Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘A.G. Derek Schmidt’

The governors and attorneys general of 22 states (including Kansas) have joined together to file an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief to support Alabama’s ban on dismemberment abortions.

A temporary restraining order against Alabama’s Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Abortion Act was issued in July 2016, one year after Kansas’ identical ban also was blocked, although the Kansas challenge is taking place in state, not federal, court.

Last Friday, the U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals received the joint “amicus” brief organized by Louisiana’s Attorney General. Included are six states which have passed this ban [Arkansas, Louisiana, Kansas, Mississippi, Oklahoma and West Virginia] and sixteen which have not [Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, Ohio, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, and Wisconsin].

Gov. Sam Brownback signs ‘first-in-nation” ban on
dismemberment abortion

This filing reminds that –as noted in the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2007 Gonzales ruling upholding the federal ban on partial-birth abortions– states have the right to pass abortion restrictions that (1) protect and foster respect for the unborn, and (2) regulate the medical profession as to judgment and ethics. Moreover, the amicus continues,

“the abortion method involved in this case is an exceptionally gruesome one, potentially even more so than the ‘partial-birth’ procedure at issue in Gonzales.”

ABORTION METHOD MISREPRESENTED
One method of abortion after the first trimester is induced labor abortions, done mostly in hospital settings. The child is prematurely delivered and dies.

Most other abortions obtained at that gestation are done surgically by “D&E,” in which the birth canal is dilated and the unborn child extracted.

The abortion industry defense of dismemberment abortions has been the claim that “D&E” is safe and used for 95% of second trimester abortions.

However, all D&E abortions are not being banned under the Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Abortion Act, model legislation supported by NRLC and first enacted in Kansas.

Dismemberment abortions of still-living unborn children are a subset of D&E method

By design, this law bans only one specific method used upon a still-alive unborn baby. The law is defined as the tearing apart of an unborn child while still alive in the mother; a child who, in the words of U.S, Justice Anthony Kennedy, “dies just as a human adult or child would: It bleeds to death as it is torn limb from limb.” [Stenberg v. Carhart, dissent, 530 U.S. 914, 958-959]

To explain defending a law “requiring fetal demise before dismemberment,” the states authoring this brief insist they

do not intend to sanction abortion generally. They also regret being placed in the incongruous position as advocating for fetal death as a humane alternative to a procedure that should have no place in civilized society.”

ABORTIONISTS NOT FREE TO CHOOSE
States like Kansas that have enacted the dismemberment ban, have heard abortionists rely on the claim that because D&E abortions are “the most common,” that the state dare not ban them. But the state is not banning all D&E abortions, as noted above, a distinction that most media accounts resolutely miss. The multi-state amicus brief notes,

Kansas A.G. Derek Schmidt

“Even when some abortion providers consider a forbidden procedure to be medically preferable, the State’s reasonable resolution of the tradeoffs prevails. Abortion providers instead must work to find abortion methods that are more consistent with respect for life.”

Of course, the ultimate goal is for the Roe regime, and abortions, to end.

In the interim, it is promising that Kansas has emboldened 21 other states in supporting the federal appeal of the block on Alabama’s Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Abortion Act. According to the amicus,

“By limiting the use of particularly ‘brutal’ abortion procedures, States further respect for life, both in society at large and in the medical profession in particular. They also protect women from the deep grief many of them are likely to feel if and when they later discover exactly how their unborn children were killed.

Read Full Post »

Kansas Supreme Court

The Kansas Supreme Court will hear oral arguments Thursday morning in the most important pro-life issue ever to be decided in state history: whether a previously unknown  “fundamental” right to abortion is part of the 1859 state Constitution’s Bill of Rights.

This momentous case began in June of 2015, when abortion interests sued SB 95, the newly-enacted Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Abortion Act. This first-in-the nation ban—which other states have enacted and others are now seeking to pass—would prohibit the barbaric method of tearing apart fully-formed unborn children, piece by piece, while they are still alive inside their mother.

Shawnee District Court Judge Larry Hendricks issued a temporary injunction against the measure. He concluded that abortion interests would eventually prevail when a state right to abortion was officially acknowledged. A split decision of the Kansas Court of Appeals on the matter last January left Hendricks’ injunction in place.

Solicitor General Stephen McAllister will argue the case for the KS A.G.

The legal team for the Kansas Attorney General, Derek Schmidt, has rigorously defended SB 95 as an authentic exercise of the state’s regulatory powers. They have repeatedly argued that any idea that Kansas actually has enshrined a right to abortion “is a fantasy.”

KFL FRIEND OF THE COURT BRIEF
As it had for the first appeal of SB 95, Kansans for Life filed an “amicus curiae” (friend of the court) brief, buttressing the arguments of the Attorney General.

The KFL amicus asks that the Kansas Supreme Court reverse the injunction issued by Judge Hendricks and “declare that no right to abortion can be implied or created based on the text, history, and jurisprudence of this state.” The amicus points out:

  1. The Hendricks’ ruling is in direct conflict with the primacy of place given to the right to life in the Kansas Bill of Rights, which declares, “All men are possessed of equal and inalienable natural rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
  2. The litigation against SB 95 thus far has treated the case as if no application of the ban is constitutional (called a facial challenge) when in fact, the abortionists challenging the ban have presented documentation that undermines that claim.
  3. The same logic that upheld the federal partial-birth abortion ban (in the 2007  U.S. Supreme Court’s Gonzales ruling) will also uphold a ban on the equally horrific shredding of still-alive unborn children.
  4. Senate Bill 95 is based on the simple proposition that causing gratuitous pain to other human beings is fundamentally wrong— the foundation of the Kansas statutory prohibition of torture and enhanced penalties for crimes involving torture.

In its conclusion, the KFL brief advises the Kansas Supreme Court that:

“There simply is no basis in the Kansas Bill of Rights for a ruling that requires the state to tolerate live dismemberment abortion – a ruling that affords unborn children less protection than afforded by state statute to the livestock in this state.”

Many pro-lifers are praying that the justices will be positively affected in this hearing tomorrow. The hearing will be live streamed here.

Read Full Post »

thumb_008

Now-closed Kansas City “Affordable Abortions”  lab specimen prep room in 2003 (photos by staff whistle-blower)

The U.S. Supreme Court 5-3 Whole Women’s Health v Hellerstedt ruling June 27th is not the huge victory abortion supporters claim. However, there is no question that “Hellerstedt” is a truly troublesome ruling, as it:

  • undermines the Court’s former support for the compelling interests of state legislatures,
  • makes the Supreme Court the nation’s medical board, and
  • encourages activist courts to indulge in subjective judgment of abortion regulations.

Ultimately, it’s a setback for the pro-life movement both nationally and in Kansas. However, looking at the long game, Supreme Court decisions are not set in stone.

As a reminder,  the Court struck down a ban on partial-birth abortions in 2000 and then in 2007 upheld the ban. Why? The language of the ban was tweaked, the public became educated (and outraged) and the composition of the Supreme Court changed. This is why presidential elections matter.

HORRIBLE RULING
Hellerstedt
has abandoned any pretext that the Court is only involved to guarantee “safe and legal” abortion. They have overruled protection for women in order to protect abortion business profits. The Court has reinforced its schizophrenia that demands abortion be treated as a medical procedure, but not be subject to the ordinary state oversight other medical facilities must obey.

Kansas City "Affordable Abortions"

“Affordable Abortions” unsterile surgical bedside with open trash and dirty carpet

Kansas has had plenty of abortion horror stories. A staff whistle-blower took photos in 2003 at the inner city “Affordable Abortions” clinic of Krishna Rajanna (now closed). She was so worried about the filth there she would wipe down the surgical bed with rubbing alcohol whenever she could.

Kansas had a duty to enact abortion clinic regulations, and it took ten years to get a licensure and inspection law— passed when we had a pro-life governor in 2011.
(Read more here and here.)

The abominable majority opinion last Monday, written by Justice Breyer, absurdly tries to justify striking down Texas’ clinic regulations, asserting that having such laws in place would not stop the “very bad behavior” of “determined wrong-doers” like Kansas had  at the “Affordable Abortions” clinic and elsewhere. With that logic, no laws would ever be passed.

The Hellerstedt ruling is harshly criticized by the dissenting justices (Thomas, Alito and Roberts) for breaking procedural rules and being so riddled with special exceptions for special rights” that it violates “the promise of a judiciary bound by the rule of law.”

Planned Parenthood has announced now they’ll fight abortion regulations in eight states: Arizona, Florida, Michigan, Missouri, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia– “with more to come” against similar laws across the country. National Right to Life Committee president, Carol Tobias, expects only measures identical to those blocked by the Supreme Court will be vulnerable to appeal.

HOW IS KANSAS AFFECTED?
The office of Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt has so far announced that the legal team is studying the Hellerstedt ruling with respect to three ongoing lawsuits filed by Kansas abortionists. The A.G. team has prevailed in all other concluded abortion litigation since 2011.  (Read more about Kansas abortion clinics and lawsuits here.)

"Affordable Abortions" had blocked back exit with lawn mower in the mess as a "back-up generator"

“Affordable Abortions” fire-hazard blocked back exit with lawn mower (by door) as a “back-up generator”

Most directly related to Hellerstedt is the 2011 Kansas comprehensive abortion clinic licensure & inspection law which has never been in effect due to a “temporary” injunction and to an unjustifiable 4 1/2 year delay from Shawnee District Court Judge Franklin Theis.

That law includes building safety standards, injury & death incident reporting, abortion-specific protocols and a requirement that abortions be performed by Kansas-licensed physicians. Relative to Hellerstedt, it

  1. does mandate hospital privileges for abortionists within 30 miles of the abortion site, but
  2. does not require an abortion facility to be licensed as an ambulatory surgical center (ASC).

The admitting privilege (#1)  does mirror that of Texas, but the context in Kansas is not the same. All four Kansas abortion businesses  (2 in Wichita and 2 in Overland Park) claim to have access to abortionists with hospital privileges.

As for #2, although some of the Kansas facility requirements do resemble those of ASCs,  those provisions would not automatically need to be struck down. Also, two Kansas abortion businesses(Planned Parenthood and SouthWind) are already licensed as ASCs.

However, following Hellerstedt, activist courts will be more encouraged to subjectively critique –and potentially reject–duly-passed medical oversight laws.

 

Read Full Post »

Gov. Brownback flanked by KFL's Mary Kay Culp and Archbishop Naumann

Gov. Sam Brownback, flanked by KFL’s Exec. Director, Mary Kay Culp, and KCK Archbishop Joseph Naumann

Neither the D.C. blizzard nor the legal disapproval of half of the Kansas state Court of Appeals stopped the Pro-life Religious Council from giving their award to Gov. Sam Brownback Friday for Kansas’ historic passage of The Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Abortion Act.

The result of a rare 7-7 tie decision Friday by the Kansas Court of Appeals is that the appalling opinion of Shawnee District Judge Larry Hendricks’ is upheld–for now. Judge Hendricks ruled that barbaric dismemberment abortions cannot be outlawed because the 1859 Kansas Constitution contains a right to abortion.

The dismemberment ban is not voided, but it remains enjoined from going into effect while litigation continues. The ban will be vigorously defended by the legal team of Attorney General Derek Schmidt.

"shower curtain"sign by Kansas pro-life activist, Vonda Wiedmeyer

“shower curtain” sign held up in the audience by Kansas pro-life activist, Vonda Wiedmer

In his acceptance remarks, Gov. Brownback urged that Kansas’ strong bipartisan passage of this dismemberment ban be repeated across the nation and at the nation’s Capitol.

Fr. Frank Pavone, who hosted the award ceremony, observed that the Appeals Court ruling shows that, “the battle for the unborn child’s civil rights will go back and forth for now. We know, however, that the truth of that child’s humanity will ultimately triumph over the lies of the abortion industry.”

Among attendees at the PRC presentation were Mary Kay Culp, Executive Director of Kansans for Life, and Archbishop Joseph Naumann, head of the Catholic Archdiocese of Kansas City in Kansas. The Kansas Catholic conference had testified in support of the ban:

“The fact that this legislation is even necessary is an indictment of our society and even the very notion of human progress…[when] we in the here and now allow our children to be torn apart, piece by piece, limb by limb.”

Read Full Post »

Solicitor General Steve McAlister

Solicitor General Steve McAlister

While Wednesday’s full court hearing of the Kansas Court of Appeals was characterized by one of the 14 judges as “merely a whistle stop on the destination to justice,” it would be a mistake to underestimate the significance of the 90-minute hearing.

At issue is Attorney General Derek Schmidt’s appeal of a temporary injunction granted June 25 by a state court which blocked Senate Bill 95, the “Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Abortion Act,” from going into effect.

The lawsuit was filed by father-daughter abortionists at the Center for Women’s Health, Herb Hodes and Traci Nauser, who attended the hearing along with a raft of attorneys, reporters, representatives of the other two Kansas abortion businesses, and members of Kansans for Life. Court staff had added extra chairs and a “cheat” sheet with the judges’ photos and names. No electronic devices are allowed, so notes had to be taken with old fashioned paper and pen.

This hearing was focused on the process of awarding an injunction, and not the content of the law enjoined. So it was not too surprising that not one word was uttered describing the horrific abortion dismemberment method that uses sharp metal clamps and scissors to tear apart, piece by piece, a well-formed, living unborn child.

Rather, the focus of the oral argument (45 minutes each, pro and con) was on pretty heavy-duty legal language–for example,  how federal “substantive due process” and “equal protection” (upon which Roe is based) are interpreted in state constitutions.

In simpler terms, will this court uphold the injunction by Shawnee County Judge Larry Hendricks that blocked the dismemberment ban from going into effect?

The Attorney General’s appeal alleges the injunction cannot hold because it is based on

  • a hitherto-undeclared “right to abortion” under the Bill of Rights section of the Kansas Constitution; and
  • misinterpretations of federal abortion decisions.

The pro-life side was represented by State Solicitor General, Steve McAllister– an experienced litigator, constitutional scholar, past law school dean, and former clerk to two U.S. Supreme Court justices.

The attorney for the plaintiffs seeking to keep dismemberment abortions legal was Janet Crepps, from the New-York-based Center for Reproductive Rights. Crepps is an experienced pro-abortion litigator, but she struggled to answer judges’ questions regarding Kansas law.

KANSAS CONSTITUTION PROTECTS UNBORN
The arguments Wednesday dealt nearly exclusively with the Kansas Constitution, and not the federal abortion rulings related to partial-birth and dismemberment abortion methods. McAllister strongly asserted that this court’s task was to assess prior Kansas rulings and not try to guess which way the Kansas Supreme Court might rule on this case in the future –as it is expected they surely will do at some point.

He presented strong evidence that the state framers particularly sought to protect natural rights, not un-enumerated, newly-evolved “rights.”

This stood in opposition to Judge Hendricks’ ruling which asserts a state abortion right that is “fundamental,” broader than that of Roe, and which bars any ban on the dismemberment method.

McAllister noted that abortion was illegal at the 1859 adoption of the state constitution, so how can any authentic reading of it re-interpret abortion to be protected? Moreover, abortion was criminally prosecuted in Kansas up until Roe.  Kansas case law, he argued, has interpreted the state constitution as specifically protective of the unborn child.

As a comparison, McAllister pointed out that doctors had filed—and lost—a lawsuit to find a “right” to practice medicine within the Kansas Constitution, so it seems absurd for abortionists to assert there’s a “right” to abortion found there!

Abortion attorney Janet Crepps

Abortion attorney Janet Crepps

WEAK LEGAL CLAIMS
Several judges pushed Crepps to defend why her clients were seeking to have Kansas courts secure a state right to abortion. Since the intended purpose of a temporary injunction is to prevent “harms” during litigation, they asked how was she really helping her clients by not using the federal court system where Roe already supports abortion claims?

Crepps’ reply was that every citizen has the right to ask the courts to find such individual protection under their state constitution. She noted that interracial marriage and gay rights were not originally acknowledged as rights.

At one point, Crepps was asked to elucidate specifically what was the “undue burden” involved from the Act: was it safety? cost? geographic access?

Crepps responded that the banned method took only one day to complete instead of three and that the Act left only “unreasonable alternatives” for women seeking second-trimester abortions. Throughout the hearing she repeatedly described one alternative method as requiring the insertion of a “spinal, 18-gauge needle into the stomach or vagina” to “cause demise.”

She didn’t say “fetal demise.” Just demise. Did the judges notice she left out the unborn child?

The chief Judge of the appellate court, Thomas Malone, promised a quick ruling but was unable to say when that would occur.

Read Full Post »

KS appeals court

Kansas Court of Appeals to probe dismemberment ban

Over the Thanksgiving holiday, all 14 judges of Kansas’ state Court of Appeals will begin analyzing all legal briefs, pro and con, for an expedited hearing on the grisly topic of dismemberment abortions.

That includes a “friend of the court” brief submitted by Kansans for Life in support of Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt. Schmidt is appealing a lower court decision that blocked implementation of the state’s first-in-the-nation Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Abortion Act.

Oral arguments are set for December 9.

Last July, Shawnee County District Court Judge Larry Hendricks issued an injunction, blocking Senate Bill 95 from going in effect. (read more
here)

The Act bans a barbaric abortion method that tears apart living, well-formed unborn babies while in their mother’s wombs.

A.G. Schmidt

A.G. Schmidt

The preliminary 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.

But the abortionists’ lawsuit was not filed in the federal court route that ends with the U.S. Supreme Court. The Kansas Attorney General’s legal team points out clearly in its filings that the abortionists logically should have taken that path, but instead are pursuing the state court path that ends with the state Supreme Court.

Why? Two reasons. Abortion attorneys:

  1.  recognize this Act could well be upheld for the nation, and
  2.  want to, instead, carve out a state right to abortion as interpreted into the Bills of Rights section of the Kansas Constitution.

The explanation for #1 is that dismemberment method abortions were examined at some length by the U.S. Supreme Court during their deliberations on partial-birth abortions. The Court assessed both methods as “brutal.”

In its 2007 Gonzales decision, the High Court upheld a prohibition on the gruesome partial-birth method, as furthering “legitimate interests in regulating the medical profession in order to promote respect for life, including life of the unborn.”

The explanation for #2 is that the Kansas state Supreme Court has shown a decidedly pro-abortion bias over the past two decades. Abortion attorneys are attempting to take advantage of that, hoping that the Kansas Supreme Court will “discover” a right-to-abortion in the state Constitution.

Everyone knows that is what is happening. The Nov. 15 “rebuttal” filing from the Kansas Attorney General observed that,

“[this suit invites] Kansas courts to take on a long rejected activist role: to change the people’s Constitution of the past 150 years in order to recognize “rights” that Plaintiffs may deem politically or morally expedient, but which an overwhelming majority of Kansans do not support.

APPEAL COURT CONSIDERATIONS
The Kansas Court of Appeals has been asked by the Kansas Attorney General to rule on whether the lower court– that opined dismemberment abortions cannot be banned –erred in two areas:

  • misstating the relevant U.S. Supreme Court findings, and
  • claiming that there exists a state right to abortion.

The abortion attorneys have clearly misstated the U.S. Supreme Court—and that’s why they don’t want to end up there.

DIsmembering a living unborn child

Dismembering a living unborn child

As to the claim that Kansas has a state abortion right, attorneys for the Center for Women’s Health argue that permitting abortionists to dismember living babies till they bleed to death is part of a woman’s liberty right, and a development of Kansas’ “pro-woman” history. They cite that, from its inception, Kansas gave women the right to hold property and vote in school elections.

How absurd is that stretch?!  Unless a baby is merely property that can be dismembered/shredded in the manner that is most convenient for abortionists. However, the Supreme Court’s most recent abortion ruling of 2007 doesn’t invest abortionists with veto power over the state legislature:

“Physicians are not entitled to ignore regulations that direct them to use reasonable alternative procedures. The law need not give abortion doctors unfettered choice in the course of their medical practice, nor should it elevate their status above other physicians in the medical community.[Gonzales v. Carhart, p.163]

“The medical profession, furthermore, may find different and less shocking methods to abort the fetus in the second trimester, thereby accommodating legislative demand.[p.160]

There is more yet to be aired on what attorneys are claiming in “friend of the court” briefs now being digested by the Kansas appellate court

Read Full Post »

stop dismembering posterKansans for Life today submitted an amicus (“friend of the court”) brief, supporting Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt’s position in the matter of the ground-breaking Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Abortion Act.

The A.G. is appealing a lower court block on the law with a hearing scheduled Dec. 9 in front of the full, fourteen-member state Court of Appeals. The fact that this appeal is being expedited to the full court, instead of a 3-member panel, is extremely unusual and shows the high stakes involved.

The Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Abortion Act was enacted in Kansas this April (followed within days by Oklahoma). The Act is model legislation developed by the National Right to Life Committee that is designed to pass U. S. Supreme Court scrutiny and would prohibit the brutal shredding of unborn children while still alive inside their mothers.

According to state reporting data, Kansas has seen a rise in such horrific abortions, from 584 in 2013 to 637 in 2014. All three abortion businesses in Kansas offer such procedures, with one admitting on national television they cost around $2,000.00 apiece.

THE TRUTH OF DISMEMBERMENT
Abortions by dismemberment are done mainly after the first trimester, when the unborn baby is too large to pass through the suction tubing of the abortion machine. In a dismemberment abortion, the abortionist continually reaches into the mother’s womb with a variety of sharp-edged metal clamps and tools, yanking off parts of the child and pulling them out onto a tray.

Infamous abortionist LeRoy Carhart (who still holds a medical license in Kansas) has described this procedure in court as “dismembering” and recounts how he uses ultrasound guidance so he knows that these unborn victims are still alive, with hearts beating, as the procedure unfolds.

medical arm with abortion toolAlthough pro-abortionists (and nearly every media outlet) refer to these abortions as D&E abortions, D&E is actually a broader term, encompassing the removal of baby body parts—whether parts are torn off of still-alive unborn children or taken off unborn children already dead through the intentional administration of a feticide or by the snipping of the umbilical cord. The Kansas and Oklahoma Acts only bar dismemberment abortions performed on a still-living unborn child.

Abortion attorneys are claiming that women’s health demands this barbaric procedure. This was also their claim when it came to partial-birth abortions, which the U. S. Supreme Court rejected in their 2007 Gonzales ruling. In that decision, the Court upheld that the federal ban on partial-birth abortions — forbidding an inhumane abortion procedure in order to show respect for the developing unborn child and to regulate medicine — was a proper exercise of legislatures.

The impetus for a ban on dismemberment abortion was the actual written comments by the Justices in the Gonzales decision, and in an earlier partial-birth ruling, Stenberg, that acknowledged the horrific abortion procedures.

Ginsburg

Justice Ginsburg

Justice John Paul Stevens, an abortion supporter, in comparing partial-birth abortion to dismemberment abortion, said, “that the State furthers any legitimate interest by banning one but not the other, is simply irrational.” [Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914, 946-947]

Justice Ruth Bader-Ginsburg, an abortion supporter, said both methods “could equally be characterized as ‘brutal,’… involving as it does ‘tear[ing] [a fetus] apart’ and ‘rip[ping] off’ its limbs.” [Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124, 181, 182]

The Court essentially encouraged states to bar abortion methods that, ”might cause the medical profession or society as a whole to become insensitive, even disdainful, to life…” Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914, 961

Barbarism is exactly what the Kansas and Oklahoma legislature intended to stop when enacting the Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Abortion Act, yet both states have been blocked by court injunctions from allowing this law to go into effect.

LOWER COURT ADOPTS ABORTION POSITION
Shawnee District Court Judge Larry Hendricks has apparently not read the relevant U.S. Supreme Court rulings. His decision to issue an injunction in June (read more here) blocking the Act declared that it:

  • would be an unacceptable limitation (“undue burden”) on the so-called right to abortion created by Roe in 1973 (as the abortion attorneys interpret it) and
  • violates an even broader “right” to abortion that the judge says exists in our 1859-adopted Kansas Constitution.
Judge Hendricks

Judge Hendricks

The argument that Kansas has any right to abortion enshrined in our state Constitution has repeatedly been rebutted and called “a fantasy” in filings from the Attorney General.

Furthermore, the U.S. Supreme Court said in Gonzales that abortionists do not have any right to demand certain procedures: Physicians are not entitled to ignore regulations that direct them to use reasonable alternative procedures. The law need not give abortion doctors unfettered choice in the course of their medical practice.” [Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124, 163]

The abortionists’ argument that the Dismemberment Abortion ban restricts a “common” method is actually a plea that they be allowed to keep methods that are more expeditious and profitable for them.

Kansans for Life’s amicus brief amplifies why this Act conforms to the U.S. Supreme Court’s position that some abortion methods are unacceptable and “will further coarsen society to the humanity of not only newborns, but all vulnerable and innocent human life, making it increasingly difficult to protect such life.’ “[Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124, 156-157]

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »