ arguments (inventing a previously undiscovered fundamental right to abortion in the 1859 Kansas Constitution) that he had them pen his temporary order for injunction! (Didn’t know judges could do that, did you?)

After the state appealed Hendricks’ injunction, all 14 members of the Court of Appeals heard arguments from both sides on December 9.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs (a father and daughter team of abortionists) asserted that Article 1 and 2 of the Bill of Rights of the state Constitution expressly contained a liberty right to abortion which must be interpreted the way the due process section of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was interpreted in Roe v Wade.

Seven appellate judges, in the dissent authored by Chief Judge Thomas Malone, used careful reasoning and a strict constructionist approach to opine that there is no ‘independent state-law right to abortion” and “there is nothing in the text or history of Articles 1 and 2 …to lead this court to conclude that these provisions were intended to guarantee a right to abortion.”

Chief Malone’s dissent notes that the Kansas Bill of Right predates the Fourteenth Amendment and to accept “such a broad reading” of the Bill of Rights, which “does not contain the same language” as the Fourteenth Amendment and “was ratified under different historical circumstances, would go well beyond the apparent intent of its framers.”

As the Attorney General defense team has consistently argued, abortion in Kansas was outlawed– even before the state bill of rights was ratified— and broadly criminalized thereafter except to prevent the death of the mother in an emergency.

Malone’s dissent highlights the essential tension, “[A]bortion places the pregnant women’s liberty interest directly at odd with the unborn child’s right to life. The balancing of these interests is a matter of public policy” which is under “the charge of the state legislature, not the court.” Moreover,

“The proper question to ask and answer is what rights the makers and adopters of the instrument intended to protect…not what rights today’s judges would like to see in our state constitution.”

Appellate Judge Leben

Judge Leben

The other half of the Court of Appeals does not subscribe to judicial restraint and agrees with the Hendricks ruling. Six of them united behind an opinion written by Judge Steve Leben. They say that Articles 1 & 2 of the Bill of Rights are sufficiently equivalent to the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.


Judge Atcheson

In a separate concurrence affirming the Hendricks ruling, Judge G. Gordon Atcheson distinguishes his support from the Leben opinion. He finds that Article 1 and 2 provide even greater protection for abortion than the Fourteenth Amendment. And this is a case study in rhetoric over legal analysis.

For example, Judge Atcheson refers to the dismemberment of an unborn child as if it is merely “unaesthetic,” while (incorrectly) asserting that the state cannot prohibit a barbaric abortion procedure. He wrote, “The government cannot impose upon an essential right because some exercise of the right may be unaesthetic or even repulsive to some people.

He ignores the example that horrific partial-birth abortions are illegal, as upheld in the 2007 Gonzales ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court, but that may be because he disdains it so much: “Women have a right protected in Article 1 to exercise reproductive freedom as an essential component of their self-determination. To suggest otherwise simply inflates that women are flighty creatures in constant need of guidance and protection to be supplied either by menfolk or, in this case, a meddlesome government … That sort of paternalistic claptrap animates the majority opinion in Gonzales v. Carhart.”

Another of the examples of Judge Atcheson’s pro-abortion feminism: “Although the general societal and legal acceptance of gender equality hasn’t yet reached every quarter, Article 1 doesn’t bend to the obdurate views of those who would cling to the days when white men were the acknowledged masters of the realm.”

The caliber of Judge Atcheson’s writing and the extreme reach taken in the Judge Leben group opinion are distressing. The state of Kansas defense team has consistently maintained that the notion that there exists a state constitutional right to abortion “is a fantasy.” Half of the appellate court had the wisdom to recognize it.

Read Full Post »

APpellate court

KS Court of Appeals

The Kansas Court of Appeals majority ruling Friday was a 7-7 tie which means the Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Abortion Act is not voided, but the lower court injunction remains in place and the ban is not in effect.

Seven judges support one appalling method of tearing apart LIVING well-formed unborn babies –due to the novel claim that abortion is included in our state constitutional bill of rights. This is an activist, offensive ruling not reflective of sound analysis.

Seven judges wrote in dissent, disagreeing that the dismemberment ban must stay blocked. Those seven judges included two appointed under pro-abortion Gov. Sebelius, showing that the recognition of the state’s right to prohibit an unbelievably heinous and barbaric abortion method –as the U.S. Supreme Court in the 2007 Gonzales ruling clearly did– is an issue beyond partisan labels.

The resulting split ruling affirms the recent improvement in the nomination of Appellate judges and underscores Kansans for Life’s promotion of reform of the nomination process for state Supreme Court. .

Of the 14 total appellate court members, the newest member was picked with the “federal model” protocol (Kathryn Gardner, part of the dissent) while 13 were picked under the “Missouri plan” method in which:

  • nominees are chosen secretly within a commission whose majority is chosen by a disproportionately tiny group of registered attorneys. The die is cast by the commission chief, chosen last time by 2,500 attorneys–not at all proportionally representative of the 1.7 million registered Kansas voters.
  • nominees forwarded to the governor are chosen with various motivations by the commission with a nod to the policy preferences of the sitting governor (and candidates with recorded donations to the governor), but the choice is forced on the governor, for if he/she rejects all three, the Chief Justice gets to pick one.

Kansans for Life appreciates any judge who respects the rule of law. Our support for judicial selection reform is not about suggesting that it is impossible for a “Missouri-plan” judge to arrive at a correct result– that would be absurd.

Rather, we support reform because increased democratic accountability on the front end of the process builds societal respect for the judiciary. On balance, that is likely to result, over the long term, in more judges who will exercise judicial restraint.

KFL has held this position in support of judicial selection reform since 2005, under Gov. Sebelius– and thus is independent of the existence of a Governor’s policy on abortion because the public accountability rests in the Senate confirmation process.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »