Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Traci Nauser’

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

BACKGROUND, KANSAS LAWSUIT
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.

NATIONAL IMPACT
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 »

Ks Supreme Ct

The Kansas Supreme Court

Filed electronically after 5p.m. tonight, Monday, the Kansas Supreme Court has granted review of the appeal by the Kansas Attorney General in the matter of the Kansas Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Abortion Act. (documents here)

The hearing has not yet been set and both sides will file supplemental briefs to be submitted within 30 days. Here is the  summary of litigation thus far:

Pro-life Gov. Sam Brownback signed SB 95, the dismemberment method ban, on April 7, 2015 after it passed 31-9 in the Senate and 98-26 in the House. The law is not in effect.

The Overland Park Center for Women’s Health (CWH), the office of father -daughter abortion duo, Herb Hodes and Traci Nauser, filed suit against the ban in federal court and won a temporary injunction from Shawnee District Court Judge Larry Hendricks June 25, 2015.  Judge Hendricks adopted the arguments of the abortion attorneys hook, line and sinker.

Attorney General Derek Schmidt filed an appeal of that ruling, claiming that it is “a fantasy” that the Kansas state constitution of 1859 protects a right to abortion (much less one that upholds gruesome dismemberment of living, well-formed unborn children!).

The appeal was taken up by the Kansas Court of Appeals when the Kansas Supreme Court refused to intervene. On Jan. 22, 2016, the appellate court delivered a split ruling which meant the lower court temporary injunction would be upheld.

The Attorney General again filed an appeal, this time asking the Kansas Supreme Court to expeditiously review the appellate decision, asserting that

the Court of Appeals wasn’t truly split, but rather had ruled 7-6-1, finding there is no protection for abortion under the Kansas Constitution.

The Kansas Supreme Court needs to move expeditiously for several reasons, urges the A.G. filing; two other lawsuits filed by CWH (in 2011 and 2013) are lagging in state court and would be directly impacted by a decision about this so-called fundamental state right to abortion.

Read Full Post »

CWH, the father-daughter duo

Kansas’ father-daughter abortionists fight to keep dismemberment method

Hopefully, you are following with deep interest the legal battle surrounding the Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Abortion Act, enacted in Kansas April 7 and, less than a week later, in Oklahoma. Naturally, pro-abortionists are challenging both laws in court.

The Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Abortion Act, is a law that prohibits the horrific abortion method in which a living unborn child in her mother’s womb is ripped apart into pieces by an abortionist using sharp metal tools.

Kansas abortionists are waging their attack in the state court system. In a highly unusual move that indicates the national importance of the proceeding, the entire 14-member Kansas Court of Appeals will hear oral argument on the issue next Wednesday. (see more here)

Not since the epic campaign to end gruesome partial-birth abortions have pro-lifers had such an opportunity to provide the Supreme Court with a reason to curb abortion on demand.

The Act outlaws an immeasurably painful and barbaric procedure and bases its legal foundation on the High Court’s very own words (emphasis added):

“[W]hen it has a rational basis to act, and it does not impose an undue burden, 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.” [Gonzales v Carhart, 550 U.S. at 158]

The “rational basis” for the Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Abortion Act is simple: dismemberment abortions are repugnant and unacceptable in a civilized society. Kansans asserted their right to curb medical abuse and show respect for the Unborn.

All abortions are not precluded by the Act– only one method—and therefore, there is no “undue burden” on a woman’s “right” to abortion.

However, abortionists are hoping against hope that the Gonzales Court didn’t really mean that the state can regulate abortion and that the nebulous term “undue burden” means anything that inhibits abortionists’ preferences.

Judge Hendricks

Judge Larry Hendricks used wrong evaluation standard

LOWER COURT EMBRACES ABORTION CLAIMS
Were they allowed to choose their own judge, Kansas’ father-daughter abortionists– Herb Hodes and Traci Nauser at the Center for Women’s Health– could not have done better than Shawnee District Court Judge Larry Hendricks. On June 25th, at the first hearing on the dismemberment bill, Judge Hendricks hardly paused for even a second after oral argument ended before slapping an injunction on the Act for a variety of wrong reasons.

Lawyers for Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt adamantly maintain that Judge Hendricks’ most fundamental error was failing to assume at the outset that the Act was valid. When “rational basis” laws like the Act are examined, the standard is to PRESUME validity and then attorneys for the challengers must prove to the court that the Act is not valid.

This principle was clearly reiterated this week in a different abortion lawsuit by noted 7th Circuit Appellate Judge Daniel Manion (see here). Manion also points out that it is only for abortion—unlike all other areas of medicine—that a practitioner may bring a suit on behalf of a patient solely because the physician finds a regulation cumbersome!

Yet that’s exactly what’s happening in Kansas. Abortionists want to continue doing dismemberment abortions in their office for as much as $2,000 each. And because alternative abortion techniques are less profitable, they advance a public propaganda campaign that “the alternatives lack proof of improved safety.”

“DOCTOR-PATIENT RELATIONSHIP”
ACOG (the American College of Obstetrician-Gynecologists) is strongly pro-abortion and has a legislative policy that opposes any state “interference” with medical recommendations. They especially oppose mandates for pre-abortion ultrasounds and cancer warnings.

ACOG logoACOG filed a ‘friend of the court’ brief for the Center for Women’s Health– as did a group of one dozen abortionists and abortion-referring practitioners (all but one from the Kansas City area). The singular message of both briefs was that a ban on the dismemberment procedure would have “adverse impact on the doctor-patient relationship.”

But how absurd is the use of the word “relationship” in the abortion context? What kind of a relationship is it when the mother is not told that her son or daughter will be shredded while she is sedated? What kind of relationship is it when the littlest patient is ignored and called a “pregnancy that will be removed?”

Also consider that the so-called relationship is really a one-way decision by “a highly qualified specialist” (according to the Kansas practitioners’ brief!) who insists that the Legislature may not weigh in on grizzly, inhumane abortion methods.

The Kansas district court has misinterpreted the Gonzales standard and invented a state right to abortion. Let’s hope the Kansas Court of Appeals rectifies it.

Read Full Post »

A.G. Derek Schmidt

A.G. Derek Schmidt

The Kansas Attorney General’s office is fighting a court ruling last month that the 1859 state constitution contains a “fundamental” right to abortion,”independent and separate from” that declared by the U.S. Supreme Court.

On Wednesday, the office of pro-life A.G. Derek Schmidt filed a motion to rush that issue up to the Kansas Supreme Court, bypassing the state court of appeals. Abortion attorneys are expected to file a similar request.

The legal challenge at the heart of this was brought in June against the first-in-nation Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Abortion Act.(read more here).

Dismemberment abortions are defined as intentionally causing the death of a living unborn child in the uterus by ripping him/her apart “through the use of clamps, grasping forceps, tongs, scissors or similar instruments.”

The plaintiff is the Center for Women’s Health, the office of Kansas father-daughter abortionists, Herb Hodes and Traci Nauser. CWH attorneys couldn’t have asked for more from the ruling of Shawnee County Judge Larry Hendricks last month, who not only issued a temporary injunction that blocked the dismemberment ban from going into effect, but also grounded the decision on a hitherto-undiscovered state “constitutional” abortion right.

The Kansas A.G. attorneys assert that the state supreme court is the correct venue for ruling on whether a-never-before-declared right to abortion is found in the pre-Civil War constitution –adopted at a time when abortion was illegal in every state.

The A.G. seeks a ruling on the state constitutional question and whether federal abortion rulings were incorrectly interpreted.

The Kansas Supreme Court needs to move expeditiously for several reasons, urges the A.G. filing, including the existence of two other lawsuits filed by CWF (in 2011 and 2013) which are lagging in state court and would be directly impacted by a decision about this so-called fundamental state right to abortion.

Oklahoma enacted an identical dismemberment abortion ban due to go into effect in November, which abortion interests are also expected to challenge.

Of note recently in undercover video journalism (see here) is that dismemberment abortion is the prime method relied upon for trafficking in baby body parts.

Read Full Post »

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 »

new year baby2014 saw many pro-life victories for Kansas, the fruit of decades of efforts by pro-lifers to fight a culture of death through education, legislation and providing loving help to women feeling abandoned during pregnancy. Kansans for Life played a key role in these efforts, with exciting new developments in the works.

Pro-lifers can proudly claim credit for the fact that pro-life candidates won all of Kansas’ statewide offices, along with 94 of the 125 seats in the Kansas House of Representatives in the 2014 elections. Notably, pro-life stalwarts Governor Sam Brownback and U.S. Senator Pat Roberts won re-election over their radically pro-abortion challengers.

As officially reported by the Kansas Department of Health & Environment, the number of Kansas abortions dropped to 7,485 in 2013, from 7,598 in 2012 (2014 numbers aren’t available until March 2015). Many reasons can be attributed to the continued drop,  including the improved availability of informed consent information online and increased utilization of pregnancy care centers statewide.

  • No late-term abortions (after 22 weeks pregnancy) are allowed in Kansas due to a 2011 pro-life law acknowledging the unborn child’s ability to feel pain.
  • Abortions for sex-selection reasons are illegal.
  • Minors must secure two-parent consent to abortion.

Kansas is now down to three abortion clinics. The Kansas City Aid for Women abortion clinic closed abruptly at the end of July. It claimed the reason for the sudden closure was the retirement of its 73-year-old abortionist but this clinic was notorious for its string of abortionists with lengthy histories of malpractice cases and disciplinary actions issued by the state medical board. Not surprisingly, Aid for Women failed to attain a state-issued license in June 2011 after passage of the Kansas clinic licensure and regulation law– a pro-life law currently under legal challenge. The clinic admitted it would “have to gut the place” to be in compliance and thus Kansas women and unborn children are safer with the closing of this substandard clinic.

Kansas continues to successfully defend pro-life laws promoted by Kansans for Life.

A major pro-life legal win occurred in early May when Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri dropped its 2011 lawsuit in federal court. They had sued against the Kansas budget provision that prioritized federal family planning funds be given to public full-service clinics rather than “specialty” clinics like Planned Parenthood. After the state’s budget authority was upheld, Planned Parenthood’s already-failing “abortion-feeder”clinic in Hays closed its doors – showing that this clinic relied on government money to survive.

Just weeks ago, Planned Parenthood also backed out of another lawsuit, in federal court, just days before it was headed to trial.  At issue was their past refusal to obey a provision of the 2013 Pro-Life Protections Act that required that every abortion clinic website have a live link on their home page that connected to the state’s Woman’s Right to Know website. The law intends that there be “one-click access” to sonogram images and information about the development of the unborn child to anyone remotely, or directly, considering abortion.

This year the Hodes-Nauser abortion clinic also lost its legal block (an injunction in state district court) of the same weblink provision. All three abortion clinics are now compliant with that live link. Thus, the fourth success for defense attorneys under Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt in defending sound pro-life laws promoted by Kansans for Life.

Read Full Post »

wrtk_header_seal (2)Days after Planned Parenthood conceded defeat to Kansas in a three-years-running lawsuit, another abortion lawsuit over a pro-life Kansas law is rapidly crumbling.

Last week, attorneys for Herb Hodes & Traci Nauser, who operate the Center for Women’s Health (CWH) in Overland Park, acknowledged that

an injunction they’d obtained on small portions of a 2013 law is no longer in effect. 

In addition, they have officially withdrawn sections of their lawsuit against the 2013 Pro-Life Protections Act in which they claimed that free speech rights guaranteed under the Kansas Constitution were infringed.

The Pro-Life Protections Act improves informed consent, bans sex-selection abortions and removes tax advantages for abortionists. In June 2013, Shawnee District Court Judge Rebecca Crotty ruled that CWH had not met the legal standard for winning a restraining order against the entire law, meaning nearly 99 % of the Kansas Pro-life Protections Act would go into effect. Judge Crotty did grant CWH attorneys a temporary injunction on two small provisions:

  1. the definition of medical emergency that could have been interpreted to affect ectopic pregnancies, and
  2. a first-in-the-nation mandate that each Kansas abortion clinic website homepage provide an easily identifiable link to the state health department’s “Woman’s Right to Know” information.

To address the Court’s concerns, the Kansas legislature tweaked those provisions slightly, effective April 24, 2014, as Senate Bill 54. 

The legislature agreed to take away the description of the state website as “objective, nonjudgmental, scientifically accurate” –which Hodes-Nauser (and Planned Parenthood in a federal suit) objected to.

Although not conceding the description is wrong, legislators judged that SB 54 would end the state court injunction, and allow abortion-seeking women to immediately click to state information, including the best-in-nation fetal development video-information.

Now, both the abortion attorneys and the Kansas defense attorneys have officially declared the original injunction is no longer operative.

The live link that abortion clinics must feature on their homepage reads:
‘‘The Kansas Department of Health and Environment maintains a website containing information about the development of the unborn child, as well as video of sonogram images of the unborn child at various stages of development. The Kansas Department of Health and Environment’s website can be reached by clicking here,” www.womansrighttoknow.org

LAWSUIT CONCESSIONS
Apart from the now-voided injunction, CWH is still pressing their June 2013 lawsuit that attacks the Pro-Life Protections Act from head to foot. Here, too, however, the defense attorneys for the state of Kansas have been whittling it down.

  • In October, CWH dropped their objection to the state-developed informed consent information about the unborn child’s pain-capability, and the possible risks of premature future births and breast cancer linked to abortion.
  • In November, the court ruled against CWH’s ridiculous claim that the Act wrongly contained “non-abortion” topics of prenatal diagnostic support and the rights of unborn children and their parents.
  • In their newest concession, filed May 12, CWH dropped their fight against the “abortion coercion” warning that must be posted inside each abortion business. This required onsite posting became law in 2009, and was type-formatted to the appropriate size by the state medical board. Additional wording was added in the 2013 Pro-Life Protections Act.

The 2009 Notice read:
It is against the law for anyone, regardless of their relationship to you, to force you to have an abortion. By law, we cannot perform an abortion on you unless we have your freely given and voluntary consent. It is against the law to perform an abortion on you against your will.
You have the right to contact any local or state law enforcement agency to receive protection from any actual or threatened physical abuse or violence.
You have the right to change your mind at any time prior to the actual abortion and request that the abortion procedure cease.

The 2013 Pro-Life Protections Act retained that language, and added:
It is unlawful for anyone to make you have an abortion against your will, even if you are a minor.
The father of your child must provide support for the child, even if he has offered to pay for an abortion.
If you decide not to have an abortion, you may qualify for financial help for pregnancy, childbirth and newborn care.
If you qualify, medicaid will pay or help pay the cost of doctor, clinic, hospital and other related medical expenses, including childbirth delivery services and care for your newborn baby.
Many agencies are willing to provide assistance so that you may carry your child to term, and to assist you after your child’s birth.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »