The Kansas Republican Party, long divided between conservative and moderate camps, is showing signs of fresh fracture - this time among conservatives.
"Our enemies are no longer the Democrats, they are the RINOs - Republicans In Name Only - who side with the Democrats," said Mark Gietzen, former Sedgwick County GOP chairman, now director of the anti-abortion group Kansas Coalition for Life.
Gietzen has been hurling brickbats at former conservative darling Tim Shallenburger, the party's unsuccessful gubernatorial candidate in 2002 and now the state GOP chairman. Before running for governor, Shallenburger was state treasurer and speaker of the Kansas House.
But now, Gietzen claims, Shallenburger's gone soft on abortion.
"He's made a point of welcoming pro-aborts into the Republican tent. He wants to make them an integral part of the party," Gietzen said. "So at a time when other state parties are becoming more and more pro-life, we're moving to the middle. This is stupid, it's 'Bleeding Kansas' all over again."
Gietzen told the Journal-World of his concerns after first posting his criticism in an e-mail to the Kansas Conservative Network.
In the e-mail, Gietzen accused Shallenburger of flip-flopping and "singing the praises of the pro-abort Republicans." The party's leadership, he said, had run amok.
TOPEKA -- Tamara Cooper, Executive Director of the Kansas Republican Assembly, issued the following statement today about comments made by Mark Gietzen of Wichita to the Lawrence Journal-World.
The Board of Directors of the Kansas Republican Assembly wants to make clear that Mr. Mark Gietzen of Wichita does not speak in any way for the Kansas Republican Assembly. He is not an officer of our organization and had no right or basis whatsoever to claim that Mr. Shallenburger is undercutting the influence of KRA.
Mr. Gietzen is entitled to his opinion about current state GOP Chairman Tim Shallenburger. However, we believe his claims about Mr. Shallenburger's commitment to the unborn are completely off-base and inaccurate. Tim Shallenburger has a long record of supporting efforts to rid our state and nation of the scourge of abortion.
KRA has an unwavering commitment to the unborn, a commitment shared by Mr. Gietzen and other conservatives unified for a single goal: to win big in 2006. But apparently Mr. Gietzen does not understand the role of a state party chairman. Any Kansan, regardless of his/her beliefs on any issue, can register as a Republican and participate in party activities.
Party officers have no power whatsoever to bar individuals from joining or participating in their parties. Mr. Shallenburger's comments about Mrs. Praeger and other pro-choice Republicans are a mere recognition of this reality: there exists a small pro-choice minority within the Republican Party. Regardless of the fact that Mr. Shallenburger and the vast majority of the members of the State Committee are pro-life, those in the pro-choice Republican minority have just as much right to call themselves Republicans as does Mr. Gietzen.
The Republican Party, both in Kansas and nationally, is overwhelmingly pro-life. We have a pro-life President, a pro-life majority in both Houses of Congress, a pro-life platform, and a majority of pro-life leaders on the state level. The Kansas Republican Assembly is 100% committed, as we know Tim Shallenburger is, to maintaining the GOP's long-standing commitment to the innocent unborn.
The Kansas GOP needs all Republicans to vote Republican in next year's general elections if we are to defeat Mrs. Sebelius, Congressman Moore, and other Democrats.
Gietzen said, among other things, he and other anti-abortion activists were upset that Shallenburger has not restored a sharply worded anti-abortion plank in the party's platform that was softened during Gov. Bill Graves' administration.
"That should have been done on Kansas Day (at the state GOP convention in January) or the day after," Gietzen said.
Shallenburger was elected chairman during the party's Kansas Day midterm convention.
And Gietzen said he still resented Shallenburger telling the gathering that he welcomed having State Insurance Commissioner Sandy Praeger in the party.
Praeger, a former state senator from Lawrence, is well-known for her pro-choice position on abortion.Gietzen also accused Shallenburger and his supporters of undercutting the influence of the Kansas Republican Assembly, the conservatives' party within the party.
"A lot of people are questioning what's going on," Gietzen said.
Gietzen's e-mail triggered several dozen responses.
"It generated the most e-mail of anything I've ever written," he said.
Reaction, however, was mixed.
Atty. Gen. Phill Kline and Sen. Karin Brownlee, R-Olathe, sent e-mails supporting Shallenburger.
Shallenburger also responded: "Not every Republican is pro-life, and not every Democrat is pro-choice," he wrote, adding that the party would not work to defeat Republicans "even if they are pro-choice."
Gietzen, however, argued that as long as the party remains open to "pro-aborts," it will find itself "stumbling through the quagmire" and Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, a Democrat, will most likely win re-election.
First District Congressman Jerry Moran, a Hays Republican, also endorsed Shallenburger.
"I think he is doing a good job," Moran said. "I think the party's more united now that it has been in quite a while."
Moran warned that GOP "internal fighting ... diminishes its chances of being successful in November."
Moran, who opposes abortion, announced last week he would not run for governor. A close race, he said, would cause him to spend too much time away from his wife and two high school-age daughters who live in Hays.
Still, he said, "I thought I could pull the party together through the election."
What about after the election?
Moran replied: "Governing in Kansas is a difficult thing."
Shallenburger offered no apologies to his conservative critics.
"The reason I ran for party chairman was to unite the party and, frankly, I've had very good support from conservatives, despite what Mr. Gietzen seems to think," Shallenburger said.
"What a lot of people don't realize is that there are a lot of pretty conservative people out there - pro-life, Second Amendment, lower taxes - who are willing to support a more liberal or moderate candidate if it means defeating Kathleen Sebelius and (3rd District Congressman) Dennis Moore," a Democrat who represents the eastern part of Lawrence."We're headed in the right direction," Shallenburger said. "It's just that getting there can be an ugly process, like when things like (Gietzen's e-mail) come up."
Comments
LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.
consumer1 (anonymous) says…
Joker, your name says it all !! That is all you are and this is your only forum for forcing your pathetic "want to be humor" on the rest of us. Guess what pal we all know you are just a big mouth looking for a place where someone will listen. Good luck with life sucker...
Liberty (anonymous) says…
In the headline of the story: "Anti-abortion leader berates Shallenburger's inclusiveness";
I find it interesting that when LJW writer Dave Ranney writes about people who like murder of the unborn, he refers to them softly as "pro-abortion" or "pro-choice" instead of "anti-life".
When he refers to the people against murder of the unborn, he refers to them as "anti-abortion" instead of "pro-life".
The demonization of calling a group "anti-abortion" (The idea of being against something instead of for some higher thing) like "pro-life" shows the bias in the headline of the article showing the desire to demonize those who still have respect for the life of the unborn.
craigers (anonymous) says…
The church that is represented in the Bible will never die. Good luck with trying to bring that one to pass.
John1945 (anonymous) says…
I'm glad I got Joker's attention. One of my goals is to oppose the crypto-Nazi religious bigotry he represents.
However, he has reason to bray. Church attendance at Bible-believing churches is up and continues to grow, while people are fleeing from the apostate, left-wing denominations.
Unless imposed on them by a tyrannical court, people reject totalitarian liberalism anytime they're given a choice.
mscyndi (anonymous) says…
- I am amused at the passion and time that is being spent on such things as if you claim to be a Republican you must believe 1-2-3-a-b-c and in that order or your not really a Republican - are there not many more things in the world today that need one's passion and time -- FYI: I claim no political preference.
John1945 (anonymous) says…
I have far more respect for the people of both political parties who stand up for what they believe in than I do the weasels who infest both parties simply to line their own pockets.
Mr Geitzen believes his party should stand for something, Just as Howard Dean thinks his party should stand for something.
Do we really think the people benefit when the legislature is dominated by those who will sell out to the highest bidder?
princess (anonymous) says…
Muuuuwhaaahaaa! Let the Republicans eat themselves.
And seriously....no one is actually "pro-abortion" or "anti-life" You know that deep in your heart of hearts. By all means though, keep vomiting up the talking points. It doesn't make you sound full of hate or anything. No really, it just sounds so sweet when you say such things. Thank the almighty that you are here with your anger and hate to protect us all.
My God is full of love. I could introduce you if you'd like.
hammysammy (anonymous) says…
Liberty-My god, you have a way with words, don't you? You have changed my life and my political views with your clever play on words. If only I would've known that by being pro-choice, I was anti-life. I guess I should go kill myself now.
Give me a break.
bettie (anonymous) says…
liberty-
i find it amusing that you think those who believe abortion should be illegal shouldn't be called "anti-abortion". that is an accurate description of the position, is it not?
the terms you suggest for the other side, however, are absurd. "anti-life"? do i even need to get into how ridiculous that is? you also claim that ranney refers to supporters of choice as "pro-abortion". in actuality, this label only appears in blatantly biased "news" sources, such as lifenet or the agape press.
the label "pro-abortion" is never used by credible news sources because it is inaccurate and misleading. there is no such thing as "pro-abortion"; supporters of reproductive choice do not, as you imply, "like" abortion. in fact, most agree that it should be safe, legal, and rare. they spend most of their energy trying to prevent abortions by preventing unwanted pregnancies.
ironically, most of their efforts to reduce the number of abortions that occur (increasing access to contraception, providing comprehensive sex education, and so on) are bitterly opposed by those who claim to be "anti-abortion", even though history has shown us that preventing unwanted pregnancies is the only way to prevent abortions. making them illegal only makes them unsafe - it doesn't make them go away. if it did, how can one explain that there were higher abortion rights before roe v. wade than there have been since?
the bottom line is, the decision to have an abortion is a difficult one for any woman to make, and it isn't the right choice for every one. to call people "pro-abortion" denies the complexity of the issue. the key word here is "choice".
princess (anonymous) says…
Amen bettie!
bettie (anonymous) says…
correction to paragraph 4 of my last post: "rights" should be "rates".
opinion (anonymous) says…
bettie said "the bottom line is, the decision to have an abortion is a difficult one for any woman to make"
Why is that a difficult decision?
lunacydetector (anonymous) says…
i have to say that "pro-choice" is VERY misleading. choice for a mother to kill her child or let it live. you know, planned parenthood offers absolutely nothing for people who want to be parents, but it sure offers abortion services. abortion up until the moment before natural delivery.
Hitler's Final Solution is here today. he must be smiling from hell as well.
then there is God's law - "Thou shalt not kill" that all faiths should adhere.
how can someone call themselves a Christian and at the same time accept baby killing as just? THAT is VERY misleading.
sounds like the great deceiver is alive and well. too bad a lot of people don't believe in the devil anymore. he has ensnared a lot of folks.
consumer1 (anonymous) says…
Princess, you name implies your view of reality, you are a princess who lives in a makebelieve world. Go find your Berks, eat a granola bar, and post to the world how liberals know what is really going on...
Typical whiney liberal, make allot of noise without saying anything...
lunacydetector (anonymous) says…
i also think that bettie has it all wrong regarding abortion rates decreasing since roe v wade. 44,000,000+ deaths since roe v. wade.
please provide a link that correlates with your propaganda.
consumer1 (anonymous) says…
YOu silly 20 something year olds that roll off the campus spouting some liberal professors words, well rehearsed without one step in the real world. A degree is good, but it is no good until you know what life is about. I love it when some 20 y.o. who has no children tries to tell me and other parents "How to raise our kids". What a joke you are to us, and you don't even know it because... "You have a certificate of graduation from KU". Don't even go there, I graduated from KU also, Until you have kids of your own, you don't know Sh*t.
jg (anonymous) says…
Planned parenthood helps people PLAN when they can afford to be parents by providing birth control services. The same people who bitch about people having kids they can't afford or can't take care of don't seem to realize that you need good affordable healthcare and access to safe birthcontrol methods to prevent that situation. (And even so no form of birth control is 100% effective)
The majority of people who have abortions were using a form of birth control when they got pregnant.
Also, most of the women who have had abortions are either already mothers who love their kids to pieces or end up having very much wanted children after they have an abortion.
You know and like and respect many women who have had an abortion at some point in their life. And many of them were desperate enough at that time that they might have made the choice to go to a back alley abortionist and risk their life to have an abortion, if it was not safe and legal. That is reality.
princess (anonymous) says…
oh consumer1 your name choice leaves little room for you to talk.
you are sooooooo far from the truth my dear it makes me chuckle. the princess moniker is a joke. you do know how to laugh don't you? or is that not allowed in church these days either?
and pray tell, what exactly are you saying through all of your noise? that's right...nothing but Republican talking points. "hey everyone, if we use the term "liberal" in a bad way to label people it just might work."
don't try to put me into one of your convenient little "label" boxes. I know, I know...it makes it far easier for you to spew hate when you don't see people as anything but labels.
ha! imagine an actual princess wearing berks?! Haaahahaaaa!
Densmore (anonymous) says…
Hey consumer1:
In your post to princess you say "Typical whiney liberal, make allot (sic) of noise without saying anything..."
Well, let's see what you have contributed today. In this blog, you've made three posts. First you attack Joker with a description of him/her that is probably best reserved for yourself. You make no arguments, provide no insight and say nothing clever. Next you attack princess. Same thing-you contribute nothing. Then you attack a few thousand college graduates with a nearly incoherent rant.
I am reminded of a quote from Moby Dick. Captain Ahab, tiring of a couple of morons among his crew who frequently bicker at each other, observes that "The greater idiot ever scolds the lesser."
hottruckinmama (anonymous) says…
lol. republicans are going to melt from within. what a fun thing that will be to watch! i can hardly wait! never will understand it. they want to outlaw abortion (which is okay) but then if the poor kid needs some help than the hell with it. they want no more part of it. if abortion is a sin (and i believe it is) is it not just as much if not more of a sin to let the poor kid starve or be beat just for being born to the wrong parents? i wish someone could explain those values to me?
lunacydetector (anonymous) says…
oh the 'back alley abortion' amounted to an infinitesimal amount of abortions when it was illegal.
a new study says that women who have abortions have a much higher chance of having a miscarriage at a later time. there is also a lot of evidence that women are more likely to get breast cancer when they've had an abortion with their first pregnancy. natural miscarriages do not have the same results. something about the sudden loss of hormones throwing everything out of whack.
there is the claim that the fetus doesn't feel pain but biologists have known since 1968 that the unborn's sensory pain transmitters are complete by 14 weeks. why are criminals put under before they are executed but unborn babies are not?
abortion is quite simply, a selfish act. have you ever met someone who was unwanted that wasn't happy to be alive?
A new CBS News poll finds a majority of Americans oppose abortions in all or most circumstances. The poll follows on the recent surveys showing most Americans believe abortions should either be illegal or happen in a very limited set of circumstances. When asked about their "personal feeling about abortion," 53 percent of respondents said all or most abortions should not be permitted and only 43 percent said all or most abortions should be permitted.
Of the 53 percent giving a pro-life answer, 33 percent believe abortion should only be permitted in the rare cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother. Approximately 15 percent only believe abortion should be allowed to save the mother's life and 5 percent said abortions should never be permitted.
Of those 43 percent backing abortion, 28 percent believe abortion should be allowed in all situations while 15 percent back abortion in all cases but say it should be more restricted than it is now.
While 53 percent took a pro-life position opposing all or most abortions, some 68 percent of those CBS News polled said abortion should be more restricted than it is now. Current abortion law, following from the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision, allows virtually unrestricted abortions throughout pregnancy.
A late July poll by Quinnipiac University finds 70 percent of those polled indicated they favored "a 24-hour waiting period for women seeking an abortion, 74 percent of the public favors requiring abortion businesses to notify parents before a minor girl can have an abortion, and 76 percent of Americans believe partial-birth abortions should be illegal except when necessary to save the life of the mother.
Meanwhile, an April 2005 poll conducted by Gallup finds that most Americans oppose most abortions. According to the poll, 59 percent of the American public say they oppose all or most abortions.
The CBS News survey polled 1,222 adults from July 29 through August 2 and has a 3 percent margin of error.
...so in other words, i am in the majority and princess/bettie is/are not.
craigers (anonymous) says…
I will agree with hottruckinmama about not feeding or the kids getting beaten is just as wrong as abortion. Killing babies is wrong, plain and simple. I feel that if a couple is married, using birth control, and gets pregnant then they should put the kid up for adoption if they don't want it. But outside of marriage and people saying that they pregnancy wasn't convenient for them at that time, I have one thing to say... keep your pants on! Maybe if our society wasn't all about going on and hooking up to make you fit in and be cool, then we wouldn't have so many "unwanted pregnancies". However, we all know outside of rape/incest, there isn't a whole lot of unwanted sex. These people know what they are choosing to do at that point. That is their free choice in my mind. And don't tell me how sex is just our expression of our feelings and love. No offense, but if you can't show your mate that you love them without sex, then you don't really love them.
princess (anonymous) says…
lunacydetector said..."abortion is quite simply, a selfish act. have you ever met someone who was unwanted that wasn't happy to be alive?"
Yes, many. And they killed themselves.
And again with the assumptions and the putting people in boxes. You have no idea what my actual views are on this very sensitive and complicated issue. I think that if you actually took the to time to get past all of the bs you are spouting about "being in the majority" and there for being right, you might be able to see further into what your own post is saying.
this is not a dem vs rep issue. It can't be if the polls are in fact that swayed. (which, eh...I don't buy into news station polls all that much, but I digress) There are subtleties and levels of restriction to the issue that imho a large portion of the county find logical. It is when it gets beyond these levels and off into the religious theoretical nether sphere that things get out of hand.
Which brings me back to my earlier point of no one actually being "pro-abortion" or "anti-life". Do you actually want to find a solution or do you just wanna blather on about why you are right because the bible says so? Because I really think that if everyone calmed down, put down the bibles and talked about a solution it could be achieved. I personally think that there is room for improvement in the system without outlawing abortions altogether. However, I do fear that adding restrictions could end up being a step towards eventually restricting abortions into oblivion. The whole "you give them an inch, they take a mile" sort of thing.
Why does it have to be all or nothing?
opinion (anonymous) says…
Agian, I ask, why is it a difficult decision? (from bettie's statement) Next. Why, Princess, would you restrict any abortions? What would be a reason to outlaw any of them?
Also, Princess, who brought up using their Bible on this issue that you want them "to put them down"? Are you insinuating the ONLY people that are against abortion are Bible readers?
princess (anonymous) says…
Again, I am torn about giving in to restrictions at all because I think that it is a slippery slope. However, I can't fight this nagging feeling that there are some potentially unhealthy procedures that could be curbed. You see my predicament?
On the bible tip: Oh no that is not what I am insinuating at all. And please forgive me for not being more clear as it was not my intent. In fact I meant quite the opposite, that those people pounding this as a religious only issue are actually harming the discussion because it is not necessarily a religious issue for everyone.
onehotmomma (anonymous) says…
Princess, I agree with you. People think this a Democratic or Republican issue. It is intensely personal. Just because a person is pro-choice does not make them pro-abortion. Abortion is something that I would ever personally choose, but I cannot make that decision for any other woman in this world. I do not agree with it at all, it is morally and ethically wrong to destroy the life that you made. I, however, do not have the right to judge any other person who did not make the same decision I made about aborting unborn children.
opinion (anonymous) says…
Fair comment on the Bible tip.
Do I understand that, barring any "unhealthy" (and I assume you mean to the mother) procedures, you would have no restrictions on any abortions? Brings up a side question - can I call her a mother if "it" is just a waste product of a procedure? You wouldn't call someone a mother if they were having a wart removed.
Thanks
laughingatallofu (anonymous) says…
Supporters of Mr. Gietzen: stick to your guns!
Supporters of Mr. Shallenburger: stick to your guns!
and, in the end, Both Governor Sebelius and Rep. Moore will be re-elected in a landslide!
lunacydetector (anonymous) says…
how can you say that onehotmomma? don't you have any convictions? it is wrong. it is killing. -but you think it is okay to kill because you don't feel you have a say?
what about a mother who has a one month old, 2 year old, three year old, a 10 year old etc?
it is perfectly acceptable to judge someone who murders somebody. that is why there are judges and juries.
when judges invent rights to privacy that allow for abortion-on-demand, they are exercising extra-constitutional authority. it is perfectly legal to kill an unborn baby that could survive outside the womb. or, it is okay to kill a grown woman who has no say in the matter because a cheating husband wants to collect the insurance money. look at terri schiavo. THAT is the slippery slope.
what is needed is a restructuring of the high court. if the supreme court goes against something that congress passes, it needs to be a unanimous decision, period.
opinion (anonymous) says…
Onehotmomma,
You are saying that you believe you believe that "it is morally and ethically wrong to destroy the life that you made" but you don't want to step on someone's toes by telling them that it is wrong?!? While I can understand someone, who does not believe that you are destroying a life with abortion, would not see someone else is wrong for doing it. But if you believe it is destroying a life, are you any better than someone that would watch a 3 year old get killed by the mother's boyfriend and say that "I believe it is wrong but would never want to judge him"!!!
I think I would rethink one of my positions if I were you as they don't appear to match up.
princess (anonymous) says…
Oh I am sure that she will just jump to change her position now that you have told her so. Has this tactic ever worked for you?
Thank you so much for putting this discussion into context.
The usual butting of the heads has prevailed because people aren't willing to even try to see something from someone else's point of view. (well a few of us are trying at least. thanks onehotmomma)Like it or not, something is gonna have to give. I mean 30 years of the same old bs on this issue and we are STILL in the same place!
Sad really.
Liberty (anonymous) says…
Bettie,
While I have compassion for those with an inconvenient pregnancy, the law says that it is illegal to "choose" to do murder. A murder is a planned execution of a person. A baby is a person. Therefore, the police and courts are not doing their job in prosecuting with existing law, places like planned parenthood and any others who perform abortions in Kansas. They should be prosecuted for murder or at least voluntary manslaughter. It wouldn't take long then for adoption to become a preferred option and make abortion completely safe by not having them. Sorry if that sounds callous to the "choice" people, but it is less callous than the murder or taking of an innocent life that can't defend itself or have a voice because of "choice".
onehotmomma (anonymous) says…
I stated I believe it is morally and ethically wrong to destroy the life you made. I stated by belief, no one else's. The last I heard, abortion was still legal, murder was not.
craigers (anonymous) says…
I do agree about the courts Liberty. If somebody is drunk and drives his/her car into a vehicle with a pregnant woman, then they can charge the drunk with two counts of vehicular manslaughter. On the other hand if the mother chooses to end the life then the law is fine with that. I am not trying to stir the pot, but could somebody enlighten me as to why in one case it is a viable life form that is prosecuted for and in the other case it is removed without any problem? I know there are problems emotionally and other psychological, but I think you get my question. Could anybody answer that and shed some light? Thanks.
craigers (anonymous) says…
Sorry, the pregnant woman dies. I guess that would have made a little more sense.
Liberty (anonymous) says…
There are no laws on the books permitting abortion to my knowledge. Roe vs. Wade is only a court decision. It creates no new law.
We need to understand that court decisions do not make new laws (that is only done through the legislative branch). Courts can only strike down a law as unconstitutional, they do not create new law. The law against murder is constitutional and moral and still in force. It just needs to be enforced.
A child is a life that God created through the joining of a man and a woman. We don't have the power to give/create life by ourselves, if we could, nobody would die. It requires God to give that spark of life or to take it back to Himself. But we can protect a child from being killed though adoption or raising the child ourselves instead of destroying a life. This is the moral and right thing to do.
jg (anonymous) says…
"sympathize with an inconvenient pregnancy" - sounds like you are talking about the flu.
For some, pregnancy is a very dangerous and expensive undertaking - I had serious medical complications and months of complete bed rest, and almost died. If I hadn't had a husband to care for me, I would have lost everything. Who decides it I "qualify" for an abortion? The child I already have should be an orphan because my birth control failed?
(And by the way, this example is theoretical cause my tubes are tied now - the catholic hospital my son was born in wouldn't do it while they were delivering him by emergency c-section to save my life)
And the unwanted kids, if abortion is illegal? nobody wants kids who aren't perfect cause their mother did drugs etc etc etc
The system is full of them already, and the same people who don't want abortion to be legal seem to give a rats ass that they are going to be creating many many more.
Why don't the lives that are already here count for more?
onehotmomma (anonymous) says…
Does the taking of any human life equate murder? A police officer shooting and killing a suspected child molester is then murder? A young mom has a tire blow-out on the interstate and her children, safely strapped into approved car seats, die. Is that murder?
There are to many "ifs" in the world for any one answer to fit.
Instead of prosecuting a woman who has an abortion as a murderer, why not forgive the behavior and work to change the woman's circumstances?
And why is it that it is always the female who gets the harshest judgement when it comes to abortion? I understand we are the one's who have them, but we didn't get pregnant alone. Hold the man just as accountable. Woman charged with murder, father of aborted child charged with murder. It took two people to create the unwanted child, two people prosecuted.
MyName (anonymous) says…
Liberty: "There are no laws on the books permitting abortion to my knowledge. Roe vs. Wade is only a court decision. It creates no new law."
That's because the presumption is that, unless there is a law against it, it's okay to do it. We don't need to pass a law making something "not illegal". Otherwise we'd be in a situation where we'd have to pass all of these absurd laws saying "breathing is legal" and "chewing gum and playing kickball are legal too", or whatever. You can only pass a law saying that something is illegal.
That being said, even before the supreme court decisions, there were several states that pass laws that repeal the laws against abortion.
MyName (anonymous) says…
Offtothefunnyfarm:
If it's so "obvious" which posters have children and which do not, please enlighten the rest of us. Why don't you make a list and see if you even manage to bat .500. Take all the time you need.
gccs14r (anonymous) says…
The only time a man should have an opinion on the progress of a pregnancy is if he has contributed genetic material to that pregnancy. The weight of his opinion should be dictated by the contribution he makes to gestation. Everyone else needs to butt out.
There is no adverse condition of man that cannot be made worse by a ham-fisted application of dogmatic religion.
Wilbur_Nether (anonymous) says…
Setting aside for the moment the discussion of whether abortion SHOULD or should not be legal, and also the discussion of whether women SHOULD or should not choose an abortion under certain circumstances if it is legal:
Gietzen's position is strong on rhetoric, but light on justification. I have heard Chairman Shallenburger called many things, often by Democrats and just as often by Moderate Republicans. Most of those things have been unflattering. This is the first reference I have heard to him as "Republican In Name Only." So far in his tenure he has focused on races that are key in one of two areas: a Democrat incumbent is vulnerable (a couple of these in the Wichita area right now), or critically important elections. Given the Republican control of the Kansas Legislature, the critically important elections for the Republicans are Dennis Moore's Congressional seat (representing the wealthy Johnson county in Congress would be a plum for the Kansas Republican party) and Cedar Crest. Shallenburger knows that the Republican control of the legislature is in no danger and few resources are necessary in either increasing that control or forcing a Republican agenda. Spend those resources where they can make a difference.
As Speaker of the House, State Treasurer, and gubernatorial nominee, Chairman Shallenburger was divisive--even going so far as to bully then-Governor Graves. Then again, that was his job. In his current job, his role is to unite the party and focus its strategic direction. (Even President Bush, in seeking to demonstrate compassionate conservatism, looks to unite the country under his leadership and be a unifying force.) Chairman Shallenburger is doing well in his role. Gietzen would do better simply to vote against Shallenburger as chair at his next opportunity rather than make public accusations that have no merit.