Topeka — Senators sent Gov. Kathleen Sebelius a bill Thursday night that supporters say will impose additional requirements on all abortions and tighter restrictions on late-term procedures.
Opponents complained about the shortcut approach taken to vote on the House-passed bill without sending it to a Senate committee for review. Others said it created additional barriers for women.
The 25-13 vote sent the bill the governor, who supports abortion rights, after 90 minutes of debate. Sebelius spokeswoman Nicole Corcoran said the governor will have to review the bill after she gets it.
Among other things, it requires women to receive more information about the fetus and the procedure before getting an abortion. It also addresses girls, who abortion opponents say often are coerced into terminating their pregnancies.
The way the bill was handled sparked fireworks.
"This isn't deliberation. This is a distortion of the process," said Senate Minority Leader Anthony Hensley, a Topeka Democrat. "It's an outrage. You can't describe it any other way."
But Sen. Phil Journey, a Wichita Republican, replied, "It's every legislator's right to use the rules put in place to represent their district. That is not a negative thing."
The bill doesn't ban any legal procedure, including late-term abortions that involve a fetus determined to be 22 weeks or older.
"I hope the governor will sign the bill, but I believe based on her past positions on abortion, it's probable she will veto it," Journey said after the vote.
Sen. Tim Huelskamp, who led the push for passage, said, "If she wants a little national play and look like a moderate red-state Democratic governor, she'll sign it."
Under the bill, a woman could get a court order against a physician suspected of violating the late-term abortion law, as could a spouse, sibling, parent or grandparent, parents or guardians of a minor. So could a prosecutor.
"This bill places multiple barriers to a legal procedure. If we were talking about any other medical procedure, there would be 40 no votes," Sen. Laura Kelly, a Topeka Democrat. "It seems we are suggesting the woman can't fend for herself and make up her own mind."
Huelskamp said there are cases of a girl or young woman being coerced into having an abortion, often by the father of the fetus.
"If the baby can be eliminated, there is less evidence of a crime," the Fowler Republican said. "It's just horrible that a 40-year-man who impregnated a 13-year-old girl accompanies her to the clinic."
The bill requires a minor seeking any abortion to provide proof of identification and residence. Anyone accompanying her also must provide identification and sign a statement about the relationship with the patient and the identity of the father.
The measure says that at least 30 minutes before the procedure, the doctor would be required to meet privately with the woman and provide her with a written reason for the abortion. The doctor also would be required to allow her to view the ultrasound image of a fetus and the heartbeat sound if that type equipment is used.
It also requires doctors to inform women at least 24 hours in advance about free counseling and free hospice services for fetuses and terminally ill newborns.
The bill also requires the State Board of Healing Arts to revoke the license of any physician convicted of performing an illegal late-term abortion.
It also requires the Kansas Department of Health and Environment to compile more detailed information about the reasons doctors cite for performing such procedures. Abortion foes contend the agency isn't compiling the information now required by law, which the agency disputes.
State social services would have to publish an annual report of child sexual abuse cases received from abortion providers, minus the names and other identifying information of the victims.
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.
SettingTheRecordStraight (anonymous) says…
This is a commonsense bill that doesn't go far enough to curb the epidemic of abortion in our state. Please pass this legislation.
q_ball2kand1 (anonymous) says…
Yea, then we can impose additional requirements on chemotherapy. That ought to reduce cancer right?
SettingTheRecordStraight (anonymous) says…
My goal is to reduce abortions, q, not births. I'm still trying to get your analogy....
dirkleisure (anonymous) says…
Actually, your goal is to reduce abortions performed by medical doctors.Nothing in this bill reduces abortions. It only reduces abortions performed in a medical facility.This bill is pro knitting needle and pro ruptured uterus.
staff04 (anonymous) says…
Sen. Tim Huelskamp, who led the push for passage, said, "If she wants a little national play and look like a moderate red-state Democratic governor, she'll sign it."_______________________________________Riiiiight...I'm sure she's interested in political strategy advice from you, Tim...How about you try this one on for size:"If Kansas Republicans want to keep their state from looking foolish in the eyes of the nation, they'll stop legislating morality and religious doctrine."--staff04Are you likely to take political advice from me? Didn't think so...
SettingTheRecordStraight (anonymous) says…
dirk,That's true only if mothers really, really, really want to kill their developing children.
oldvet (anonymous) says…
Cut open the skull, insert a suction device, suck their brains out, crush the skull, pronounce the operation complete... if we executed capital-punishment prisoners the way Tiller executes children at his killing factory, the liberal left would be going crazy...
dirkleisure (anonymous) says…
That's true only if mothers really, really, really want to kill their developing children.-------And? At least you admit it is true. And at least you admit you'd rather women be at the mercy of the clothes hanger or knitting needle than in a doctor's office.Good for you. May the lord have mercy on your soul.
BrianR (anonymous) says…
It is a great opportunity for the whack right to mis-state facts, make unfounded accusations and to speculate wildly. Do you actually believe that the abortion rate increased after Roe? Let's face it, this is actually just another article designed to increase the number of hits on the LJ-W site.
cg22165 (anonymous) says…
Sen. Tim Huelskamp, who led the push for passage, said, "If she wants a little national play and look like a moderate red-state Democratic governor, she'll sign it."As though it wasn't already completely transparent that this was just a ploy to further the political aspirations of the abortion opponents.
SettingTheRecordStraight (anonymous) says…
"Do you actually believe that the abortion rate increased after Roe?" - BrianRGood question. We'll never know because accurate abortion statistics weren't kept before Roe. However, we can be certain that our government's endorsement of abortion has not curbed the demand for the grisly procedure. Neither has the use of taxpayer dollars to fund abortions at Planned Parenthood.
HodgePodge (Erin Parmelee) says…
SettingTheRecordStraight (Anonymous) says: My goal is to reduce abortions......------------------------------------------------------------------------And this bill would accomplish that how? Not to be cynical, but if a woman has already decided that she wants an abortion, do you think an ultrasound 30 minutes beforehand is going to change her mind? I don't. Do you think she would even want to see one, as the bill proposes? I don't. Don't kid yourself. This is a harrassment policy--nothing more.
BrianR (anonymous) says…
STRS: "However, we can be certain that our government's endorsement of abortion has not curbed the demand..."So we're in agreement then, that nothing, including having it be legal, curbs the demand, I'd say it's probably pretty static. Does your opposition to PP subsidies mean that you are only in favor of abortions for people who have the money?
SettingTheRecordStraight (anonymous) says…
BrianR,What makes you think I am "only in favor of abortions for people who have the money"? I am opposed to the abortion holocaust in this country in every way it is meted out.
dirkleisure (anonymous) says…
No, STRS is opposed to legal abortion. STRS is not opposed to the abortion holocaust, because that would make STRS opposed to human nature, and who would oppose breathing? Or drinking water?STRS is just opposed to knowing about it. Into the shadows, ladies. You have offended STRS's gentle nature.
BrianR (anonymous) says…
STRS, Because subsidizing PP and Roe have no material relationship so mentioning PP could only suggests a bias against people who can't self pay. Demand is what it is, providing subsidies won't change the numbers either way. Removing PP from the picture will only create an opportunity for someone else, the free market being what it is. It is frustrating to think about the fact that repealing Roe will change nothing but the fact remains, making abortion illegal will not lower the number of abortions.