Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘KS Justice Carol Beier’

Kansas pro-lifers battled against inclusion of abortion coverage (see here and here ) when the state Regents in 2006 restructured health insurance for public universities at Emporia, Fort Hays, K-State (Manhattan), KU (Lawrence), KU-Med, Pittsburg and Wichita.

But abortion coverage still got in there.

The current United Healthcare policy, designed for undergrads, graduate students and international students, forbids coverage for elective abortion while, in the section on allowable pregnancy complications, covers “therapeutic” abortions.

“Therapeutic” abortion was the old term for any abortion a practitioner will sign off on.  This was the very loophole warned about during debate on the Senate floor.

While elective abortion is supposedly not covered, there are no legal definitions distinguishing between “elective” and “therapeutic” abortions.

That leaves us with abortionists deciding what to call therapeutic, and in Kansas, we have a nasty history of abortions being obtained for specious reasons, according to expert witness, Dr. Paul McHugh.

This is taxpayer money being siphoned off without anyone reviewing the receipts.

Kansas has never had a pro-life State Insurance Commissioner to ferret out this abuse, and our current state Supreme Court (particularly Justice Carol Beier) halted the only Attorney General who ever attempted to keep abortionists honest.

All the more reason a pro-life Governor and more pro-life state representatives need to be elected.

Read Full Post »

A federal proposal that would silence pro-life and conservative campaign speech [the so-called “DISCLOSE” Act, H.R. 5175] is being rushed to a vote this week in Congress.  UPDATE, June 18: Today’s vote called off for the DISCLOSE act, details here.

NRLC (our parent group, the National Right to Life Committee) has issued several warnings about this blatant attack on our right to participate in a free government.

Under this proposal, the federal government would dictate to a 75-year old woman with health problems, who holds strong religious convictions and who wishes to promote enactment of the Protect Life Act, that

she is “free” to donate money to a pro-life group to be used for broadcast ads to urge specific elected officials to vote for the bill – but ONLY if she (as a “significant funder”) is willing to submit to the INTIMIDATING REQUIREMENTS: that she appear in those ads herself, and also have her name and address posted on the Internet, so that she can be subjected to verbal abuse or even threats by those who disagree with her views.

Enactment of such a law is not a curb on corruption, but itself a type of corruption – a corruption of the lawmaking power, by which incumbent lawmakers employ the threat of criminal sanctions (more…)

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts