Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘National Right to Life Committee’

leg alertKansas legislation to regulate the independent practice of midwives currently includes pro-life language to prevent them from being able “to perform, induce or prescribe drugs for an abortion.”

It has been wrongly stated by some legislators that this ban is unnecessary because the scope of practice does not allow the provision of abortions. However, the rule of thumb when it comes to abortion, is that what is not specifically excluded, will be included.

Here is a letter to Kansas legislators from Mary Spaulding Balch, J.D., Director of State Legislation at the National Right to Life Committee, outlining in detail why this ban is vital and verifying that the idea of midwives doing abortions is actually part of the abortion movement’s plan:

“The National Right to Life Committee and Kansans for Life oppose passage of any bill dealing with the ‘scope of practice’ or ‘independent practice’ of any health care professional which doesn’t include language excluding abortion. We take this position because it has long been the strategy of the pro-abortion movement to use a broad definition of that ‘scope’ as a means to increase the number of lower health care professionals licensed to provide abortion services.

Scope or independence of Practice typically describes the procedures, actions, and processes that a healthcare practitioner is permitted to undertake in keeping with the terms of their professional license. If the health care professional is given the authority to provide ‘pregnancy related services,’ it will be argued by pro-abortion advocates that since abortion deals with a pregnancy and delivery (even though the baby is delivered dead), it is, therefore, within the scope of practice. Thus, an explicit exception is needed to avoid this from happening.

midwifeThe House Substitute for Senate Bill 402 (now folded into HB 2615) raises these concerns. It defines (on pg 152) the ‘Independent practice of midwifery’ to mean ‘the provision of clinical services by a certified nurse-midwife without the requirement of a collaborative practice agreement with a person licensed to practice medicine and surgery when such clinical services are limited to those associated with a normal, uncomplicated pregnancy and delivery, including:
(1) The prescription of drugs and diagnostic tests;
(2) the performance of episiotomy or repair of a minor vaginal laceration;
(3) the initial care of the normal newborn; and
(4) family planning services, including treatment or referral of male
partners for sexually transmitted infections.’

The language about services ‘associated with a normal, uncomplicated pregnancy’ can be argued to include the ability to perform an abortion of a normal, uncomplicated pregnancy which covers the vast majority of abortions performed.

As stated, the National Abortion Federation has long had a strategy for increasing access to abortion by expanding the scope of practice of lower health care professionals. For example, in December 1996, the National Abortion Federation (NAF), with funding from the Kaiser Family Foundation, convened a national symposium to explore how CNMs, NPs, and PAs could participate more fully in abortion service delivery nationwide. In 1997 they presented a symposium entitled, “The role of physician assistants, nurse practitioners, and nurse–midwives in providing abortions: strategies for expanding abortion access.” (National symposium, Atlanta, GA, 13-14 December 1996. Washington, DC: National Abortion Federation; 1997).

They even have a timeline illustrating some of the successful expansion: http://prochoice.org/health-care-professionals/clinicians-for-choice/resource-center/

There is even a ‘tool kit’ entitled “Providing Abortion Care: A Professional Tool Kit for Nurse-Midwives, Nurse Practitioners and Physician Assistants” (2009). It was developed as a guide for health care professionals who want to include abortion as being within their scope of practice.

Expanding the number of people who can provide abortion will increase the number of unborn children being killed. We strongly urge you to prevent this from happening by making it clear that it is not within the scope or independence of practice of lower health care professionals to provide abortion.”

Kansas legislators should heed this instruction and keep the pro-life language (on page 160 of HB 2615) in the midwife legislation.

Read Full Post »

KFL senior lobbyist Jeanne Gawdun congratulates Rep. Brunk, Hutchins & Rubin

KFL senior lobbyist Jeanne Gawdun congratulates Reps. Brunk, Hutchins & Rubin after SB 95 passage

Today by a vote of  98 -26, the Kansas House passed landmark pro-life legislation, Senate Bill 95,”The Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Abortion Act.”

KFL Executive Director, Mary Kay Culp, thanked legislators for their diligence in tackling the issue and enacting a sound law crafted to withstand constitutional scrutiny that will stop a horrific procedure.

After the introduction of the bill in January by lead sponsor, Sen. Garrett Love (R-Montezuma), and 24 Senate co-sponsors, the bill generated immediate grass-roots support and passed the Kansas Senate, 31-9. SB 95 now heads to Gov. Sam Brownback, who has promised his signature.

SB 95 bans a particularly gruesome abortion method in which a living unborn child in her mother’s womb is ripped apart by an abortionist using sharp metal tools. In the words of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, the unborn child, “dies just as a human adult or child would: It bleeds to death as it is torn limb from limb.”[Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914, 958-959]

Model language for SB 95 was provided by the National Right to Life Committee, which made this bill its top state legislative priority. (see their press release here)

SB 95 was carried on the House floor by seasoned pro-lifer, Rep. Steve Brunk (R-Wichita), chair of the Federal & State Affairs committee which held the hearing on the measure. He was assisted on legal questions by another pro-life leader, Rep. John Rubin (R-Shawnee), chair of the Corrections & Juvenile Justice committee.

Pro-life Rep. Becky Hutchins (R-Holton) spoke up for the victim of dismemberment abortion, the “living” unborn child. Then she talked about the “three D’s” associated with such abortions, (depravity, devaluation, and desensitization) as admitted by former abortionist George Flesh:

“Tearing a developed fetus apart, limb by limb, is an act of depravity that society should not permit. We cannot afford such a devaluation of human life, nor the desensitization of medical personnel it requires.”

Once again, opponents of SB 95 talked about anything other than the contents of the bill, mostly complaining that more money should be spent on pregnancy prevention.

Perennial abortion supporter, Rep. Barb Bollier (R-Mission Hills), offered a poorly-worded and unneeded medical exception for “ruptured membranes before 24 weeks.” SB 95 already includes exceptions for the life-of–the-mother and substantial and irreversible physical emergencies.

BACKGROUND
In the 42 years since Roe v. Wade was handed down, the Supreme Court has consistently asserted that States have compelling interests in regulating abortion to preserve the integrity of the medical profession and show respect for the unborn child.

“States also have an interest in forbidding medical procedures which, in the State’s reasonable determination, might cause the medical profession or society as a whole to become insensitive, even disdainful, to life, including life in the human fetus.” [Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914, 961]

Although the Court (in the 2000 Stenberg v Carhart ruling) did not uphold Nebraska’s ban on partial-birth abortions, in 2007 it did uphold the federal ban on partial-birth abortions in Gonzales v. Carhart. In both Stenberg and Gonzales, the justices closely examined the gruesome methods of both partial-birth and D&E/ dismemberment abortions.

“Those who oppose abortion would agree, indeed would insist, that both procedures [partial-birth and D&E] are subject to the most severe moral condemnation, condemnation reserved for the most repulsive human conduct” [Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914, 963

In Stenberg Justice John Paul Stevens, an abortion supporter, compared partial-birth abortion to dismemberment abortion—not to oppose either but to make the case that if the state had an interest in preventing one, it also did in preventing the other. He wrote “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, also an abortion supporter, said in Gonzales that 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 simple truth is D&E dismemberment abortions are as brutal as the partial-birth abortion method, which is now illegal in the United States.

Read Full Post »

Kansans are facing a a pivotal choice for the U.S. Senate: incumbent pro-life GOP Senator Pat Roberts versus pro-abortion multimillionaire Greg Orman.

Orman was unknown to Kansans before he bought over a million dollars in TV ads this summer denigrating Washington’s “gridlock” politics, and offering to end it. Orman portrays himself as an “outsider”–an “Independent” candidate– even though more than 90% of his sizable past political donations have gone to Democrats.

Orman is quite the stealth candidate, except to the abortion industry. They know exactly who he is. Back to that in a moment.

Sen. Roberts released a great new radio ad yesterday, with a crystal clear message that cuts right to the heart of the differences between himself and Orman:

“The right to life is the most fundamental right we have.
From conception to natural death, the life of every Kansan, every American, every human should be honored and protected.
That’s why we need to keep Pat Roberts in the Senate.
Pat Roberts has a 100% pro-life voting record.
Endorsed by both National Right to Life and Kansans for Life, Pat has been a key supporter of every major pro-life initiative in Senate.
Pat opposes abortion on demand and federal funding of abortion.
If you care about life, Pat Roberts is the only choice.

Pat’s opponent, liberal Greg Orman, doesn’t share our values.
Greg Orman is pro-abortion.
Greg Orman would give President Obama another pro-abortion vote in the Senate.
We can’t let that happen.
Orman says we have to move past this issue.
Pat Roberts, on the other hand, will never stop fighting for life.
Protect life, Pat Roberts for Senate.”

Back to Greg Orman. He has never held public office, lacks any record of public service, and has generally avoided taking specific positions on the major issues.

But in a recent debate with Sen. Roberts, Orman described himself as “pro-choice.” He said he “trusts women” and the public should “get past” the abortion issue.

Surprise, surprise. All three Kansas abortion businesses are supporting him!

  • The Overland Park abortion clinic of Hodes & Nauser (father-daughter abortionists who have sued Kansas’ pro-life laws) have Orman signs in the windows.
  • Last Saturday Planned Parenthood of Kansas & Mid-Missouri held a joint rally in support of Orman and other Kansas pro-abortion Democrat women candidates (Orman’s wife was advertised as being there on his behalf).
  • A letter praising Orman’s candidacy was published in the Wichita Eagle, written by Julie Burkhart, who has opened an abortion business (manned by “circuit-rider” abortionists) at the location of the late George Tiller’s infamous abortion clinic.

The choice for Kansans is clear: Pat Roberts, who has pledged, “never to stop fighting for life.”

 

Read Full Post »

U.S. Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS)

U.S. Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS)

Kansas’ U.S. Sen. Pat Roberts has taken a leadership role in battling government restrictions on health care and to that end, on Tuesday filed the “Repeal Rationing in Support of Life Act,” see video here.

This is the third in a series of bills, part of a comprehensive effort by Sen. Roberts, to prevent the federal government from limiting access to life-saving medical care for patients at all stages of life.

“Obamacare has made many Americans fearful that cost-cutting and rationing of care will limit their options for health care at a time when they are vulnerable–when they are sick or battling a life threatening condition,” Roberts said. “By introducing this bill, we are fighting against hidden barriers to treatment and life-saving medicine.”

Roberts’ bill targets four rationing provisions of Obamacare for repeal:

1) the “excess benefit” tax coming into effect in 2018, which unfairly limits employee plans from keeping pace with medical inflation;
2) the current exclusion of adequate health insurance plans from the exchanges;
3) limits now curtailing senior citizens’ ability to add their own money in addition to Medicare payment for health insurance including Medicare Advantage; and
4) federal limits on the care doctors are allowed to give their patients.

Roberts’ legislation (see bill details here) is endorsed by the National Right to Life Committee, which has delineated rationing dangers in Obamacare in this NRLC report and in a recent Q & A article here.

Mary Kay Culp, executive director of Kansans for Life, stated, “Obamacare authorizes Washington bureaucrats to create one uniform, national standard of care that is designed to limit what private citizens are allowed to spend to save their own lives. We commend Senator Roberts for his bill and his consistent leadership to end Obamacare’s rationing.”

The bill is cosponsored by Senators Jerry Moran (R-KS), Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), Thad Cochran (R-Miss.), and Roger Wicker (R-Miss.).

Read Full Post »

Rep. Steve Brunk, lead sponsor of Alexa's Law

Rep. Steve Brunk (R-Wichita) lead sponsor, Alexa’s Law

It has been well documented for decades that pregnant women have been attacked and murdered in order to kill their unborn children. The development of abortion-inducing drugs, however, has produced an increasing crime wave of abortion by trickery.

There was nationwide news coverage of the trial and conviction this month of Floridian John Andrew Welden for committing abortion by secretly swapping his pregnant girlfriend’s medication with abortifacient pills that killed their unborn child.

Now comes the indictment of a Kansas man for allegedly sneaking crushed abortion pills into his girlfriend’s pancakes, killing their unborn child.

On Tuesday, the office of Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt issued this criminal complaint against Scott Robert Bollig for first degree murder, attempted first degree murder, aggravated battery and distributing adulterated food, causing the death of an unborn child at 8-10 weeks estimated gestation.

Part of the pro-life agenda has been to pass laws that uphold the full humanity of the unborn child, including prosecution for both victims following crimes committed against pregnant women and their unborn children.

The criminal complaint against Bollig is based on just such a law– “Alexa’s Law,”— passed in Kansas in 2007, read more here and here.

Kansas was the 35th state (of now 37) to pass such a law, modeled on the 2003 federal “Unborn Victim of Violence Act” designed by the National Right to Life Committee. (see this NRLC list)

Alexa’s Law protects unborn children from fertilization through full term, while some states have enacted limited protection after viability.

Within six months of passage of Alexa’s Law, two pregnant women and their unborn children were murdered in Kansas, and their murderers convicted under this law. Here are the cases known to Kansans for Life that have since utilized Alexa’s Law for charging and convictions:

  1. Sedale Fox was convicted of two first degree murders for shooting his girlfriend to death and the death of their unborn child on Jan. 8, 2008. Read more here.
  2. Andrew Guerrero was convicted for three murders by shooting, committed on Feb.3, 2008—his ex-wife, her 8-month-old infant and an additional unborn child detected in autopsy. Read more here.
  3. Jason Cott was convicted of two counts of first degree murder for the Jan. 20, 2010 strangulation of his wife and death of their unborn child. Read more here.
  4. Ricardo Barnhart was convicted of two counts of aggravated battery for the beating of his wife and injury to their 38-week gestation unborn child on March 19, 2013; mother and child survived. Read more here.
  5. Richard Bennet was charged with 2 counts of attempted murder for the stabbing of his pregnant ex-girlfriend on June 18, 2013. she and the unborn child survived the attack. Bennet was sentenced to parole on lesser charges after the girlfriend later died in a freak accident before his trial. Read more here.
  6. Bryant Seba has been charged with two counts of first degree murder after he allegedly shot and killed his pregnant neighbor and unborn child on July 24, 2013. Read more here.
  7. Scott Bollig has been charged with first degree murder for the premeditated murder of his unborn child, Jan. 26, 2014; the mother survived, after allegedly being tricked into eating abortion-causing medication. Read more here.

“Alexa’s Law”—a tool enacted to uphold the value of any human victim of crime– is being utilized in crimes of abortion “by deceit” not even envisioned when the law was passed.

Pro-lifers are working diligently on all fronts to overturn the unjustifiable legalization of abortion, including building a cache of laws that recognize the humanity of the unborn and protect the unborn whenever possible.

Read Full Post »

unborn feel pain (2)Kansas and nine other states have passed abortion bans recognizing the unborn child as a pain-capable human being at 20 weeks post-fertilization, which is the same as being dated 22 weeks from woman’s last menstrual period, or LMP.

In 2012, Arizona passed a “hybrid” abortion law that included the fetal pain issue but would affect pregnancies 2 weeks earlier than all other similar “pain” bans. It was immediately sued, upheld in state district court and struck down by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (which does not govern Kansas). Today, the U.S. Supreme Court has declined the appeal to review the Ninth circuit’s decision.

Medical science now recognizes that the unborn child at 20 weeks post-fertilization possesses all the physiological structures needed for pain perception.

The National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) created the pain-capable model legislation with hope the U.S. Supreme Court would review such a law, focusing specifically on scientific data about pain which has never been presented to them in an abortion case.  This data includes studies outside the abortion arena verifying that the thalamus, not the cortex, is needed for humans to perceive pain. [Read documentation at doctorsonfetalpain.com about the issue.]

Some quick analysis of today’s decision:

1) The U.S. Supreme Court continues to resist taking abortion cases. This is the second abortion case deferred this term– the earlier Court decision avoided a chemical abortion law from Oklahoma.   The Court is only pressured into taking on an issue when there are conflicting appellate decisions. Only one circuit has ruled on pain-related abortion bans, the (notoriously overturned) Ninth circuit.

2) The U.S. Supreme Court did not outright rule against the constitutionality of abortion bans for pain-feeling unborn children. But because the Court does not explain why they decline cases,  we are left to wonder exactly why the Court declined to examine Arizona’s law. It may well be that the bill at their doorstep had too many dimensions: not only did Arizona conjoin a second issue of late-term abortion safety with the issue of  pain to unborn babies–it also lowered the pregnancy date two weeks below where there is currently the most medical evidence for pain capability.

3) Abortion forces will certainly try to wave today’s action as a warning against states contemplating enacting pain-capable legislation. However, we still believe a “clean” law sticking to 20 weeks post-conception/22 weeks LMP is totally defensible. The U.S. Supreme Court’s 2007 abortion ruling(Gonzales), affirmed that states have compelling interests for enacting abortion regulations, and declined to list those interests. The Gonzales ruling said states may pass protective legislation based on science even when “medical consensus” on that data was lacking.

We regret that the U.S. Supreme Court has skirted examination of the issue of fetal pain, and left abortion interests encouraged by today’s action.

See further information from NRLC here.

Read Full Post »