Sebelius vetoes bill imposing new abortion restrictions / LJWorld.com

Archive for Monday, April 21, 2008

April 21, 2008

Topeka ( — (AP) - Gov. Kathleen Sebelius has vetoed a bill imposing new restrictions on abortion.

Sebelius argued in her veto message that the bill could endanger women by preventing them from obtaining abortions necessary to save their lives.

Supporters of the measure have said it would prevent patients from being coerced into having abortions. They also believe it would give them more complete information about the procedures they'll undergo.

The measure would allow a patient, her spouse or her family to sue an abortion provider if they believe that provider is violating restrictions on late-term abortions.

Discussion

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.

21 April 2008
at 3:36 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

RuralWanderer (Anonymous) says…

Endanger women? How about it could endanger her standing with the national Democratic party. How'd this liberal get voted into the Governor's office in Kansas? Ridiculous.
21 April 2008
at 3:38 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Multidisciplinary (Anonymous) says…

I'm writing her in for President!Hooray Kathleen!
21 April 2008
at 3:52 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

a_flock_of_jayhawks (Anonymous) says…

Thank you, Kathleen, (once again) for saving the fine people of Kansas from the will of the ultra-conservative nut-jobs.
21 April 2008
at 3:53 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

terrapin2 (Anonymous) says…

“Supporters of the measure have said it would prevent patients from being coerced into having abortions.” Yeah-there are a lot of people coercing women to have abortions. Please-no one wants women to have abortions. Pro-choice does not mean pro-abortion. ruralwanderer-So, you don't care if women's lives are endangered by a pregnancy? And Governor Sebelius would not only endanger her standing with the Democratic party if she hadn't vetoed the bill, she would have gone against what the majority of people in America believe; that woman have the right to choose whether or not to have an abortion.
21 April 2008
at 4:03 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Multidisciplinary (Anonymous) says…

People aren't coerced? I know plenty of girls and women who were coerced into it. They sure didn't want to kill their child.My brother coerced everyone he ever got pregnant into having one. Very heavily coerced. This was up into his 40's even.
21 April 2008
at 4:05 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Agnostick (Anonymous) says…

From Queen Kathleen herself:*** Veto Message for House Substitute for Senate Bill 389 ***”Over the last several years, we have worked on lowering abortion rates in Kansas by focusing on adoption incentives, extended health services for pregnant women, providing sex education and offering a variety of support services for families.”Those efforts are having a positive impact; recently we learned that the abortion rate in Kansas continues to go down.”For years, the people of Kansas have asked their elected officials to move beyond legislative debates on issues like abortion and focus their attention on issues that can be solved in the Statehouse - stronger schools, affordable health care and economic growth. “Kansans are proud of the progress we've made lowering the abortion rate and lifting our economy. It's time for legislators to recognize that progress and focus on the things that continue to move us forward.”I am concerned about a number of provisions in SB 389. The United States Supreme Court decisions make clear that any law regulating abortion must contain exceptions for pregnancies which endanger the woman's life or health. However, SB 389 allows a variety of individuals to seek a court order preventing a woman from obtaining an abortion, even where it may be necessary to save her life. I am concerned that the bill is likely unconstitutional or even worse, endangers the lives of women. “The bill contains unprecedented expansions of legal proceedings which would likely encourage extensive litigation and also unnecessarily jeopardizes the privacy of Kansas women's confidential medical records.”As Governor, nothing is more important to me than the safety, health and privacy rights of our citizens. I am vetoing SB 389 because it endangers the health of women and is likely to be found in violation the United States Constitution and the Constitution of the State of Kansas.”Therefore, pursuant to Article 2, Section 14 of the Constitution of the State of Kansas, I veto House Substitute for Senate Bill 389.”http://www.governor.ks.gov/news/NewsRelease/2008/nr-08-0421a.htm_____________________________________________Text of “House Substitute for Senate Bill 389” can be found here:http://www.kslegislature.org/legsrv-bills/searchBillNumber.doIn the search box, just type “389”… click the button that says “Get Full Text of Bill”… and then click “Senate Bill 389.” It will bring up the text for the “House Substitute.”I'm most curious about the reference to “a variety of individuals to seek a court order preventing a woman from obtaining an abortion, even where it may be necessary to save her life.”Agnostickagnostick@excite.comhttp://www.uscentrist.orghttp://www.americanplan.org
21 April 2008
at 4:09 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

MCwzMC (Anonymous) says…

Kathleen Sebelius, saving Kansans from their incredibly inept, uneducated, and embarrassing state legislature since 2003!

21 April 2008
at 4:09 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Agnostick (Anonymous) says…

From page 2 of SB 389:”When reporting a suspicion that a child may be in need of care, the reporter shall disclose protected health information freely and cooperate fully with the secretary and law enforcement throughout the investigation and any subsequent legal process.”page 3…”(f) Immunity from liability. Anyone who, without malice, participates in the making of a report to the secretary or a law enforcement agency relating to a suspicion a child may be a child in need of care or who participates in any activity or investigation relating to the report or whoparticipates in any judicial proceeding resulting from the report shall have immunity from any civil liability that might otherwise be incurred or imposed.”Is it just me, or are they building up to something…?
21 April 2008
at 4:13 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Confrontation (Anonymous) says…

Kathleen's work is one of the few things that makes me proud to be a Kansan.
21 April 2008
at 4:16 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Agnostick (Anonymous) says…

More from page 3… and this is… “interesting”… (asterisks are used to emphasize sections that are italicized in the PDF version)(c) Information obtained by the secretary of health and environment under this section shall be confidential and shall not be disclosed in a manner that would reveal the identity of any person licensed to practice medicine and surgery who submits a report to the secretary under thissection or the identity of any medical care facility which submits a report to the secretary under this section, except that such information, including information identifying such persons and facilities may be disclosed tothe state board of healing arts upon request of the board for disciplinary action conducted by the board and may be disclosed to the attorney general **or any district or county attorney in this state** upon a showing that a reasonable cause exists to believe that a violation of this act has occurred. Any information disclosed to the state board of healing arts, the attorney general **or any district or county attorney** pursuant to this subsection shall be used solely for the purposes of a disciplinary action or criminal proceeding. Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, information obtained by the secretary under this section may be used only for statistical purposes and such information shall not be released in a manner which would identify any county or other area of this state in which the termination of the pregnancy occurred. A violation of this subsection (c) is a class A nonperson misdemeanor.”
21 April 2008
at 4:22 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Agnostick (Anonymous) says…

Ladies and Gentlemen… the “Kangaroo Court Clause” can be found on page 4…”(f) The annual public report on abortions performed in Kansas issued by the secretary of health and environment shall contain the information required to be reported by this section to the extent such information is not deemed confidential by this section. If the secretary of health andenvironment fails to issue the public report containing the information required by this section, any group of 10 or more citizens of this state may seek an injunction in a court of competent jurisdiction against the secretary of health and environment requiring that a complete reportcompliant with applicable law be issued within a period of time set by court order. Failure to abide by such an injunction shall subject the secretary to sanctions for civil contempt.”So… certain legislators want to give “any group of 10 or more citizens” the power to lock up the courts?Why not just hand 'em each a rocket launcher and a case of grenades, while we're at it?
21 April 2008
at 4:27 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

dstavin (Anonymous) says…

“My brother coerced everyone he ever got pregnant into having one. Very heavily coerced. This was up into his 40's even.”Multidisciplinary, I can think of at least one way to punish your brother. Deb Stavin
21 April 2008
at 4:31 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

acg (Anonymous) says…

Way to go Kathleen!
21 April 2008
at 4:39 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

d_prowess (Anonymous) says…

Agnostic, thanks for including the text from the Governor. I am sure the LJWorld would have included some of it tomorrow when they ran an actual story, but it was good to see it today. I support her 100% in this case as it seems that the law would have caused a lot of legal issues that would be unproductive and expensive for the state of Kansas.
21 April 2008
at 4:44 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

justthefacts (Anonymous) says…

http://www.kslegislature.org/suppleme… the summary of what the bill would have actually done. Given the Catholic church's strong opposition to abortion, and the fact that KS is a practicing Catholic, I wonder if she's going to be excommunicated (an extreme measure; does not happen very often) over this……

21 April 2008
at 4:47 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

georgeofwesternkansas (Anonymous) says…

Could you imagine killing a baby in the last three months. I think you have to be holding its head to do this. I guess if that would not give you bad dreams, do it. Way too much for me.Anybody else that could do this??
21 April 2008
at 4:53 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Agnostick (Anonymous) says…

lucky_man (Anonymous) says:**or any district or county attorney**ie, Nola Foulston.______________________________________________Well, what I got out of that clause was, “any puppet that ORW can strongarm into office at the lowest of levels.”
21 April 2008
at 4:54 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

daddax98 (Anonymous) says…

I also couldn't imagine doing a bowel resection, talk about horrible but then again I didn't go to medical school
21 April 2008
at 4:56 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

georgeofwesternkansas (Anonymous) says…

Thats what I thought, not one of kathy's supporters is willing to hold the head of a term baby and kill it.
21 April 2008
at 4:59 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Agnostick (Anonymous) says…

georgeofwesternkansas (Anonymous) says:Could you imagine killing a baby in the last three months. I think you have to be holding its head to do this. I guess if that would not give you bad dreams, do it. Way too much for me.Anybody else that could do this??______________________________________________No.But then again, I couldn't imagine performing surgery on a dog… sawing off some poor soldier's leg under heavy enemy fire after the poor guy took a shrapnel hit… scraping bat guano off of cave walls… or stimulating an elephant to collect a sperm sample.I can't imagine doing any of these things, george… yet, there are people who do them. Because, well, somebody's got to do them.How about confronting a young girl as she comes out of her initial visit to an abortion clinic… convincing her to come home with you… helping her with all the necessary money, medical bills, food, housing, everything necessary to helping her through the pregnancy… the delivery… and adopting her child after the birth. Adopting it in such a way that, if the girl wants to, she can visit her child and keep in touch with the youngster.Honestly, I can't imagine myself doing that, georgeofwesternkansas.Can you?
21 April 2008
at 5 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

georgeofwesternkansas (Anonymous) says…

A bowel resection would take some skill if you want the patient to live. But a late term only takes inducing labor then pithing the baby when the head comes out. Ya know like a frog in biology, jab a probe in at the base of the skull.
21 April 2008
at 5:08 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

georgeofwesternkansas (Anonymous) says…

No, I can't imagine doing that. But if my daughter got pregnant I would love my grandchild and do all in my power to insure he/she was loved,cared for. As for your daughter, not my responsability, kill the baby, love the baby, I don't care.I never said I was for or against. I just asked if you could do what you are advocating.
21 April 2008
at 5:10 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

vpete69 (Anonymous) says…

The cry of the liberal:”We can kill our babies by sucking out their brains and crushing their skulls all we want! Its my body! Don't you dare kill that chicken! Fur is Murder!”Yeah. I see your point there. 100% crystal.

21 April 2008
at 5:23 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

georgeofwesternkansas (Anonymous) says…

Agnostick I have done surgery on an animal, I worked 911 EMS in a real city for 12 years, I have seen babies, children, adults die before my very eyes, scooped cow, pig sh!t for hours on end. Never jacked off an elephant. But I could never kill a baby, Never for any reason. I would not be able to live with myself, I would rather jack off an elephant.
21 April 2008
at 5:32 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

a_flock_of_jayhawks (Anonymous) says…

georgeofWKS says…”I would rather jack off an elephant.”Classic.
21 April 2008
at 5:34 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

compmd (Anonymous) says…

“But a late term only takes inducing labor”I feel a disturbance in the force. It feels…familiar…like a woman wants to slap someone for suggesting that labor isn't so bad.
21 April 2008
at 5:35 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Confrontation (Anonymous) says…

I'm pretty sure that j**king off an elephant is just about all that's done in Western Kansas. I'm sure you'll find all the elephants you desire.
21 April 2008
at 5:35 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Multidisciplinary (Anonymous) says…

My post would read alot like george's above, except I could end a baby's suffering, now or in the future.I guess it takes those who know the hell they may go through, and know that it is cruel to make them continue for our own “never being able to live with myself” feelings.Would I wish for the child and parents that some way to fix the problem was available?, you bet I would.
21 April 2008
at 5:50 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Multidisciplinary (Anonymous) says…

dstavin…Brother is now slowly dying. 60 ish. Anyone who drinks that much alcohol is bound to have their body retaliate.
21 April 2008
at 5:52 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

jonas (Anonymous) says…

Shatt (Anonymous) says: “Hey, for those of you who didn't know this, Herr Kathleen Stalin passed SB46 today. Senate Bill 46 allows for the sale and possession of Class 3 weapons and firearms such as fully automatic weapons, silencers and suppression devices, sawed off shotguns, and any other weapon that carries a Federal Class 3 classification.How you feel about your Queen today?”I don't know… . okay, I guess. Why? If we support the legality of abortion are we by definition against the free purchasing ability of firearms? Did I miss another one of those “Things you are required to believe concurrently” agenda thingies, or what?
21 April 2008
at 5:56 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

jonas (Anonymous) says…

“But I could never kill a baby, Never for any reason. I would not be able to live with myself, I would rather jack off an elephant.”Yeah, that's how I feel about fighting wars and potentially killing people based on political differences and perceived threats. You know what, though, I'm glad there are people more capable of doing it than I, since it's necessary for our society to function.

21 April 2008
at 6:29 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

puppyfeathers (Anonymous) says…

The answer to this great pendulum of debate is to somehow make every human sterile, from birth, from here on. If someone wants to become pregnant, they would have to get some type of approval, pass some type of IQ test and/or prove that they were of basic mental/financial capacity and stability to actually raise an other human to a self sustainable age. At that point they would be given permission to temporarily become fertile in order to procreate. Hopefully, after a few generations, a few breeding trends and traumas would become more and more obsolete. For instance, genetic birth defects would be on the decline, horrific Christian beliefs with women becoming brood mares (ie; the Duggars), the drain of trashy families “too poor” to use birth control against society, unwanted and resented children of broken families and one night stands, ect., ect., would become things of the past. Is it elitist? Definitely. Big Brotherish? Absolutely. But, think about it. Abortions would also become a thing of the past since every baby would be wanted. Overpopulation wouldn't be as much of a projected problem. Genetic defects couldn't get passed along. A healthier, smarter and more productive society would eventually evolve. The possibilities are endless. Everyone could finally be happy. All the self righteous, christian bigots and hypocrites would have to thump their religion on some new worn out topic and all the left wing whiners, complainers and hypocrites can finally have their cake and eat it too. Is it the perfect or even plausible answer? Not really. At least it's some idea of trying to make it better instead of reading about you dumbasses trying to one up the other on beliefs and convictions all while hiding behind your computers on some useless blog.yeah… i know the irony of my statement on here. so what
21 April 2008
at 6:42 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Multidisciplinary (Anonymous) says…

puppy..good post.puppyfeathers (Anonymous) says: The answer to this great pendulum of debate is to somehow make every human sterile, from birth, from here on.––––-They can do that, or close to it. A friend from here went on to research and improve methods of contraception in college (still in the field). In the 70's she was working on a better temporary method, but everything they had tried resulted in permanent sterilization.
21 April 2008
at 6:59 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Grammaton (Anonymous) says…

Personally, I think abortion is a great idea. Due to birth control, natural selection favors the unintelligent. Not that every abortion eliminates a future sideways hat wearer. Babies are no different than the rest of the population — a few winners, a whole lot of losers. Enough said for me. Cheers.
21 April 2008
at 7:44 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

georgeofwesternkansas (Anonymous) says…

“compmd (Anonymous) says: “But a late term only takes inducing labor”I feel a disturbance in the force. It feels:familiar:like a woman wants to slap someone for suggesting that labor isn't so bad.”Please forgime me if I offended you, I was not my intent. I was referring to the skill set required by your care giver. I am sorry,but I never dreamed someone that actually had a late term abortion would be posting on this page. I am sorry, but if you don't mind telling us about it. Do they put you under, or do you actually hear the baby being born?? What do they do with the body? Do they have to bury it?
21 April 2008
at 8:09 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Multidisciplinary (Anonymous) says…

How sad that some babies that nature usually spontaneously aborts on it's own, survive to have to come to this decision.
21 April 2008
at 8:11 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Uhlrick_Hetfield_III (Anonymous) says…

Thank God for the images of jacking off an elephant and stabbing babies in the head. I was having a terrible time getting the vision of Governor Roundheels' face out of my mind.
21 April 2008
at 9 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

georgeofwesternkansas (Anonymous) says…

Puppeyfethers someone already tried that. It was called the Master Race.
21 April 2008
at 9:17 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

purplesage (Anonymous) says…

Hard to imagine one person making two enormous political blunders in a single day. I have no idea what the governor is thinking. She must be pro-death. After all, she wants the killing of the innocent unborn to continue and has put machine guns, sawed off shot guns and silencers into the “legal” category. Way to go. gov..

21 April 2008
at 9:32 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Uhlrick_Hetfield_III (Anonymous) says…

Yeah, wait until the next time you get popped for a speeding violation and the cop reads on his computer screen that you own a machine gun. Plan on sitting there for a while until the two back up units arrive. Also carry a change of clothes so that when they throw you down on the ground with their weapons aimed at your head while officer A writes out the ticket and another trashes your vehicle looking for contraband you can have something to change into afterwards.
21 April 2008
at 9:46 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

WHY (Anonymous) says…

You see George, you and I have different ethical standards by which we live. I could abort a baby, but I would never jack off and elephant. Strangely aborting the baby would be legal and having sex with an animal, I believe, is against the law. Its okay though I would let you have your fun.
21 April 2008
at 11:02 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

jonas (Anonymous) says…

WHY: Zookeepers jack off elephants all the time. Well, maybe not All the time, but with some degree of predictable frequency. You can do it, so I've, errr, heard, without having sex with them.
21 April 2008
at 11:08 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

jonas (Anonymous) says…

Puppyfeathers: You know, it's funny. I had this dream once when I was on the nicotine patch trying to quit smoking (If you haven't worn a nicotine patch while sleeping, I highly recommend it for a couple days, to have some memorable dreams). Anyway, me and five of my friends, for a bachelor party, went to the MV lot and hotwired a bus so it would propel us 10000 years into the future. In this future world to combat overpopulation and the drain on resources, they castrated males at birth and you had to rent testicles from a state sponsored store. The weird thing (haha!) was that the testis were these giant peach things that looked like two softball size wads of silly putty jammed together. Needless to say, they were all highly impressed with my friends and I since we were, shall we say, intact. So yeah, nicotine patch, eh?
21 April 2008
at 11:15 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

jonas (Anonymous) says…

parkay (Anonymous) says:”The number of abortions in Kansas decreased last year because the intense opposition and demonstrations by pro-lifers forced abortionist quack George Tiller to shut down his filthy, unsafe, late-term Wichita abortion mill for 3 weeks.”You know, if you're going to make statements to the effect that one clinic closing its doors for 1/17th of a year actually had an impact on the aggregate number of abortions performed in an entire year, we should really expect you to back that up with some hard numbers, shouldn't we?Man, I've probably said this before, but I just can't figure you out. You're either the best satire I've seen on these boards or you're just bat!@#t crazy, and I just can't tell which one it is.
21 April 2008
at 11:59 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

sinedie (Anonymous) says…

Jonas:I must commend you, because I never thought I'd see a pairing of the words “rent” and “testicles.” Well done sir.
22 April 2008
at 12:06 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

tunahelper (Anonymous) says…

sebelius will not do anything that would jeopardize her standing with the ultra leftist libtard dumbocrats. All she cares about is what job she thinks that she will get in a new democratic administration. However, she has burnt her bridges with Hillary and it will be Hillary that will get the dumbocratic nomination. Then John McCain will be elected President because America will not vote in a leftist libtard. Then Kansas will still be stuck with all her horsecrap.go john McCAIN!!!
22 April 2008
at 1:25 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Multidisciplinary (Anonymous) says…

jonas, I believe you just outdid the posters on the weed thread!We now have one thread talking the p word and another with two pasty t's.A hot night at LJW.

22 April 2008
at 9:39 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Agnostick (Anonymous) says…

jonas (Anonymous) says:”Man, I've probably said this before, but I just can't figure you out. You're either the best satire I've seen on these boards or you're just bat!@#t crazy, and I just can't tell which one it is.”______________________________________________I can…
22 April 2008
at 12:12 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Multidisciplinary (Anonymous) says…

hahahahahaThat was good Ag.You two should do stand up together.
22 April 2008
at 12:36 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

georgeofwesternkansas (Anonymous) says…

“WHY (Anonymous) says: You see George, you and I have different ethical standards by which we live. I could abort a baby,”Hey Everyone, George Tiller is on the post. Hi George.
22 April 2008
at 12:58 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

acg (Anonymous) says…

How do you feel about your queen today?—ShattThe same way I felt about her yesterday. Go Kathleen!! See, Shatt, I'm from the old school of leave me alone and let me do what the hell I want. If I want to get an abortion or buy a machine gun I should have that right. Do I need a machine gun? Absolutely not! Does it make any sense? None whatsoever. A lot of folks make the mistake of thinking that all democrats are anti-gun and that's just not true. I don't see the personal necessity for a machine gun but that doesn't mean my neighbor doesn't want one. Am I worried about criminals buying machine guns and killing folks? Yes I am, but I'm not worried about them buying one from a licensed gun dealer. If a criminal wants a gun, any gun, they'll find a way to get one. If our laws aren't going to stop someone from murdering someone else, what makes you think they give a crap about buying an illegal weapon? Anyhoo, I digress. Either way, yay Kathleen!